If the NFL removed the XP, but made going for 2 mandatory (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Suppose the NFL eliminated the extra point for the 2014 season. A simple approach would be to award 7 points for each touchdown, and allow teams the option to go for 2 and make that touchdown worth either 6 or 8 points. That's not the option I want to discuss, though.

Instead, assume the NFL chose to require that after a touchdown, teams go for 2. The other rules remain the same -- the ball stays at the 2, a penalty can move the spot, etc. -- but now teams have to go for 2 after every touchdown. There simply is no "go for 1" option in the rule book.

Here's my question: Would this rule change make it more likely or less likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

 

[Terpman22]

Nobody puts baby in the corner.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

About the same, or at least close enough that it would be hard to pin down. The more relevant questions would be around whether it makes the game more interesting. The answer to that would certainly be yes. Fairly large fantasy impact as well. Would really help short yardage backs for example if you scored 2 pt conversions as 2 FPs.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

About the same, or at least close enough that it would be hard to pin down. The more relevant questions would be around whether it makes the game more interesting. The answer to that would certainly be yes. Fairly large fantasy impact as well. Would really help short yardage backs for example if you scored 2 pt conversions as 2 FPs.

I like the way you think.

One more thing, there would be a few less ties (6s or 8s instead of a series of 7s, mixed in with the 3s). Thus a few less OTs.

 

[Ted Mullins]

I would assume it makes it more likely the better team wins due to the increased sample size of plays?? Since you are replacing a play that is essentially a freebie with something that is ~50%, or whatever a two point conversion generally is. I generally assume larger sample size will always favor the better team, but this feels like maybe it's a riddle and I am missing something.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I would assume it makes it more likely the better team wins due to the increased sample size of plays?? Since you are replacing a play that is essentially a freebie with something that is ~50%, or whatever a two point conversion generally is. I generally assume larger sample size will always favor the better team, but this feels like maybe it's a riddle and I am missing something.

Not a riddle; I think it's an interesting quesiton, and am curious what others think.

You hit on one reason why it would make the better team more likely to win. Here's a counterpoint: the addition of high-leverage plays makes things better for the underdog. For example, if we made each 2 point conversion worth 20 points, I think that would make it less likely that the better team wins. Now, the underdog needs to just excel on a couple of plays, and it probably wins the game, since 2 point conversions are so important. That would seem to increase the role of randomness in the game.

But there's a big difference between 2 and 20 points. So perhaps the example doesn't hold when we don't take it to its extreme.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That's assuming both good and bad teams convert 50%. That might not be true I guess.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I like it, keeps all squares in play for the superbowl

 

[IHEARTFF]

I think it won't matter too much, but it could make for more upsets as 2 pt plays are highly unpredictable.

 

[Ted Mullins]

You hit on one reason why it would make the better team more likely to win. Here's a counterpoint: the addition of high-leverage plays makes things better for the underdog. For example, if we made each 2 point conversion worth 20 points, I think that would make it less likely that the better team wins. Now, the underdog needs to just excel on a couple of plays, and it probably wins the game, since 2 point conversions are so important. That would seem to increase the role of randomness in the game.

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

Okay, this makes some sense to me as well, so now I am not so sure. Part of my assumption is that better teams would make more 2 point conversions as well, although this may not be that accurate - although I do think that if the rule changes in the original post were made, the increased important of the 2 pt conversions would lead to the good teams eventually being the teams that are better at 2 point conversions as well.

 

[babydemon90]

I think it would affect 'good' teams disproportionately though. a team that thrives on big plays and stretching the field might struggle more at the two yard line, so a larger percentage of their TD's might be 6 points. Conversely a team that excels at short yardage might have a greater percentage of TD's worth 6. Same would affect defenses, some are better at pass defense, rushing the passer, but not as good up the middle, and so might allow a greater percentage of conversions then a different defense might, even if the number of TD's allowed would be unchanged.

Certainly would affect how teams built their roster, as having a good short yardage back, or good fade WR, or whatever their choice would be, would have an increased value then today.

