Sudden Death in NFL overtime

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Once again, the coin toss (which we'll just call the receiving the ball) DOES NOT give an advantage. So far, statistics show that the coin flip has no significant outcome. Given that fact, there is no reason to change the rule into some other goofy system like college.

Untrue.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant. "The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years,"

http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html

More

From the 2000 through 2007 regular seasons, there have been 124 overtime games. In every single game except one (I believe), the team that won the toss elected to receive. And those receiving teams won 60% of the time (and tied once). That's a relatively large advantage, particularly when compared to home field advantage.

http://www.advancednflstats.co...s-coin-flip-in-ot.html

Kicking field goals from the 45 best of 5 would be better than this crap shoot of a coin toss.

A) 124 games is not statistically significant. Try flipping a coin 124 times, will it be heads/tails 50% of the time? No. Try 1000 times, it'll be much closer to 50/50 for heads/tails than 124. It's stat 101.

B) Your field goal kicking example is absurd because football is a team sport, not 1 man vs 1 man.

With 124 samples the probability that the true frequency of winning for teams that receive is above 50% is 0.96. Why do you consider this to not be statistically significant?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If neither proved it, then why should it matter who gets the ball first? No, winner of coin toss =! advantage. If you can find the percentage of 1000 overtime games (the only statistically sound evidence), then good luck because it doesn't exist. And I guarantee you that even over 1000 games, it's not going to be 50/50. You would probably whine if the defense showed a .5% of the time winning.

Play on the field decides the game, not a coin toss. No FG is guaranteed. No snap is guaranteed to even find its way into the QB's hands. You still have to earn the win. Either way both teams already had a chance to win, no excuses should be made. The better team will produce under pressure and the loser will fold. It's that simple. Testing both the offense and defense is stupid, both were already tested for 4 quarters.

How the hell did you pass statistics class?
Who told you you need more than 1,000 sample size for something to be considered statistically significant?

124 is not as statistically significant as 1000? Here's a test. Flip a coin 124 times. Flip one 1000 times. Which test is closer to 50%? Simple probability/Bornulli trial experiment.

Furthermore, I do like this guy's solution here.

A few points he makes:
"While 124 overtime games is not a statistically significant sample size, clearly the winner of the coin flip has a major advantage."

I'm not sure how the hell he ascertained that there was a major advantage after admitting the sample size is too small, but his solution isn't bad:
The first team to score six points in overtime wins.

This would prevent teams from marching down the field, kicking a field goal, and winning the game that easily. It doesn't always allow for both teams to put their offenses on the field, but if a team can't prevent the other from scoring a touchdown, they do not deserve to win.

It's still sudden death, but requires 1 TD or 2FGs to win. I can live with that.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jiggahertz
With 124 samples the probability that the true frequency of winning for teams that receive is above 50% is 0.96. Why do you consider this to not be statistically significant?

No, because there is no way to prove the same probability would persist over 1000 samples.

 

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jiggahertz
With 124 samples the probability that the true frequency of winning for teams that receive is above 50% is 0.96. Why do you consider this to not be statistically significant?

No, because there is no way to prove the same probability would persist over 1000 samples.

Say what? 0.96 is the probability that the lower bound of the confidence interval of the 124 samples is above 50%. Your statistics knowledge is lacking. Google binomail confidence intervals adjusted wald method. The confidence interval will tighten with a larger sample size. Following your logic, flipping a coin 2000 times is likely to yield a result closer to 50/50 so 1000 trials is not "statistically significant". The term statistically significant is meaningless if you don't define an acceptable confidence interval. I believe Lothar's point was that throwing out an arbitrary number like 1000 is not supported by statistics. You're trying to use a buzz word without understanding what it means.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: jiggahertz

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jiggahertz
With 124 samples the probability that the true frequency of winning for teams that receive is above 50% is 0.96. Why do you consider this to not be statistically significant?

No, because there is no way to prove the same probability would persist over 1000 samples.

