NFL Playoffs

[Acymetric]

I think the NFL's new overtime is far superior to the old one, in that under the old scheme, a field goal ended the game and the other team never got a chance to possess the ball. In that system, the coin toss took on even more importance; too much importance, in my opinion.

I'm ok with the current overtime, and I'm not sure any of the proposed "solutions" is any better than the current system.

I agree that was a major improvement, one that needed to be made. I guess the question is, why not extend that slightly further and allow the other team to possess the ball after any score by the first team rather than only after a FG?

[elvis14]

good to see former Blue Devil (not long enough, sadly) Ben Watson ripping into Roger Goodell for his silence...very eloquent dismissal of the pompous czar.
p.s. can you imagine the forces at work had the aggrieved party been the Cowboys and Jerry Jones?

A couple of years ago, the Cowgirls and JJ lost a game to the Packers where a Dez Bryant catch was ruled incomplete (basically based on the Calvin Johnson rule). By the next season, there were rule chances. So yes, I can imagine the forces at work because we've seen it already.

I agree that was a major improvement, one that needed to be made. I guess the question is, why not extend that slightly further and allow the other team to possess the ball after any score by the first team rather than only after a FG?

As for the overtime discussion. I'm with the crowd that thinks the current system gives too much of an advantage to the team winning the coin toss. I really like the college rule but understand it's detractors, who have valid points but not enough to sway me. For the NFL, just playing another quarter or simply stating that each team will get at least 1 possession would be an improvement.

A note on the coin toss advantage. Ever notice that it's not unusual for teams to score more late in games? Defenses get tired and by the end of a game it's pretty common for the offenses to have an advantage over the defenses. For me, that's what gives the winner of the coin toss a huge advantage.

[devildeac]

Funny stuff:

https://sports.yahoo.com/10-year-old...184439991.html

"Ace sought to prove that Brady was a cheater through science. He wanted to show that deflated footballs gave Brady a competitive advantage. On his poster, he included the results of experiments he did with his mom and sister. Each of them threw footballs of varying inflation, and he measured the distance of each one and calculated the average. He found that the least inflated football traveled the farthest, therefore giving Brady a competitive advantage."

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Funny stuff:

https://sports.yahoo.com/10-year-old...184439991.html

"Ace sought to prove that Brady was a cheater through science. He wanted to show that deflated footballs gave Brady a competitive advantage. On his poster, he included the results of experiments he did with his mom and sister. Each of them threw footballs of varying inflation, and he measured the distance of each one and calculated the average. He found that the least inflated football traveled the farthest, therefore giving Brady a competitive advantage."

Couple things kind of get missed in this discussion (not saying you, just in general).
First, teams (and QBs) have a lot of latitude on how inflated the ball their offense uses is. Brady and the Pats went over the line, and that's cheating, or pushing the envelope however you want to say it.
Second: who knows how often this has happened.
Third, it was never so obvious a defender who intercepted, picked up loose ball to hand to the ref, etc, noticed it.
Fourth, some think the biggest advantage was that NE rarely fumbled...

And hey, kudos to the kid for his imagination - and technique - even as there are some flaws to this methodology...

[Troublemaker]

I don't much care who wins, but have a strong feeling the evil genius Belichick will confound the wandering Rams. This is what he does. Will be impressed if the Boy Wonder outcoaches him.

I'm wondering if all the Patriots love is recency bias in the extreme. Remember, just two weeks ago before the playoffs started for New England, I think you yourself had a post or two in this very thread severely doubting Brady and the Patriots. (And obviously I point this out just to make what I think is an interesting point, not to be unfriendly. We are all guilty of recency bias, me included.)

I saw a story on ESPN Chalk about how some of the world's best oddsmakers thought the Rams should be favored, which was my initial reaction as well, and some even opened them as favorites. To be clear, those oddsmakers were wrong, as they probably don't want the action on New England to be quite this lopsided; everything I've seen points to 80% or more of bets being on New England so far.