 

[Ted Mullins]

Yeah, IMO a big jump ball receiver, power back, and a QB that can run are ideal for 2 pt conversion. Does seem like things change a lot for both the offense and defense once you get down by the goalline.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

I agree with this. We're increasing variance. That's good for the underdog.

Under either set of rules, the team that scores three touchdowns and a field goal is likely to beat the team that just scores three touchdowns -- but it's not nearly as certain under Chase's proposed rules.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I like it, keeps all squares in play for the superbowl

Those 8's & 2's do go up in value.

But there will need to be an odd number of field goals made by one team to finish on any of the five of ten odd numbers.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

I agree with this. We're increasing variance. That's good for the underdog.

Under either set of rules, the team that scores three touchdowns and a field goal is likely to beat the team that just scores three touchdowns -- but it's not nearly as certain under Chase's proposed rules.

Well, the assumption that each team has a 50% chance of converting the 2-point attempt is not accurate. We can assume that good teams will, on average, convert more often on 2 point attempts and prevent their opponents from converting on 2 point attempts. So when a good team plays a bad team, maybe the good team has a 58% chance of converting the 2 point attempt, and the bad team a 42% chance. In that case, does this override the increased variance and make things worse for the underdog?

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think it affects the underdog too much but better running teams will probably have a slight advantage.

Power backs like Tolbert and Gerhart become more valuable.

 

[Alkahsu]

It would definitely make the games more exciting, but the idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would change the make up of the game, 2 FGs could potentially be just as valuable as a TD. Sure that's also technically true now, but it's much more likely if being forced to go for 2.

 

[FUBAR]

It would definitely make the games more exciting, but the idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would change the make up of the game, 2 FGs could potentially be just as valuable as a TD. Sure that's also technically true now, but it's much more likely if being forced to go for 2.

it would be interesting to see if FGs increase.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It would definitely make the games more exciting, but the idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would change the make up of the game, 2 FGs could potentially be just as valuable as a TD. Sure that's also technically true now, but it's much more likely if being forced to go for 2.

it would be interesting to see if FGs increase.

Enough 8-6 type scores where I think it would. Since extra points are gone pure FG kickers go up in value?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

I agree with this. We're increasing variance. That's good for the underdog.

Under either set of rules, the team that scores three touchdowns and a field goal is likely to beat the team that just scores three touchdowns -- but it's not nearly as certain under Chase's proposed rules.

Well, the assumption that each team has a 50% chance of converting the 2-point attempt is not accurate. We can assume that good teams will, on average, convert more often on 2 point attempts and prevent their opponents from converting on 2 point attempts. So when a good team plays a bad team, maybe the good team has a 58% chance of converting the 2 point attempt, and the bad team a 42% chance. In that case, does this override the increased variance and make things worse for the underdog?

I wasn't assuming that each team has a 50% chance of converting.

Neither would I assume that good teams, on average, are better at two-point conversions than bad teams, any more than I'd assume that good basketball teams shoot a higher free-throw percentage than bad teams. Two-point conversions, like free throws, are somewhat specialized skills that won't necessarily correlate with other potentially more important characteristics, like yards per pass attempt.

Realistically, I'd expect the best overall NFL teams to be within a few percentage points on two-point conversions, either way, of the worst overall NFL teams.

We can test that expectation against data from the last two years. Pick the five teams with the best regular-season records in each of the last two seasons, and compare their collective 4th-and-2 conversion rate with that of the teams with the five worst regular-season records. (Or seven teams and three years, or ten teams and one year, or whatever.)

 

[FUBAR]

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

I agree with this. We're increasing variance. That's good for the underdog.

Under either set of rules, the team that scores three touchdowns and a field goal is likely to beat the team that just scores three touchdowns -- but it's not nearly as certain under Chase's proposed rules.

Well, the assumption that each team has a 50% chance of converting the 2-point attempt is not accurate. We can assume that good teams will, on average, convert more often on 2 point attempts and prevent their opponents from converting on 2 point attempts. So when a good team plays a bad team, maybe the good team has a 58% chance of converting the 2 point attempt, and the bad team a 42% chance. In that case, does this override the increased variance and make things worse for the underdog?

