Alternative to the coin toss

Idgit · Jun 12, 2013

http://plus.maths.org/content/toss-overtime

An interesting notion: bidding for field position. With the low-bidder winning the possession. A fairer way of allocating the first-posession advantage in overtime.

I like the idea, and think it could make for some interesting outcomes. What do you guys think?

Nav22 · Jun 12, 2013

I've read about that idea before and I like it. But I was hoping for an XFL link.

Tabascocat · Jun 12, 2013

I like the part where they say they are more familiar with American football, yet have no idea when to use offense/offence and defence/defense. So I took this with a grain of salt.

I don't know if there is a perfect solution for overtime, but this isn't the answer IMO. I always liked penetrations in College ball, just not sure that would work in the NFL.

Idgit · Jun 12, 2013

dexternjack;5099107 said:
I like the part where they say they are more familiar with American football, yet have no idea when to use offense/offence and defence/defense. So I took this with a grain of salt.

I don't know if there is a perfect solution for overtime, but this isn't the answer IMO. I always liked penetrations in College ball, just not sure that would work in the NFL.

Yeah, I was trying to verify how they were going to assign possession, and kept searching for 'offense' and doing a double-take when nothing came up.

You don't like the idea? I think it could lead to some interesting situations in games with two great defenses where the minimum bid ends up being good field position. Or the first time you see an offense take possession inside the 10, for example.

Think of all the HC second-guessing we can do if we lose a game bidding aggressively for an overtime possession!

Tabascocat · Jun 12, 2013

Idgit;5099109 said:
You don't like the idea? I think it could lead to some interesting situations in games with two great defenses where the minimum bid ends up being good field position. Or the first time you see an offense take possession inside the 10, for example.

Think of all the HC second-guessing we can do if we lose a game bidding aggressively for an overtime possession!

These new ideas have too many nuts and bolts in them, or working parts. Whatever happened to that old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

I just don't want to see this game turned into a bunch of gimmick's or gambling scenarios.

The only thing I can think of is the initial coin toss. Maybe the winner decides if they want the opening kickoffs for each half and the losing team gets the OT if it happens, and vice versa(take OT and forfeit each half).

Like I said earlier, there is no perfect solution so stick with what has worked in the past.

silverbear · Jun 12, 2013

Idgit;5099103 said:
http://plus.maths.org/content/toss-overtime

An interesting notion: bidding for field position. With the low-bidder winning the possession. A fairer way of allocating the first-posession advantage in overtime.

I like the idea, and think it could make for some interesting outcomes. What do you guys think?

Send out two scrubs to battle to the death...

zrinkill · Jun 12, 2013

Roll for initiative

http://t1.***NOT-ALLOWED***/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVrwwRPp6hXgNAhL5cmoE3b2TSaS0W2dS48uPc8gpQs1KVzK768Q

Future · Jun 12, 2013

That had to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

It doesn't get any more fair than a coin toss...

HoosierCowboy · Jun 12, 2013

no coin toss or anything else except football should determine the outcome of a game--do coin flip, kickoff, and then have both teams with at least one possession. what's hard about that?

Idgit · Jun 12, 2013

silverbear;5099112 said:
Send out two scrubs to battle to the death...

Mascots? It might be worth losing a game to be rid of Rowdy for ever.

I kid, I kid. Not really.

Future;5099164 said:
That had to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

It doesn't get any more fair than a coin toss...

It's less a question of fairness. Fair or not, you don't really want the outcomes of games coming down a statistically significant part of the time to a first possession rule governed by the flip of a coin.

I agree, what's proposed here is more interesting in theory than it might be in practice, but you're basically taking that arbitrary advantage that's being determined by the flip and creating a strategy whereby the opposing coaches can bid for that advantage. That way, the outcomes are more entirely dependent upon the decisions and the plays made on the field. Better coaches can make better tactical bets. That's a good thing, right?

ShiningStar · Jun 12, 2013

why do we have to do this, why is it when a system is working, someone WHO has no stake in it, sits there and says "hey for a hoot i bet i can screw this up and the kicker is, Ill get people to go along with it."

and here we are.

its not broke, LIKE the NFL draft, so why break it.

Future · Jun 12, 2013

Idgit;5099234 said:
Mascots? It might be worth losing a game to be rid of Rowdy for ever.

