Overtimes

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't stand CFB overtime, the field position game is such a huge part of football and it's completely gone in CFB.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really not that huge a part of the game. It would be if games commonly ended in 6-3 scores but, as it is, it's an over-discussed concept that rarely lasts for more than 2 or 3 possessions, and can be completely altered by many different kinds of fluky plays.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and for a long time, most people couldnt conceive of how sacrifice bunting a guy to third with less than two outs was inferior to just letting him hit. then they ran the numbers and found out that it was. Now it seems OBVIOUS to all of those in the know, "wasting outs is terrible, its the worst thing you can do" but it wasnt obvious to everyone before.

Dont get me wrong, most of the time when something is obviously correct, it is actually correct. I've already conceded I'm some kind of moron.

[bernie]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

b

[bernie]

[ 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 ]

LOL.

b

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
Dont get me wrong, most of the time when something is obviously correct, it is actually correct. I've already conceded I'm some kind of moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do understand your point, and I think there are certain hypothetical scenarios in which going first would be advantageous.

A semi-applicable analogy might be match-play golf, where most players going into the final hole(s) of a tie match, would prefer to hit their tee shot first. The idea being, i you nut one down the middle (or put it close to the pin on a par 3) you put the pressure on the other guy, which outweighs his advantage of knowing what he needs to do (even being able to switch clubs if you slice OOB or something). Similarly, if both guys have 4-foot putts, assuming different lines, and no significant break to be read, most guys would rather putt first.

So I think if a team had a 95% chance of scoring a TD (instead of 40% or whatever the average % is), it would probably be better for them to go first. I'm not sure where the tipping point is, but I'm pretty sure most CFB teams are nowhere near it, and even at 95%, the advantage is marginal, just as it is in golf. The extra knowledge inherent in going 2nd is much more significant, I'm pretty sure.

[MicroBob]

right. the scoring is different and varied in CFB and the play-calling changes depending on what you need to do.

In something like a soccer or hockey penalty-shoot you are always trying to score and it doesn't matter how. The only difference is whether there is pressure on whether you HAVE to score to keep it going.
But the act of trying to score remains exactly the same.

In CFB when you know that you can't settle for a FG this changes a lot about your approach and play-calling.

[MacGuyV]

I suppose this is 1 category where the NBA wins.

I like the NFL enough to hope that it never changes though. The luck involved in a coin-toss is less inherently unfair than the refs deciding a game with [censored] call(s) - which happens at least a dozen times per season. Yet every tv pundit blows off the latter as "oh well that's part of the game" and many of them want to change the traditional excitement of sudden death [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

If team A receives to start the game, they have a chance to have and extra possession in the first half. This, however, is offset by the fact that team B will receive to start the second half, and therefore has a chance to get and extra possession in the second half.

One team may have an extra possession for the game, but both teams have an equal chance to be that team regardless of the result of the coin toss (to start the game).