I wasn't assuming that each team has a 50% chance of converting.

Neither would I assume that good teams, on average, are better at two-point conversions than bad teams, any more than I'd assume that good basketball teams shoot a higher free-throw percentage than bad teams. Two-point conversions, like free throws, are somewhat specialized skills that won't necessarily correlate with other potentially more important characteristics, like yards per pass attempt.

Realistically, I'd expect the best overall NFL teams to be within a few percentage points on two-point conversions, either way, of the worst overall NFL teams.

We can test that expectation against data from the last two years. Pick the five teams with the best regular-season records in each of the last two seasons, and compare their collective 4th-and-2 conversion rate with that of the teams with the five worst regular-season records. (Or seven teams and three years, or ten teams and one year, or whatever.)

Denver had the best 4th down conversion rate last year. Not saying you're wrong, but I was slightly surprised by this.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

It would definitely make the games more exciting, but the idea of it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It would change the make up of the game, 2 FGs could potentially be just as valuable as a TD. Sure that's also technically true now, but it's much more likely if being forced to go for 2.

it would be interesting to see if FGs increase.

Let's be honest here - that right there is probably the last thing the game needs. FG attempts inside 40 yards have become so close to automatic in today's NFL that it takes a lot of suspense out of the game.

Here's a thought I had recently: How about we keep FGs at 3 points ... but make TDs worth 7 instead of 6?

This would always make a TD more valuable than two FGs, and potentially as valuable as three with a successful 2PC. Whether or not you made the 2PC mandatory (I don't hate that idea, and do think that if kept the XP should be moved back), this simple scoring change would reward aggression in the red zone and significantly shift late-game strategy without much of an effect on gameplay as a whole.

 

[Ted Mullins]

I'd think the two point conversion -- trading a sure point for a 50% chance at two -- affects things the same way increased variance does in other situations. Why wouldn't it help the weaker team?

I agree with this. We're increasing variance. That's good for the underdog.

Under either set of rules, the team that scores three touchdowns and a field goal is likely to beat the team that just scores three touchdowns -- but it's not nearly as certain under Chase's proposed rules.

Well, the assumption that each team has a 50% chance of converting the 2-point attempt is not accurate. We can assume that good teams will, on average, convert more often on 2 point attempts and prevent their opponents from converting on 2 point attempts. So when a good team plays a bad team, maybe the good team has a 58% chance of converting the 2 point attempt, and the bad team a 42% chance. In that case, does this override the increased variance and make things worse for the underdog?

This is the assumption I was working from - that better teams would convert at a higher rate (granted, not guaranteed this would be the case)

Thus there would be greater variance vs the 99.99% rate of XPs, but the added variance is also favoring the already favored team, so this is bad for the underdog - am I off on this, assuming that the better teams really did convert the 2 pt conversion at a higher rate?

I do agree that automatically assuming the good teams would be better at 2 pt conversions is a stretch, as Maurile pointed out it is really more of a specialized play.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thus there would be greater variance vs the 99.99% rate of XPs, but the added variance is also favoring the already favored team, so this is bad for the underdog - am I off on this, assuming that the better teams really did convert the 2 pt conversion at a higher rate?

If better teams make 53% of their two-point conversions while worse teams make 47%, the change should still favor the worse teams.

Using my previous example for illustration, suppose the better team scores three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team just scores three touchdowns.

Under the current scoring system, it's almost always going to be a final score of 24-21, with the better team winning. In order for the worse team to win, it's going to have to make three two-point conversions (which it will normally not even try to do), and even then, either the better team will have to miss a point after attempt, or the worse team will have to win in overtime. The worse team will win about 0.01% of the time if we are generous.

Under Chase's system, the better team will have a 53% chance of making each two-point conversion. That means it will score 21 points about 10% of the time, 23 points about 35% of the time, 25 points about 40% of the time, and 27 points about 15% of the time.

The worse team will have a 47% chance of making each two-point conversion. That means it will score 18 points about 15% of the time, 20 points about 40% of the time, 22 points about 35% of the time, and 24 points around 10% of the time.

With those probabilities, the worse team will win about 8% of the time. (It can win 24-23, 24-21, or 22-21.)

