Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point I made in the o.p. and in every post since is that a coin flip gave one team an advantage. You either get that or you don't. Imagine if it were basketball. One team received possession of the ball based on a coin flip. They score, they win. Yes the other team can play defense and have the opportunity to stop them and then they would have the chance to win, but is that really a good argument? It's the same thing we saw in the Super Bowl.
I see your point, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
In basketball, a team scores about 30-40 times a game.
I doubt we ever would see that in a NFL game.
The percent of scoring a basket per possession in basketball is certainly much higher than the percent of scoring a touchdown per possession in an NFL game.
Stopping a team from receiving the kick off and scoring a field goal certainly isn't impossible.
Stopping a team from receiving a kick off and scoring a touchdown on the same possession should not be that difficult.
The winner of the game doesn't automatically win the game. I don't think anyone has ever said that. It is about gaining a big advantage based on something that is based on luck and not actual athletic skill. It isn't technically unfair in the strict sense of the word because the Falcons could have won the coin flip. It is just a clear advantage based on a coin flip, and not something involved in the structure of football.
Here are some stats that show that the coin flip is not all of that egregious.
If you trust smart math people, the numbers quickly find fault with Belichick's logic. Brian Burke of ESPN says his win probability model projects the team that receives the ball first in overtime to win 53.8 percent of the time, almost 7 percent better than the kicking team.
But maybe you just trust results, so let's look at those. Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that receives the ball first has won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent. Burke's model seems pretty good.
OT rules were updated in 2012.
It's a random coin flip that gives a slight edge to who gets the ball first.
Before the OT rules were updated, the win percentage was at 60%. So the new rules have evened out the outcome.
Here's a stat someone may want to figure out... if the team with the better record won the coin flip in OT, what's their winning percentage? My guess is that the percentage would be pretty high, since it is the better team.
Circumstances on how the game got into OT could also come into play into how the final outcome is settled.
You can look at this a thousand ways and find something you don't like. It's easy to say something is wrong... it's much harder to come up with a completely equitable solution.
I see your point, but you are comparing apples to oranges.
In basketball, a team scores about 30-40 times a game.
I doubt we ever would see that in a NFL game.
The percent of scoring a basket per possession in basketball is certainly much higher than the percent of scoring a touchdown per possession in an NFL game.
Stopping a team from receiving the kick off and scoring a field goal certainly isn't impossible.
Stopping a team from receiving a kick off and scoring a touchdown on the same possession should not be that difficult.
A coin flip for a basketball OT would be the same thing. It is more profound an advantage when compared to a coin flip leading to a possession in a football overtime, but it is the same thing. I'm talking about the most fair and equal format for an overtime in the biggest sporting event in America. I'm not talking about "well, all so-and-so had to do to win was..." or "if the other team had not allowed the other team to score in the last quarter of regulation they wouldn't have to worry about a coin flip." I'm talking about an OT format that is fair to both teams and where no one gets any advantage at all from something that should not be a factor... the luck of a coin flip.
If you trust smart math people, the numbers quickly find fault with Belichick's logic. Brian Burke of ESPN says his win probability model projects the team that receives the ball first in overtime to win 53.8 percent of the time, almost 7 percent better than the kicking team.
But maybe you just trust results, so let's look at those. Since the NFL instituted modified overtime rules, there have been 73 overtime games, including postseason and Monday Night Football. Three have been ties. In the other 70, the team that receives the ball first has won 38 of those, or 54.2 percent. Burke's model seems pretty good.
OT rules were updated in 2012.
It's a random coin flip that gives a slight edge to who gets the ball first.
Before the OT rules were updated, the win percentage was at 60%. So the new rules have evened out the outcome.
Here's a stat someone may want to figure out... if the team with the better record won the coin flip in OT, what's their winning percentage? My guess is that the percentage would be pretty high, since it is the better team.
Circumstances on how the game got into OT could also come into play into how the final outcome is settled.
You can look at this a thousand ways and find something you don't like. It's easy to say something is wrong... it's much harder to come up with a completely equitable solution.
Just flip the coin and do you job.
There are OT formats that can easily be made that have no real advantage to either teams in terms of luck being a significant factor. In fact, professional football may be the only one that I can think of where it is a big factor. All other OTs, basketball, hockey, tennis, involve both competitors getting equal chance.
There are OT formats that can easily be made that have no real advantage to either teams in terms of luck being a significant factor. In fact, professional football may be the only one that I can think of where it is a big factor. All other OTs, basketball, hockey, tennis, involve both competitors getting equal chance.
I am not calling a 53% a big factor. Definitely not big enough to overturn the coin flip on the small percentage of games that go into overtime.
Should the NFL change the rule just for the Super Bowl but leave it in place as it is for the regular season? There are already complaints that the game takes too long in the regular season. Having different rules for a playoff game than for the regular season would be odd.
I don't want to detract from the coin flip. but when leading by one possession ( and already in position to kick a field goal and make it a two possession game ) you should never do anything to risk that field goal position.
It seems Les Miles is not the only one who makes bad decisions at the end of the game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