Say what? 0.96 is the probability that the lower bound of the confidence interval of the 124 samples is above 50%. Your statistics knowledge is lacking. Google binomail confidence intervals adjusted wald method. The confidence interval will tighten with a larger sample size. Following your logic, flipping a coin 2000 times is likely to yield a result closer to 50/50 so 1000 trials is not "statistically significant". The term statistically significant is meaningless if you don't define an acceptable confidence interval. I believe Lothar's point was that throwing out an arbitrary number like 1000 is not supported by statistics. You're trying to use a buzz word without understanding what it means.

The term statistically significant is subjective without a CI, no sht. However, you could build a probability for 10 games if you wanted to and call it "statistically significant". Most statisticians will acknowledge that a sample size of 124 is too small to make a determination, just like the article I linked. You can construct all of the probabilities you want, but that doesn't mean the CI is relevant.

Last, the NFL introduced overtime in 1941. Why are we using data from 2000 and on? The definitive answer (i.e. more stats) are out there, we just need to find it.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

They should let the teams put 11 people in each endzone, put the ball on the 50 yard line, and the game ends when the ball reaches one endzone. No plays, no downs, just 22 guys trying to get the ball in the opponents endzone.

 

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jiggahertz

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jiggahertz
With 124 samples the probability that the true frequency of winning for teams that receive is above 50% is 0.96. Why do you consider this to not be statistically significant?

No, because there is no way to prove the same probability would persist over 1000 samples.

Say what? 0.96 is the probability that the lower bound of the confidence interval of the 124 samples is above 50%. Your statistics knowledge is lacking. Google binomail confidence intervals adjusted wald method. The confidence interval will tighten with a larger sample size. Following your logic, flipping a coin 2000 times is likely to yield a result closer to 50/50 so 1000 trials is not "statistically significant". The term statistically significant is meaningless if you don't define an acceptable confidence interval. I believe Lothar's point was that throwing out an arbitrary number like 1000 is not supported by statistics. You're trying to use a buzz word without understanding what it means.

The term statistically significant is subjective without a CI, no sht. However, you could build a probability for 10 games if you wanted to and call it "statistically significant". Most statisticians will acknowledge that a sample size of 124 is too small to make a determination, just like the article I linked. You can construct all of the probabilities you want, but that doesn't mean the CI is relevant.

Last, the NFL introduced overtime in 1941. Why are we using data from 2000 and on? The definitive answer (i.e. more stats) are out there, we just need to find it.

90-95% confidence intervals are typically used for reliability analysis. A 96% confidence interval is definitely not "statistically insignificant" as you would like to claim.

 

[Rock Hydra]

There was an article about this topic Monday in the Buffalo News. This current system blows though. More like college for the win. Kinda fell bad for the colts last Sunday.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
If neither proved it, then why should it matter who gets the ball first? No, winner of coin toss =! advantage. If you can find the percentage of 1000 overtime games (the only statistically sound evidence), then good luck because it doesn't exist. And I guarantee you that even over 1000 games, it's not going to be 50/50. You would probably whine if the defense showed a .5% of the time winning.

Play on the field decides the game, not a coin toss. No FG is guaranteed. No snap is guaranteed to even find its way into the QB's hands. You still have to earn the win. Either way both teams already had a chance to win, no excuses should be made. The better team will produce under pressure and the loser will fold. It's that simple. Testing both the offense and defense is stupid, both were already tested for 4 quarters.

How the hell did you pass statistics class?
Who told you you need more than 1,000 sample size for something to be considered statistically significant?

124 is not as statistically significant as 1000? Here's a test. Flip a coin 124 times. Flip one 1000 times. Which test is closer to 50%? Simple probability/Bornulli trial experiment.

Furthermore, I do like this guy's solution here.

A few points he makes:
"While 124 overtime games is not a statistically significant sample size, clearly the winner of the coin flip has a major advantage."

I'm not sure how the hell he ascertained that there was a major advantage after admitting the sample size is too small, but his solution isn't bad:
The first team to score six points in overtime wins.