Still, the past couple of games, New England played opponents in the Chargers and Chiefs that they were able to physically dominate up front on offense. It's easy to play football when you can gash the other team for 5-8 yards a play on the ground and dominate time of possession. But, judging by how the Rams held the Cowboys (and Ezekiel Elliot) to 50 yards on 22 rushes and held the Saints to 48 yards on 21 rushes, the going's about to get much tougher. And I'm wondering whether some of the weaknesses people saw in New England before the playoffs started will reappear if they can't dominate up front.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I'm wondering if all the Patriots love is recency bias in the extreme. Remember, just two weeks ago before the playoffs started for New England, I think you yourself had a post or two in this very thread severely doubting Brady and the Patriots. (And obviously I point this out just to make what I think is an interesting point, not to be unfriendly. We are all guilty of recency bias, me included.)

I saw a story on ESPN Chalk about how some of the world's best oddsmakers thought the Rams should be favored, which was my initial reaction as well, and some even opened them as favorites. To be clear, those oddsmakers were wrong, as they probably don't want the action on New England to be quite this lopsided; everything I've seen points to 80% or more of bets being on New England so far.

Still, the past couple of games, New England played opponents in the Chargers and Chiefs that they were able to physically dominate up front on offense. It's easy to play football when you can gash the other team for 5-8 yards a play on the ground and dominate time of possession. But, judging by how the Rams held the Cowboys (and Ezekiel Elliot) to 50 yards on 22 rushes and held the Saints to 48 yards on 21 rushes, the going's about to get much tougher. And I'm wondering whether some of the weaknesses people saw in New England before the playoffs started will reappear if they can't dominate up front.

I don't think "recency bias" is a bad thing or a flaw in determining predictions for upcoming games. How a team is doing now...on a roll, in a funk, is not a bias...it's sometimes a fact. Can recency bias lead to a bad prediction? Of course, but so can not weighting recent performances enough also.

[Troublemaker]

I don't think "recency bias" is a bad thing or a flaw in determining predictions for upcoming games. How a team is doing now...on a roll, in a funk, is not a bias...it's sometimes a fact. Can recency bias lead to a bad prediction? Of course, but so can not weighting recent performances enough also.

Haha, yes, I believe recent performances should be weighed more. That's trivial. Remember, I'm currently on pace to win a 3rd consecutive major on the Degenerates tour, so you can give me some credit here. (Incidentally, I see that you're way down below in the standings in the current contest, in negative territory, yuck :-)

Recency bias is when you weigh recent performances **too much** or to the exclusion of all other data. It's not just simply weighing recent data more.

Put simply, I'm not sure Belichick was able to magically wipe away all the weaknesses that had people doubting New England just two weeks ago.

Also, the Rams would've been favored over New England in a hypothetical Super Bowl every single day of this season except for the past 7 days since the NE-KC game. Something to keep in mind. Maybe NE *does* deserve to be favored, but these are things that should be considered.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Haha, yes, I believe recent performances should be weighed more. .

Then why didn't you say that. Your point was pretty much the OPPOSITE of that.

[Troublemaker]

Then why didn't you say that. Your point was pretty much the OPPOSITE of that.

I honestly don't know what we're arguing about. It seems I meant recency bias one way, and you thought I meant it another way. Or something. In any case, I think it's clarified by now what I meant.

[JNort]

Then why didn't you say that. Your point was pretty much the OPPOSITE of that.

You just misunderstood him is all, no worries as it was clear what he meant on his reply.

[Jeffrey]

I don't think "recency bias" is a bad thing or a flaw in determining predictions for upcoming games. How a team is doing now...on a roll, in a funk, is not a bias...it's sometimes a fact. Can recency bias lead to a bad prediction? Of course, but so can not weighting recent performances enough also.

In my game.... the trend is your friend.

