FACT: Coin toss winners won OT games on first drive only 40% in 2009

[chaka]

The cries for OT coin toss rule change are based on theory that winning the toss = winning the game on first drive = unfair advantage to receiving team

FACT:
teams that won OT toss only won the game on the first drive 6 out of 15 times or 40%

It should be noted that two teams that won the toss did win the game on their 3rd and 4th possessions making the coin toss winner 8-7 (Cincinnat vs clev and Chi vs MN)

OT results
reg season
week 1 pitt vs ten pitt ball first
won first drive 10 plays 4:32 poss win 33 yd fg

won toss won game 1-0 won toss won game first drive 1-0

week 4 cin vs clev cin ball first
won on 4th possession 13 plays 3:62 win 31 yd fg

won toss won game 2-0 won toss won game first drive 1-1

week 5 dall @ kc kc ball first
lost dall scores TD on 2nd possession

won toss won game 2-1 won toss won game first drive 1-2

week 5 ne @ den den ball first
won first drive 11 plays 4:51 poss won 41 yd fg

won toss won game 3-1 won toss won game first drive 2-2

week 6 st l @ jax jax ball first
13 plays 7 minutes won on 36 yd fg
won toss won game 4-1 won toss won game first drive 3-2

week 6 buff @ jets jets ball first
buff won 3rd possession 9 plays 3:47 47 yd fg

won toss won game 4-2 won toss won game first drive 3-3

week 11 atl @ nyg nyg ball first
won first drive 8 plays 3:51 36 yd fg

won toss won game 5-2 won toss won game first drive 4-3

week 11 pitt @ kc pitt ball first
kc won on its first poss (games 2nd) 5 plays 1:32 22 yd fg

won toss won game 5-3 won toss won game first drive 4-4

week 12 pitt @ balt pitt ball first
balt won toss on its 2nd poss(games 4th) 6 plays 3:23 23 yd fg

won toss won game 5-4 won toss won game first drive 4-5

week 13 no @ wash was ball first
no won its first possession (games 2nd) 8 plays 5:16 18 yd fg

won toss won game 5-5 won toss won game first drive 4-6

week 15 mia@tenn mia ball first
tenn won first poss(games 2nd) 4 plays 2:21 46 yd fg

won toss won game 5-6 won toss won game first drive 4-7

week 16 tb@ no tb ball first
tb won first drive 11 plays 6:54 47 yd fg

won toss won game 6-6 won toss won game first drive 5-7

week 16 mn @ chi chi ball first
chi win its 3 possession 1 play 36 yd td

won toss won game 7-6 won toss won game first drive 5-8

playofs gb @ ari gb ball first
ari win def td

won toss won game 7-7 won toss won game first drive 5-9

conf championship
MN@ no no ball first
no won first poss 10 plays 4:45 40 yd fg

won toss won game 8-7 won toss won game 6-9

[trixtrix]

this is v bad deductive reasoning

[Peregrine Stoop]

OP, it's more than winning on the first drive. It's winning overall.
NFL OT is extremely biased at this point. Move kickoffs upto the 35 in OT for an easy fix.

[donjuan]

Forum fail, logic fail.

[chaka]

the majority(or change proponents) want each team to have a possession to make it fair based on the belief the coin toss winners march down the field only 40 yards a kick the game winner without the other team getting a chance.

to support their arguement for rule change we must look at how many times did that occur- In 2009- it was 6 out of 15

once each team has had the ball(especially 3 or 4 times each)- the coin toss has been removed from the equation.

Results from the past season indicate the coin toss loser saw the ball 60% of the time which flies completely in the face of the arguement for change

[skrtelfan]

Welcome to small sampleville.

[donjuan]

1. You're in the wrong forum. This has nothing to do with gambling and your argument is on much more of a Players Talk level anyway.