This would prevent teams from marching down the field, kicking a field goal, and winning the game that easily. It doesn't always allow for both teams to put their offenses on the field, but if a team can't prevent the other from scoring a touchdown, they do not deserve to win.

It's still sudden death, but requires 1 TD or 2FGs to win. I can live with that.

why not just eliminate sudden death, and force them to play a full quarter??
Whoever has the most points at the end of the 5th quarter wins...

 

[Marinski]

I'd prefer to keep sudden death.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jiggahertz

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jiggahertz

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: jiggahertz
With 124 samples the probability that the true frequency of winning for teams that receive is above 50% is 0.96. Why do you consider this to not be statistically significant?

No, because there is no way to prove the same probability would persist over 1000 samples.

Say what? 0.96 is the probability that the lower bound of the confidence interval of the 124 samples is above 50%. Your statistics knowledge is lacking. Google binomail confidence intervals adjusted wald method. The confidence interval will tighten with a larger sample size. Following your logic, flipping a coin 2000 times is likely to yield a result closer to 50/50 so 1000 trials is not "statistically significant". The term statistically significant is meaningless if you don't define an acceptable confidence interval. I believe Lothar's point was that throwing out an arbitrary number like 1000 is not supported by statistics. You're trying to use a buzz word without understanding what it means.

The term statistically significant is subjective without a CI, no sht. However, you could build a probability for 10 games if you wanted to and call it "statistically significant". Most statisticians will acknowledge that a sample size of 124 is too small to make a determination, just like the article I linked. You can construct all of the probabilities you want, but that doesn't mean the CI is relevant.

Last, the NFL introduced overtime in 1941. Why are we using data from 2000 and on? The definitive answer (i.e. more stats) are out there, we just need to find it.

90-95% confidence intervals are typically used for reliability analysis. A 96% confidence interval is definitely not "statistically insignificant" as you would like to claim.

Nevermind he ignored the first link with over 99% confidence interval.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
They should let the teams put 11 people in each endzone, put the ball on the 50 yard line, and the game ends when the ball reaches one endzone. No plays, no downs, just 22 guys trying to get the ball in the opponents endzone.

I like it!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Genx87
It(sudden death) really doesnt make sense in football if you think about it. Both teams play to a tie in regulation. Why shouldnt they both be offered an equal opportunity in overtime?

Easy, because if you're the best team you will win in the clutch like you failed to do in regulation. Your defense will make the stop when it's most critical. Your offense will score when you most need it and not fold under the pressure. There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to being the best.

College just does it because they wanted to be different and they want the games to last longer (also see: stopping the clock temp after a 1st down). It's stupid.

Nothing more needs to be said about this topic IMO, IF you're the best, you will prove it when it's most needed. Do you disagree with that?

I disagree because neither team proved they were the "best" during regulation when it was "most" needed. Why should one be afforded a disproportional opportunity to win based on a coin toss?

If neither proved it, then why should it matter who gets the ball first? No, winner of coin toss =! advantage. If you can find the percentage of 1000 overtime games (the only statistically sound evidence), then good luck because it doesn't exist. And I guarantee you that even over 1000 games, it's not going to be 50/50. You would probably whine if the defense showed a .5% of the time winning.

Isnt it obvious? Defenses are not in a position to score, a requirement to win. You giving one side the ball without allowing the other gives that side an unfair advantage. Secondly somebody posted that since the 1994 change in kickoff position the team who wins the coin toss wins the game 6 of 10 times.

Play on the field decides the game, not a coin toss. No FG is guaranteed. No snap is guaranteed to even find its way into the QB's hands. You still have to earn the win. Either way both teams already had a chance to win, no excuses should be made. The better team will produce under pressure and the loser will fold. It's that simple. Testing both the offense and defense is stupid, both were already tested for 4 quarters.