[Jeffrey]

everything I've seen points to 80% or more of bets being on New England so far.

That's a very lopsided book. How much has the 80% moved the line?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

That's a very lopsided book. How much has the 80% moved the line?

I saw an article that stated the line moved like 4 points in the first 15 minutes...as the LAR opened as favorites...and tons of cash came in on NE.

[Jeffrey]

I saw an article that stated the line moved like 4 points in the first 15 minutes...as the LAR opened as favorites...and tons of cash came in on NE.

That's a really big and quick move! My money is on the oddsmakers... I'll take the Rams and the points!

[Highlander]

I agree that was a major improvement, one that needed to be made. I guess the question is, why not extend that slightly further and allow the other team to possess the ball after any score by the first team rather than only after a FG?

The problem with guaranteeing both teams a possession (IMO) is when does it end? If you give both teams a chance to score and they both score, you are still tied. Now what do you do? Give them both another chance? If so, you end up with some of the absurdity that is college football with 65-62 quadruple overtime games. If not, you're back to the fairness doctrine of both teams having an equal numbers of possessions.

I think NFL OT is fine the way it is, personally. Both teams get a chance to possess the ball in every single scenario save a TD. If you let your opponent drive the length of the field and can't keep them out of the end zone, you don't get a possession. Don't like it? Don't give up an 80 yard TD drive in OT.

Brady makes so few mistakes that you can't afford to give him additional ones by lining up offsides.

[cato]

The problem with guaranteeing both teams a possession (IMO) is when does it end?

Fisticuffs at dawn?

[Acymetric]

The problem with guaranteeing both teams a possession (IMO) is when does it end? If you give both teams a chance to score and they both score, you are still tied. Now what do you do? Give them both another chance? If so, you end up with some of the absurdity that is college football with 65-62 quadruple overtime games. If not, you're back to the fairness doctrine of both teams having an equal numbers of possessions.

Arguing that both teams should get a possession is slightly different than arguing teams should get an equal number of possessions (I, at least, am arguing for the former). So yeah, team A scores a TD, then team B scores a TD, then next team to score wins.

Beyond fairness, I think the current rules are hugely anti-climatic. I think there would be moderate improvement to fairness, but significant improvement to entertainment value by making this change to the OT rules (make it playoffs-only would be fine). NFL overtimes are one of the least exciting overtimes in sports (I can't comment on baseball), this would improve that at least a little.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The problem with guaranteeing both teams a possession (IMO) is when does it end? .

It ends after a pre determined time...say ten or fifteen minutes. If still tied at that point, sudden death, no questions asked. That would be a far superior system to what they have now.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

That's a really big and quick move! My money is on the oddsmakers... I'll take the Rams and the points!

Yes it was a big and sudden change...which was the point of the article - that this was a very unusual situation. And yeah, if you wanted to bet the Rams, and waited 30 minutes or what have you....you got a much better deal.

[House P]

The problem with guaranteeing both teams a possession (IMO) is when does it end? If you give both teams a chance to score and they both score, you are still tied. Now what do you do? Give them both another chance? If so, you end up with some of the absurdity that is college football with 65-62 quadruple overtime games. If not, you're back to the fairness doctrine of both teams having an equal numbers of possessions.

I think NFL OT is fine the way it is, personally. Both teams get a chance to possess the ball in every single scenario save a TD. If you let your opponent drive the length of the field and can't keep them out of the end zone, you don't get a possession. Don't like it? Don't give up an 80 yard TD drive in OT.

How about this for a twist? If a team scores on the first drive of overtime, the other team gets one possession to outscore them (but is not allowed to tie them).

So, if the first team kicks a field goal, the second team must score a touchdown.

If the first team scores a touchdown and kicks the extra point, the second team has to score a touchdown and convert 2pt attempt.

Not sure what would happen if the first team scored a TD and converted a 2pt attempt, but there are several options (including disallowing the first team from going for two).