So if each team scores three touchdowns and the better team scores a field goal, the rule forcing each team to go for two helps the worse team tremendously even if the worse team converts two-point conversions at a lesser rate. You'd have to make the difference in two-point conversion rates really extreme (e.g., the better team converts 99% of the time while the worse team converts 1% of the time) in order for the worse team not to benefit from the "always go for two" rule.

Obviously, there are other possibilities besides the better team scoring three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team scores just three touchdowns. But I think that's probably decently representative of scenarios where the rule would have an impact. (Obviously it wouldn't matter if the better team scores six touchdowns and the worse team scores only one.)

 

[CalBear]

I haven't found a great data warehouse source for this, but eyeballing 2013, the Packers, Saints, Broncos, and Seahawks combined to go 0 for 7 on 2-point conversions.

The Ravens, Bills, Falcons, Texans, and Giants went 8 for 8.

I'd say if there's any advantage for better teams in making 2-point conversions, that the requirement would benefit better team (overshadowing the issue of increased variance). But I'm open to the idea that there's not an advantage for better teams.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Thus there would be greater variance vs the 99.99% rate of XPs, but the added variance is also favoring the already favored team, so this is bad for the underdog - am I off on this, assuming that the better teams really did convert the 2 pt conversion at a higher rate?

If better teams make 53% of their two-point conversions while worse teams make 47%, the change should still favor the worse teams.

Using my previous example for illustration, suppose the better team scores three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team just scores three touchdowns.

Under the current scoring system, it's almost always going to be a final score of 24-21, with the better team winning. In order for the worse team to win, it's going to have to make three two-point conversions (which it will normally not even try to do), and even then, either the better team will have to miss a point after attempt, or the worse team will have to win in overtime. The worse team will win about 0.01% of the time if we are generous.

Under Chase's system, the better team will have a 53% chance of making each two-point conversion. That means it will score 21 points about 10% of the time, 23 points about 35% of the time, 25 points about 40% of the time, and 27 points about 15% of the time.

The worse team will have a 47% chance of making each two-point conversion. That means it will score 18 points about 15% of the time, 20 points about 40% of the time, 22 points about 35% of the time, and 24 points around 10% of the time.

With those probabilities, the worse team will win about 8% of the time. (It can win 24-23, 24-21, or 22-21.)

So if each team scores three touchdowns and the better team scores a field goal, the rule forcing each team to go for two helps the worse team tremendously even if the worse team converts two-point conversions at a lesser rate. You'd have to make the difference in two-point conversion rates really extreme (e.g., the better team converts 99% of the time while the worse team converts 1% of the time) in order for the worse team not to benefit from the "always go for two" rule.

Obviously, there are other possibilities besides the better team scoring three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team scores just three touchdowns. But I think that's probably decently representative of scenarios where the rule would have an impact. (Obviously it wouldn't matter if the better team scores six touchdowns and the worse team scores only one.)

Was the team that failed to convert on any of it's attempts (or just one, when the other team got all three) really the better team that day, despite the extra field goal? These are not random factors. They are football plays. I don't really care what the historical percentages for the teams are, on that day, the winning team made more positive plays in critical situations (maybe ).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thus there would be greater variance vs the 99.99% rate of XPs, but the added variance is also favoring the already favored team, so this is bad for the underdog - am I off on this, assuming that the better teams really did convert the 2 pt conversion at a higher rate?

If better teams make 53% of their two-point conversions while worse teams make 47%, the change should still favor the worse teams.

Using my previous example for illustration, suppose the better team scores three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team just scores three touchdowns.

Under the current scoring system, it's almost always going to be a final score of 24-21, with the better team winning. In order for the worse team to win, it's going to have to make three two-point conversions (which it will normally not even try to do), and even then, either the better team will have to miss a point after attempt, or the worse team will have to win in overtime. The worse team will win about 0.01% of the time if we are generous.

Under Chase's system, the better team will have a 53% chance of making each two-point conversion. That means it will score 21 points about 10% of the time, 23 points about 35% of the time, 25 points about 40% of the time, and 27 points about 15% of the time.

