It's still an advantage to go 2nd
by Irish Warrior (2024-02-12 13:38:49)

In reply to: the college coaches might change strategy  posted by jt

Post Reply Return to Cartier Field

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.

I didn't follow.
by tdiddy07  (2024-02-12 14:14:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.

4th and 15, down 3 at the 20.
by jt  (2024-02-12 13:53:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

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.