2. Just because they get the ball 60% of the time (over a loltastic sample size of 15), doesn't mean it's a "fair" system. Look at how often the team who receives wins, not how often the other team gets the ball.

[Peregrine Stoop]

chaka,
you're also neglecting how getting the ball back on a punt after stopping an offense is not equivalent to receiving a kickoff to start OT

You're off to a bad start on SBR

[chaka]

OP, it's more than winning on the first drive. It's winning overall.
NFL OT is extremely biased at this point. Move kickoffs upto the 35 in OT for an easy fix.

before the kickoff was moved back from the 35yd line, the first twenty years of NFL overtime (1974-1993), the receiving team went 95-93-13
(50.5%) in the 201 overtime games

[whatsgood5]

OP, it's more than winning on the first drive. It's winning overall. NFL OT is extremely biased at this point. Move kickoffs upto the 35 in OT for an easy fix.

Exactly.

[TheAccountant]

I don't understand why everyone seems so mad at Chaka for posting. It is an interesting point, although it doesn't take a mathmetician to see how ridiculously biased the current NFL OT situation is.

[yisman]

As mentioned, the key was when they moved the kickoff back. Prior to that, it was about even.

Put the kickoff back to where it was pre-'90s.

[HedgeHog]

The team that loses the coin toss has a 40% chance of losing the game w/o ever possessing the ball in ot, yet the OP does not see this as significant?

[blix177]

Watch for regression to the mean after a sample size of 200

[donjuan]

As mentioned, the key was when they moved the kickoff back. Prior to that, it was about even.

Put the kickoff back to where it was pre-'90s.

Lower scoring games back then also have to do with that. With superior offenses, teams are going to score on the first possession more often.

[HedgeHog]

Eliminate the kickoff in ot and let the coin toss winner start at their own 20. This would minimize the advantage IMO.

[chaka]

Eliminate the kickoff in ot and let the coin toss winner start at their own 20. This would minimize the advantage IMO.

Here is excerpt from http://pigskinrevolution.com/OT_KICKOFF.html

ZEUS™ is the perfect tool to study the value of receiving the kickoff in overtime. Unlike NFL history where only 380 data points are available, ZEUS can run 1,000,000 overtime games in less than a minute. With ZEUS’s customization
feature, we can (and in fact did) change the characteristics of both teams, looking into Assistant GM’s contention that a
team with a (relatively speaking) much stronger defense than offense should opt to kick off.

....So what exactly is the break even field position for the receiving team to start their drive in overtime? ZEUS says the
18 yard line. Any deeper and the offensive team is an underdog and any further ahead they are a favorite. Therefore
even a guaranteed touchback by the kicking team proves to be disadvantageous (48.2% GWC for the kicking team
with their opponent beginning the drive on the 20 yard line).


re: 40% w/possession being signifigant. The 40% is far less than anticipated based on 60-70% numbers being thrown about this past season on the various forum posts indicating the need for rule changes. I chose to take time to see for myself.



two questions for the math folks-
1) what should the expected base % for receiving team to win w/o kicking team gaining possession?
2) how would starting at the 18 yard line(article) change expected win % for receiving teams because they still get the ball first in sudden death format?

[Igetp2s]

Eliminate the kickoff in ot and let the coin toss winner start at their own 20. This would minimize the advantage IMO.

Definitely a good idea. I've been thinking the same thing. Another possibility is to put a max on the distance a FG attempt can be on the opening possession. Maybe something like nothing over 40 yards. That will make the offense at least get to the other team's 25 yard line. If they start on their own 20, that makes it a 55 yard drive, which if the other team's defense can't prevent, they deserve to lose.

[u21c3f6]

The point is that the team that gets the ball first will win more often than the other team, NOT that the team that gets the ball first will necessarily score on the first possession.