The worse team will have a 47% chance of making each two-point conversion. That means it will score 18 points about 15% of the time, 20 points about 40% of the time, 22 points about 35% of the time, and 24 points around 10% of the time.

With those probabilities, the worse team will win about 8% of the time. (It can win 24-23, 24-21, or 22-21.)

So if each team scores three touchdowns and the better team scores a field goal, the rule forcing each team to go for two helps the worse team tremendously even if the worse team converts two-point conversions at a lesser rate. You'd have to make the difference in two-point conversion rates really extreme (e.g., the better team converts 99% of the time while the worse team converts 1% of the time) in order for the worse team not to benefit from the "always go for two" rule.

Obviously, there are other possibilities besides the better team scoring three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team scores just three touchdowns. But I think that's probably decently representative of scenarios where the rule would have an impact. (Obviously it wouldn't matter if the better team scores six touchdowns and the worse team scores only one.)

Was the team that failed to convert on any of it's attempts (or just one, when the other team got all three) really the better team that day, despite the extra field goal? These are not random factors. They are football plays. I don't really care what the historical percentages for the teams are, on that day, the winning team made more positive plays in critical situations (maybe ).

We defined them to be the better team in part by giving them an extra field goal and in part by giving them a higher two-point-conversion rate.

Whichever team wins, by whatever means, can be said to be the better team "on that day," but that's just question-begging. We're talking about whether upsets would be more likely; and whether an outcome is an upset or not is determined before "on that day," not after. Heading into the game, in my example, the better team was the one we stipulated as being better.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

OK, if you stipulate one team is better for the purposes of the analysis that's fine, but then the extra field goal should have nothing to do with it either. You can't say the conversions don't count in determining if a team is better if the field goal ON THAT DAY counts (which honestly seemed like the driving force in establishing the "better team" in your argument - there was no direct connection to a "favored" team). Again, actual football plays are determining the winner. It seems like it was implied somewhere along the line that this would result in teams who actually performed better losing the game anyway as a result of this, and that doesn't seem to be the case to me. If those percentages were random, yes, that might be the case, but they aren't. Do we really care about upsets? We care if the team who performed better that day won the game, right?

Would this rule change make it more likely or less likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

I didn't interpret that as whether upsets were more likely, I interpreted it to ask if the right team is more or less likely to get the W that day. And my non-quantitative instinct says that more "real football plays" (as opposed to near automatic XPs) will more accurately determine the team that performed the best that day. Say a team has 2 TDs and 2 FGs. The other team has 3 TDs. By the current rules, the 3 TD team more or less "always" wins 21-20. But under the new rules, maybe that 3 TD team goes 0fer on the conversions (18) . I am totally OK with those guys losing the game if the other team makes their conversions (20 or 22). The "better" team won (or at least the team that played better than day). And if both teams score 1 TD and 1 FG, I TOTALLY want to know who was able to convert - that's an easy win for the new rules.

And I'm not honestly sure if I understand how your example really applies to FAVORED teams anyway. I am likely just missing something there. So you showed me that a team who gets more "actual" scores is more likely to lose with the new rules (compared to the team that converts more). I guess the assumption is that favored teams are more likely to score more. But as you mention they may also be more likely to convert more. But in the example, you grant them their likely edge in actual scores but not their likely edge in conversions. Just seems like you shouldn't be able to to do that at the same time in a controlled thought experiment.

Also, I get that in the abstract, more variance yields more possibilities for "unexpected" results. But in the aggregate, there won't be a TON more variance for total scores. The more total TDs that are scored, the more those 50/50 shots are going to even out.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

OK, if you stipulate one team is better for the purposes of the analysis that's fine, but then the extra field goal should have nothing to do with it either.

I don't know what you mean by this.

In case you don't know what I meant either, I'll give my rationale for using as my example a game where the better team got an extra field goal.

The most common score in the NFL is the home team winning 24-21. It doesn't happen very often, but it happens more than any other result according to something I read a while ago. It also seems pretty intuitive because 24 and 21 are pretty common scores, the average team scores around 22 points in a given game, and a spread of three points is fairly common.