I kid, I kid. Not really.

It's less a question of fairness. Fair or not, you don't really want the outcomes of games coming down a statistically significant part of the time to a first possession rule governed by the flip of a coin.

I agree, what's proposed here is more interesting in theory than it might be in practice, but you're basically taking that arbitrary advantage that's being determined by the flip and creating a strategy whereby the opposing coaches can bid for that advantage. That way, the outcomes are more entirely dependent upon the decisions and the plays made on the field. Better coaches can make better tactical bets. That's a good thing, right?

Yea, I guess.

But your changing it from a coin toss, to a game of Name that Tune. What's to stop a coach from saying "I'll start at my own 2" and getting the ball every time. It just seems silly to me

Idgit · Jun 12, 2013

Future;5099260 said:
Yea, I guess.

But your changing it from a coin toss, to a game of Name that Tune. What's to stop a coach from saying "I'll start at my own 2" and getting the ball every time. It just seems silly to me

First off, lol at 'Name that Tune.' Nice reference.

Secondly, if you're taking it at the two, you better be sure you convert, because if you don't, a punt and a decent return and a FG loses you the football game, right?

And, it is silly. It's more of a philosophical 'what if' debate here. It's too transformative for the league to actually adopt, I think. But in terms of game theory, it's an interesting twist.

Cowboys22 · Jun 12, 2013

Stupid, stupid, stupid! Just like the college overtime rules, it's no longer the same game when you implement ridiculous new rules such as this. Toss a coin, the winner gets the ball, kick off and play defense, give up a TD you lose, give up a FG, you get a chance to tie or win. That's football and 100% fair to both teams.

BaybeeJay · Jun 12, 2013

Idgit;5099103 said:
http://plus.maths.org/content/toss-overtime

An interesting notion: bidding for field position. With the low-bidder winning the possession. A fairer way of allocating the first-posession advantage in overtime.

I like the idea, and think it could make for some interesting outcomes. What do you guys think?

And if both teams bid the same field position, then what?

Toss a coin.

Fmart322 · Jun 12, 2013

I think home team defers choice to visitors in regulation. In overtime flip the coin.

conner01 · Jun 12, 2013

under the old rules the team who won the flip had a 10% better chance of winning than the team that lost. 60/40
you start out before the flip with a 50% chance since there are only two teams. in time since you can't win with a FG without the other team getting the ball and a chance to tie or win, those odds will go closer to 50/50.
there is nothing fairer than a 50/50 chance so there is no way to make it more fair to either team than a coin flip

ROUSH8692 · Jun 12, 2013

Idgit;5099103 said:
http://plus.maths.org/content/toss-overtime

An interesting notion: bidding for field position. With the low-bidder winning the possession. A fairer way of allocating the first-posession advantage in overtime.

I like the idea, and think it could make for some interesting outcomes. What do you guys think?

We can also draw straws or even play pin the tail on the donkey also....

:sarcasm:

Risen Star · Jun 12, 2013

Future;5099164 said:
That had to be the worst idea I have ever heard.

It doesn't get any more fair than a coin toss...

This.

The game hasn't needed fixing but it doesn't stop them from trying over and over again.

Idgit · Jun 12, 2013

ROUSH8692;5099546 said:
We can also draw straws or even play pin the tail on the donkey also....

:sarcasm:

Niether of those are very fair. It's especially easy to cheat at pin the tail on the donkey. Think what Belichick would do with that sort of advantage.

Risen Star;5099551 said:
This.

The game hasn't needed fixing but it doesn't stop them from trying over and over again.

To be clear, this is just theoretical. It's not anything the league is considering.

But, again, the point isn't the the existing system isn't fair. The coin toss is fair to both teams, but it puts a significant importance in the outcome of games onto an event that's random and requires no element of skill or strategy in order for a team to benefit.

Wherever possible, shouldn't we want outcomes decided by skill and good decision making rather than by an even random chance?

Alternative to the coin toss

Fattening up

Well-Known Member

Dexternjack

Fattening up

Dexternjack

Semi-Official Loose Cannon

Cowboy Fan

Intramural Legend

Put Pearson in the HOF

Fattening up

Well-Known Member

Intramural Legend

Fattening up

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Likes Collector

Fattening up