Yeah but what % of plays end with a turnover? And what % of drives end with a defensive touchdown? When you say team dont you really mean one teams offense vs the other defense? That is half of both team playing each other and producing. A full team concept is to have both side have an equal shot at scoring. Whether through the college setup or by playing a time extra period.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon


Last, the NFL introduced overtime in 1941. Why are we using data from 2000 and on? The definitive answer (i.e. more stats) are out there, we just need to find it.

Because thats when rule changed backing up kicker allowing run backs for recieving teams i.e. getting even closeer to the endzone. Before kickers sent it so deep reciveing teams all started at the 20.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: vi edit
I would love to see the NFL adopt some variant of the college rule. I think it's more fair to fans, and as an offensive player I'd rather have a crack at it instead leaving it entirely in the hands of the defense.

How much do you think do you think it' burned Peytons ass last week to watch Sproles light up the defense and not have a turn of his own?

Well, Peyton should have converted that 3rd and 2 if he didn't want to leave it up to his defense.

And the Colts defense had multiple opportunities to make a stop. I believe they had a pass interference and a personal foul call on just in OT.

 

[sash1]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
They should let the teams put 11 people in each endzone, put the ball on the 50 yard line, and the game ends when the ball reaches one endzone. No plays, no downs, just 22 guys trying to get the ball in the opponents endzone.

haha, awesome idea :thumbsup:

 

[Scarpozzi]

If the better team can't win by the end of 4 quarters, sometimes rolling the dice is a good idea. (joking, of course....it might help players like McNabb who don't know the game ends after OT in reg season play)

Aside from that, I think this emphasizes defense as being EXTREMELY important in the game. Hell....the defense has even had 4 quarters to make adjustments to the offense. If they can't stop them by now, when it counts, they deserve to lose.

People who want to see a shoot out need to quit being pussies and be happy watching NCAA ball. I believe sudden death OT is what makes the NFL so great and sets talent apart from the average player and seperates the men from the boys. All of the players and coaches (except Donovan) know the rules when they step on the field.... If they want to complain about losing, they should have won before the regular time ended.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

How bout sudden death only via TDs and safeties? What sucks is that average starting field position means you only have to make a few first downs to have a plausible field goal, and today's FG kickers are just too damn good (which can lead to another topic of debate - decreasing the width of the FG posts...)

 

[fustercluck]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
If the better team can't win by the end of 4 quarters, sometimes rolling the dice is a good idea. (joking, of course....it might help players like McNabb who don't know the game ends after OT in reg season play)


People who want to see a shoot out need to quit being pussies and be happy watching NCAA ball. I believe sudden death OT is what makes the NFL so great and sets talent apart from the average player and seperates the men from the boys. All of the players and coaches (except Donovan) know the rules when they step on the field.... If they want to complain about losing, they should have won before the regular time ended.

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with sudden death NFL overtime are 'pussies'? - Not like we're asking them to do a ballet dance in overtime. Can keep the argument mature. Again I'm fine with the NFL overtime.

If they want to complain about losing, they should have won before the regular time ended.

Yeah, no one's mentioned that already :roll: - Don't think any teams are actually complaining about the NFL overtime system, just a fan debate.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: wankawitz

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
If the better team can't win by the end of 4 quarters, sometimes rolling the dice is a good idea. (joking, of course....it might help players like McNabb who don't know the game ends after OT in reg season play)


People who want to see a shoot out need to quit being pussies and be happy watching NCAA ball. I believe sudden death OT is what makes the NFL so great and sets talent apart from the average player and seperates the men from the boys. All of the players and coaches (except Donovan) know the rules when they step on the field.... If they want to complain about losing, they should have won before the regular time ended.

Why is it that everyone who disagrees with sudden death NFL overtime are 'pussies'? - Not like we're asking them to do a ballet dance in overtime. Can keep the argument mature. Again I'm fine with the NFL overtime.

If they want to complain about losing, they should have won before the regular time ended.

Yeah, no one's mentioned that already :roll: - Don't think any teams are actually complaining about the NFL overtime system, just a fan debate.

I'm sure Manning is in some corner crying about it.