A simple example to illustrate this point (and yes there are many factors to consider but I am keeping this simple to illustrate the point). Assume that whenever a team gets the football that they have a 40% chance of scoring. Team 1 gets the ball first. On team 1's first possession, 40% of the time they will win. 60% of the time Team 2 will get a first possession. 40% of the 60% of the remaining games or 24% of the time team 2 will win. If team 2 does not score on their first possession, team 1 now has a 40% of the remaining 36% or 14.4% chance of winning on their second possession. At this point, team 1 has a 40% + 14.4% or 54.4% chance of winning but of course we are not done as additional % will be added to the 54.4% as the number of possessions grow. If you continue this analysis you will find that team 1 has an approx 62.5% chance of winning the game (again, not necessarily on first possession) and that team 2 only has a 37.5% chance of winning.

Hope that was clear.

Joe.

[Jive]

Even given the small sample size, 40% shouldn't be tossed around like that is some insignificant number. If the visiting team won 40% of extra inning baseball games by scoring in the top of the tenth, with the home team not getting an at-bat, people would demand congress get involved. There would be none of this "Well, all the home team had to do was keep the visitors from scoring" hogwash.

In baseball, both teams getting an opportunity to be on offense is sacrosanct. In football it isn't that big of a deal. I don't get it. Yeah, defenses CAN score in football, but how often does that happen? I don't know the number, but I'm willing to be a lifetime of SBR points that it is a whole lot less than 40%.

[yisman]

The point is that the team that gets the ball first will win more often than the other team, NOT that the team that gets the ball first will necessarily score on the first possession. A simple example to illustrate this point (and yes there are many factors to consider but I am keeping this simple to illustrate the point). Assume that whenever a team gets the football that they have a 40% chance of scoring. Team 1 gets the ball first. On team 1's first possession, 40% of the time they will win. 60% of the time Team 2 will get a first possession. 40% of the 60% of the remaining games or 24% of the time team 2 will win. If team 2 does not score on their first possession, team 1 now has a 40% of the remaining 36% or 14.4% chance of winning on their second possession. At this point, team 1 has a 40% + 14.4% or 54.4% chance of winning but of course we are not done as additional % will be added to the 54.4% as the number of possessions grow. If you continue this analysis you will find that team 1 has an approx 62.5% chance of winning the game (again, not necessarily on first possession) and that team 2 only has a 37.5% chance of winning. Hope that was clear. Joe.

Even given the small sample size, 40% shouldn't be tossed around like that is some insignificant number. If the visiting team won 40% of extra inning baseball games by scoring in the top of the tenth, with the home team not getting an at-bat, people would demand congress get involved. There would be none of this "Well, all the home team had to do was keep the visitors from scoring" hogwash. In baseball, both teams getting an opportunity to be on offense is sacrosanct. In football it isn't that big of a deal. I don't get it. Yeah, defenses CAN score in football, but how often does that happen? I don't know the number, but I'm willing to be a lifetime of SBR points that it is a whole lot less than 40%.

Absolutely agree on both points.

I favor ties in the regular season and a "splitting the overtime pizza" idea for the postseason (each team would bid on where they would receive the kickoff from from, until the other team challenged them to do it).

[Justin7]

With two equal teams with average offense and average defense, the team receiving first wins about 60% of the time. If you have an above average offense (like New Orleans vs GB), it goes up - the live betting had New Orleans at -175 or so after they won the coin toss.

[Igetp2s]

With two equal teams with average offense and average defense, the team receiving first wins about 60% of the time. If you have an above average offense (like New Orleans vs GB), it goes up - the live betting had New Orleans at -175 or so after they won the coin toss.

If the average starting position after a KO is around the 27 or 28 yard line, then making the offense start at the 20 should definitely reduce that by about 5% (just an estimate, no real data to support the actual amount). The offense would have a harder time scoring, and if the defense makes a stop, they could get the ball back about 7-8 yards closer than they would otherwise. This would move the percentages closer to 50 without tinkering too much with the rulebook.

I don't think the quality of the teams offense should be considered at all in making the rules.