So a typical expectation is something like three touchdowns and a field goal for Team A and three touchdowns for Team B, where Team A is the better team -- i.e., the favorite.

So taking that as something like a typical game, in terms of both expectations (based on typical spreads and over-unders) and results (based on the most common final score), I thought it made sense to use it as an example. So I calculated, very roughly, how often Team A would beat Team B in each scenario if Team A scored three touchdowns and a field goal and Team B scored three touchdowns.

Would this rule change make it more likely or less likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

I didn't interpret that as whether upsets were more likely, I interpreted it to ask if the right team is more or less likely to get the W that day.

My interpretation and yours differed. I guess we can ask the OP what he meant.

Your interpretation seems to invite circular reasoning, though. The team that won can always be considered "the right team" in hindsight -- unless they benefited unduly from bad officiating, I suppose. So the rule change will not change how often the right team wins, because the right team always wins. Whoever wins was better that day.

And my non-quantitative instinct says that more "real football plays" (as opposed to near automatic XPs) will more accurately determine the team that performed the best that day.

Not if the additional five or six real plays count so heavily that they diminish the importance of the 100 or so other real plays. If you and I play a trivia contest and there are 100 questions worth one point each, the winner will be less random than if there are 105 questions with the first 100 worth 1 point each, the next four worth 10 points each, and the final question worth 100 points. In the latter version, it will essentially come down to just a single question instead of 100 questions, so although there will technically be more questions in the second version (105 to 100), there will effectively be more meaningful questions in the first version.

The overall rule is that the more importance you place on a limited number of plays, the more random the overall results will be. The effect of making all conversion attempts worth 2 points instead of 1 point is to put more importance on those few plays. You're adding plays, but those plays are weighted disproportionately heavily, so the overall results will be more random -- which is good for underdogs and bad for favorites.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Your interpretation seems to invite circular reasoning, though. The team that won can always be considered "the right team" in hindsight -- unless they benefited unduly from bad officiating, I suppose. So the rule change will not change how often the right team wins, because the right team always wins. Whoever wins was better that day.

Not really, using the same approach you laid out later, you can easily come up with a scoring system that makes the team that played more poorly win more often. If I say teams get 12 points for TDs in the 1st quarter, most would tell me I'm crazy, because a team that played poorly is more likely to win the game if they happen to do most of their damage in the 1st.

That's not the case here, the approach is consistent, if oddly weighted. And that odd weighting is not much different than the fact that if a drive from the 20 goes 79 yards it gets 0 or 3 points but if it goes 80 yards it gets 7. There are definitive goals that make some plays more important than others, that isn't new. That said, I get that extra weight on a smaller number of plays might add some randomness, so that's the part of your position I understand the best.

I also understand how you arrived at the common scores you laid out, but I still don't understand how you can arbitrarily give the favorite their "expected" extra scoring production (by way of a field goal), but NOT their expected conversion results and find it meaningful.

You could easily reverse the assumptions and draw the opposite conclusion, it would be just as valid.

So we assume the better team, the favorite, is both more likely to score TDs/FGs and more likely to convert.

So on one side, you give the better team more scores because of the expectation, but say on this day they don't happen to convert well, let's look at the effect of that. We look at that scenario and say, hey the new rules give the worse team a better chance to win (used to be no chance, now there is some chance)!

On the other side, we could say, let's give the better team more conversions, but on this day they score less than expected, let's look at that. We look at that scenario and say, hey the new rules give the BETTER team a better chance to win (used to be no chance, now there is some chance)!

See what I mean? The trouble I have is using expected results for half of the scenario, and not the other half, and then try to draw meaning out of it. THAT seems like it is begging the question. You are setting up your conclusion by making assumptions that aren't based on anything except "what we want to look at".

 

[Riversco]

Here's my question: Would this rule change make it more likely or less likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

Some teams would be really good at 2 point conversions and others would not. The group that is really good at it would intersect with the group of "better teams" but not be an identical match.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here's my question: Would this rule change make it more likely or less likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

Some teams would be really good at 2 point conversions and others would not. The group that is really good at it would intersect with the group of "better teams" but not be an identical match.

