(02-01-2022, 12:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: (02-01-2022, 11:43 AM)Mikey Wrote: but your argument was that the coin flip is a near-automatic failure for the loser. what significance is the coin flip if both teams have their chance to score? At that point, the coin flip was a moot point. Once both teams possess the ball, the supposed advantage of winning the toss goes away.
Given that we're only working with 12 games in over a decade makes the reliability of any percentage extremely suspect.
The bolded above is wrong. Common belief, but wrong.
Even if you include the statistics from the regular season, when teams might play for a tie, coin flips starting overtime are never moot. The advantage goes down, but it's still there. It doesn't go all the way down to 50-50 like it should.
The team that goes second might have the same number of possessions, or one less, but never one more. That's why there a durable statistical advantage for the team going first in OT that never goes away no matter how you cherry pick the data. Even if you apply a "play til the end of the overtime period" rule, the advantage remains.
So, if you want to stop play when the clock goes to zero, and then restart it, there are only three fair choices:
1) do college overtime rules, guaranteeing an equal number of possessions for each team regardless
2) set up a new "penalty kicks" type situation to determine the winner, again each team gets the same number of chances at whatever the thing is,
3) do a quick "penalty kick" or "skills competition" between the two teams just to replace the coin flip, then play 11 on 11 with sudden death.
(1) takes the longest with the most contact
(2) has no contact at all, could be quick, but doesn't feel like football
(3) has the same amount of contact as today's rules, still ends with 11 on 11 scoring plays, takes about the same amount of time, and eliminates the unfairness.
The team that goes second had every chance to score on their possession that the team that won the toss (and elected to receive) did. At some point you have to accept that either the losing team is not good enough to win, or some conspiratorial force intervened to force them out of the game.
I think at this point you're arguing just for the sake of argument. Every one of your proposals can easily be skewed out of 50-50 fairness
1) Field conditions can vary from one side of the field to the other; Lighting, wind, stadium design (see especially bowl games in baseball stadia) can all sway how a team plays on its possession. You still have to decide who starts each series; going second can be considered an advantage, as you know exactly what you have to do to stay alive.
2) Teams with star QB, or talent advantage on offense/defense are negated in this system. Good luck convincing a QB driven league to decide games solely on the foot of a kicker.
3) How do you determine which skill to compete in? If your best player is an RB, do you deserve a lesser shot at the so-called advantage to be gained by winning if the competition is "throw a ball through a tire"? If your team is built on short, quick passes and not throwing a ball over them mountains, does a distance throw give you equal shot at the advantage?
Here's the biggest thing. A coin fits in the ref's pocket, and a flip's outcome is resolved within half a minute during most game telecasts. If you go with skills competitions, you likely have a set of props that have to be on the field in case they are needed. If you go to kickers only, or adopt the college model, you've completely altered gameplay or greatly prolonged a random event just to get the game restarted. The lack of significant improvement to the system combined with prolonging the game even further makes all three options likely a non-starter.
