In reply to: defense was gassed posted by jt
They scored one touchdown all game on a one play, 16 yard drive following a turnover. Those other Super Bowl drives can't reasonably be discounted as insufficiently important for Mahomes to channel his magical powers.
I'm pretty indifferent about the decision. But that's not a sound rationale to attack it.
it would have been a safe assumption if the Niners had decided to kick.
Obviously I agree with you; I have little to no confidence in Steve Wilks, and the defense was gassed, so I thought at the time the best bet was to take the ball and try and go on a drive and get the defense some rest and let Wilks try and figure it out. Alas, he couldn't. That drive to end regulation was an awful series for him. He just can't fucking help himself on third down, has to go for the blitz, man to man. Lucky that Kelce didn't score there.
if the start of the third possession became sudden death.
The only way to even it out is if the 1st team scores a TD and has a successful 2 pt conversion. Otherwise, strategy dictates if team 1 scores a FG, team 2 most score a TD, or they will be giving the ball back to team 1. If team 1 scores a TD, team 2 most score a TD and convert a 2 point play, or they will give the ball back to team 1.
The underlying analysis though requires a little bit of work.
The advantage of going second is basically some mathematical representation of the advantage of knowing what you need to score. The bulk of the advantage only applies when the other team scores a TD and then you are given some small number of additional downs at your disposal (let's call it 2-3 fourth downs on average on a drive that needs to go that length) to allow you to score the TD to avoid a loss. Then there's also the advantage of knowing when you can call conservatively because a FG will win or at least tie. A 2007 study of college football showed no advantage in the first five years of OT (49.4 winning %) and a notable advantage for the next six (62.5 %). Not sure the latest. But assuming it's more common to play for OT I'd guess there's like a 10 percent advantage in college OT by going second.
I'm not sure the degree of the college advantage is directly transferable here. I'd guess the NFL advantage is more muted than college. Because you might convert on fourth in the NFL and still be 60 yards away from scoring and ultimately fail at a greater rate than if you converted on fourth down in college and are now only 15 yards away from scoring. In other words, it's more likely that even after you take advantage of the extra downs, you still fail. Also, the college stats presume that after a tie in 1st OT you still get an opportunity in the second OT even if you give up a score. That's not the case in the NFL.
On the other hand, there's a particular advantage that's easy to see of going first by getting the first sudden death opportunity in the event of a tie after two possessions. Standing alone, the sudden-death advantage was something like a 10-percent win increase (60 percent of receiving teams in old-school NFL rules won--though that advantage may have increased over time as offenses and kickers got better and longer). But that advantage only applies when both teams are tied after two possessions, so you have to calculate those odds.
Off hand, it would be silly of me to draw a strong opinion without better data.
would you go for the tie or go for the conversion and try and count on your defense to get a stop to get you the ball back?
Everyone has a plan with hindsight and "assuming you get a touchdown." How about that scenario?
The answer is, "it depends." Which is why in these particular scenarios with these variety of factors there's no one for sure method, as much as we'd love there to be one.
I mean, what if those refs had actually called a hold yesterday on the Chiefs? What if there was a 4th and forever in field goal range? Nobody likes to think of that, because we all know what happened.
Coach Prime did this past season and admitted he did not know the overtime rules.
of anyone doing it. And when I heard, I too was not surprised. In fact, he did it twice and lost the 2nd time. I assume he won't be doing it again.