Yes. But the question is would this make it more likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Thanks, Maurile. I think you may have convinced me. But let's think of it in a different way.

Let's say that through 3 quarters, each team has scored 2 TDs. If we assume each team has a 50% chance of converting each 2 point conversion attempt, then there's a 6/16 chance the game is tied, a 5/16 chance the better team is winning, and a 5/16 chance the worse team is winning.

But let's say the better team has a 57% chance of converting, and the worse a 43% (remember, on average, the better team will be better on defense, too, and the worse team will be worse on defense). That changes the numbers so that the better team has about a 42% chance of being ahead, a 36% chance the game is tied, and a 22% chance the worse team is ahead.

So for the underdog of worse team, they have two choices:

-- enter the 4Q of a game tied; or

-- have a 42% chance of trailing, a 36% chance of being tied, or a 22% chance of being ahead

It seems to me that when the underdog plays pretty well -- and frankly, the only time the mandatory 2pt rule matters is in a close game where the underdog plays well -- this rule may hurt them. Now, perhaps if they're playing well on this day in question, they're more likely to be successful at converting and preventing 2 pt attempts. But if we assume that the worse teams are, on average, a bit worse in the 2pt area, then this is almost like another hurdle they need to clear: now only do they need to keep pace with or outmatch the better team, but they also need to beat them in this separate 2pt game.

Thoughts?

 

[BassNBrew]

Thanks, Maurile. I think you may have convinced me. But let's think of it in a different way.

Let's say that through 3 quarters, each team has scored 2 TDs. If we assume each team has a 50% chance of converting each 2 point conversion attempt, then there's a 6/16 chance the game is tied, a 5/16 chance the better team is winning, and a 5/16 chance the worse team is winning.

But let's say the better team has a 57% chance of converting, and the worse a 43% (remember, on average, the better team will be better on defense, too, and the worse team will be worse on defense). That changes the numbers so that the better team has about a 42% chance of being ahead, a 36% chance the game is tied, and a 22% chance the worse team is ahead.

So for the underdog of worse team, they have two choices:

-- enter the 4Q of a game tied; or

-- have a 42% chance of trailing, a 36% chance of being tied, or a 22% chance of being ahead

It seems to me that when the underdog plays pretty well -- and frankly, the only time the mandatory 2pt rule matters is in a close game where the underdog plays well -- this rule may hurt them. Now, perhaps if they're playing well on this day in question, they're more likely to be successful at converting and preventing 2 pt attempts. But if we assume that the worse teams are, on average, a bit worse in the 2pt area, then this is almost like another hurdle they need to clear: now only do they need to keep pace with or outmatch the better team, but they also need to beat them in this separate 2pt game.

Thoughts?

This is the correct intrepretation IMO. A 4 TD to 4 TD game is currently an overtime game. Would the better team prefer an OT scenario or an 8 play 2 pt conversion game to determine the winner.

 

[Ted Mullins]

Chase, your summary at the end is exactly my train of thought - assuming the better team is also better at 2 pt conversions, then the underdog must now match both the TDs and the 2 pt conversions. We have added more variance compared to the ~100% XPs, but is the increased variance favorable over the long run for the underdog if the added variance will tend to favor the better team?

Again, I am assuming the better team is better at 2 pt conversions as well, which likely isn't always the case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Your interpretation seems to invite circular reasoning, though. The team that won can always be considered "the right team" in hindsight -- unless they benefited unduly from bad officiating, I suppose. So the rule change will not change how often the right team wins, because the right team always wins. Whoever wins was better that day.

Not really, using the same approach you laid out later, you can easily come up with a scoring system that makes the team that played more poorly win more often. If I say teams get 12 points for TDs in the 1st quarter, most would tell me I'm crazy, because a team that played poorly is more likely to win the game if they happen to do most of their damage in the 1st.

"If you want to win, you have to play well in the first quarter. That's what the good teams do."

