Overtimes

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
I like this explanation, it very clearly explains the situation and gives a good poker analogy. I do have one problem though: the conclusion isn't logical. You admit that in poker, there are advantages to being out of position, but that they do not outweigh the disadvantages. I agree that this is true. But that doesnt mean that it is true in all games. We could easily invent a poker game where being out of position was superior to being in position.

Everyone who is calling me an idiot in this thread (and they are probably correct) is focusing only on the advantages of being in position. As the article I linked earlier correctly points out, this is ABSOLUTELY NOT a logical argument that going second is best. It is entirely possible that football is a type of poker game where being out of position is best. It might not be likely, and it might not SEEM that way, but it is still POSSIBLE. Pointing out one example of a situation where having more information allows you to make better decisions does not prove that going second is actually best.

In the article I linked earlier, they admit as much. They say specifically that this is no proof at all, and that they need to go to the numbers to find out if its really true. It turns out it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
The primary advantage of position in poker is that it allows you to act with a more complete set of information, which allows you to calculate the EV of each of your options more accurately than the person who has to act first, and therefore with less complete information. The upside to acting first is that you have the opportunity to try to introduce untrue "information" that could induce an incorrect decision from the player with position. This is known as bluffing.

I admit, it might be possible to conceive of a poker variant in which acting first genuinely might be an advantage, but the game would have to be designed in some way that places a tremendous premium on effective blufing. I'm having trouble visualizing such a game, but am willing to concede the possibility that one may exist.

I don't see how College Football Overtime could be analogous to that game, though, because there is no opportunity for bluffing when you go first. You either score a touchdown, score a field goal, or don't score. There's no way to trick you opponent into thinking you scored when you didn't. The only upsides for the team that goes first are that they have the same extra information for their defensive play calling that the second team has for their offensive play calling. While this is helpful, college football is a relatively high scoring game, and overtime is designed with an offensive emphasis (by having the teams start in scoring position), so I firmly believe that the more complete information both teams have during the second team's possession is more beneficial to the offense than the defense.

[mo42nyy]

nfl and college ot are both terrible
just play a 10 minute ot quarter

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW - we essentially do the same thing in basketball overtime with alternating possessions as well as in regulation football. We aren't too concerned with situations where the team that starts with the ball somehow ends with the ball and gets that extra possession in there. After a certain point you just have to live with one team getting a slight advantage in there.
But I think the advantage of going first in NFL OT is too significant although the recent stats sure do seem to indicate otherwise oddly enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that I don't mind it in regulation football is because, since each team kicks off to start on half, both teams have an equal chance to claim the extra possession, and it is not determined by a coin toss. In basketball, since the overtime period starts with a jump ball, the extra possession is also not determined by a coin toss, so I don't mind.

I agree that 2 possessions to 1 is better than the current NFL system, but I think that the best overtime would have 2 extra periods (with each team kicking off for one).

The quicker alternative that I don't mind is to have the teams bid starting field possission, and play sudden death.

I think these are two options that are completely fair, and preserve the essence of the game. I would prefer the first one, but if people think that takes too long, the second one would work well too.

[sixfour]

Football overtime would be better if instead of a flip good-advance to FG range-score, they play a zulu start (ball on halfway line, both sides start in own endzone, charge, team that comes up with it wins possession) and have touchdowns only. Then again, I'm from one of these terrorist nations where ties are tolerated so I'd do away with the whole thing

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
Football overtime would be better if instead of a flip good-advance to FG range-score, they play a zulu start (ball on halfway line, both sides start in own endzone, charge, team that comes up with it wins possession) and have touchdowns only.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spinal injuries everytime ftw.

[BillNye]

[ QUOTE ]
College football needs to change ASAP. It's by far the worst of all the overtimes. It barely resembles football and leads to disgusting stats. Either move the ball back to the 40 or midfield, or adopt the far superior NFL model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, cuz stats are so important. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Needle77]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
College football needs to change ASAP. It's by far the worst of all the overtimes. It barely resembles football and leads to disgusting stats. Either move the ball back to the 40 or midfield, or adopt the far superior NFL model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, cuz stats are so important. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The resembling actual football bothers me more. I don't enjoy watching it. I don't think anything is more exciting than two teams that have everything to lose on each play, sudden death NFL just is awesome to me. I have to assume that the coaches dislike the current NCAA format.

[MicroBob]

I have never heard any coaches complain about the current NCAA-F format.
I was under the assumption that most liked it.

I have heard complaints about the NFL format though.

[Needle77]

It's possible, maybe I'm allowing the coaching staff I work with make my mind up on how all coaches feel and allowing personal feelings get involved. I know the reason they dislike it because they feel that coaching is limited in OT and players must make plays instead. The age old cliched argument of plays not players or players not plays??

BTW, the system in high school is amazing, due to teams rather going for it on 4th than kicking a field goal.

[Jack of Arcades]

NFL regular season: allow ties.
NFL post-season: play out one extra quarter.