Under the current rules, there is disproportionately high emphasis on third-down conversions. Teams that play above their heads on third downs will win more games because of it (to a larger extent than they would by playing above their heads on second downs). That doesn't lead people -- except for sharp sports betters -- to think "this team has been on the positive side of random variance, so their actual W-L record is better than the team really is." No, it leads to the average fan saying, "The mark of a good team is converting on third down."

I suspect the same thing would happen in your example. If first-quarter scoring were given disproportionately high emphasis, the average fan would say that the mark of a good team is winning "the battle of the first quarter." If a team wins by doing so, it was the better team that day.

I still don't understand how you can arbitrarily give the favorite their "expected" extra scoring production (by way of a field goal), but NOT their expected conversion results and find it meaningful.

I gave them their expected conversion results. They converted 53% of the time (as opposed to 47% of the time for the underdog). That's why they came out with the win 92% of the time.

So we assume the better team, the favorite, is both more likely to score TDs/FGs and more likely to convert.

So on one side, you give the better team more scores because of the expectation, but say on this day they don't happen to convert well, let's look at the effect of that. We look at that scenario and say, hey the new rules give the worse team a better chance to win (used to be no chance, now there is some chance)!

Exactly. We're trying to understand the effect of the new rules. One way of doing so is to pick a typical scenario, and see how the new rules affect things within that scenario. My typical scenario was the favorite outscoring the underdog by three points before taking conversions into account. In that scenario, mandatory two-point conversions give the underdog a better chance of winning than one-point conversions.

On the other side, we could say, let's give the better team more conversions, but on this day they score less than expected, let's look at that. We look at that scenario and say, hey the new rules give the BETTER team a better chance to win (used to be no chance, now there is some chance)!

Quite so. In either case, by stipulation, we're giving the better team a 53% conversion rate and the worse team a 47% conversion rate. Obviously, there are all kinds of scenarios that could play out. On any particular day, the better team could score three touchdowns and a field goal while the worse team scores just three touchdowns, or the worse team could score three touchdowns and a field goal while the better team scores just three touchdowns. Both are possible -- but which one will happen more? Obviously (I hope), the first one will happen more -- which is why the better team is the better team. So on average -- i.e., more often than not -- when there is a three-point difference before taking conversions into account, mandatory two-point conversions will help the underdog and hurt the favorite.

We can show, I think quite convincingly, that whenever a game is non-tied in terms of touchdowns and field goals, the team that is trailing before taking conversions into account benefits from the mandatory two-point conversion rule. Since the better team will be ahead more than it will be behind (which is what makes it the better team), the two-point conversion rule will result in more upsets.

Ties are another story, and Chase is right to bring them up. I think BassNBrew nailed that scenario: "A 4 TD to 4 TD game is currently an overtime game. Would the better team prefer an OT scenario or an 8 play 2 pt conversion game to determine the winner?"

I think that's a much closer call that may be pretty sensitive to just how much better the better team is in general, and just how much better it is (if at all) specifically at two-point conversions. Overall, it may be a wash or close to it, so I suspect the non-tie scenarios will outweigh the tie scenarios.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Good discussion, MT. The other side of the coin would be losses that turn to wins for the better team; i.e., when the better team scores 3 TDs and the worse team scores 3 TDs and a FG, now the better team has a chance to win.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good discussion, MT. The other side of the coin would be losses that turn to wins for the better team; i.e., when the better team scores 3 TDs and the worse team scores 3 TDs and a FG, now the better team has a chance to win.

Yes I mentioned that in my last post. That will happen sometimes, but it will happen less often than vice-versa by definition of what "better team" means.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Good discussion, MT. The other side of the coin would be losses that turn to wins for the better team; i.e., when the better team scores 3 TDs and the worse team scores 3 TDs and a FG, now the better team has a chance to win.

Yes I mentioned that in my last post. That will happen sometimes, but it will happen less often than vice-versa by definition of what "better team" means.

So would you say you feel pretty comfortable that this rule change would on average, both increase the role of randomness in a game and increase the likelihood that the weaker team would win? Do you have any thoughts on how to test it?

I suppose everyone can have their own answer as to whether we want more or less randomness/upsets. I think that's an interesting aspect to this potential rule change.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Good discussion, MT. The other side of the coin would be losses that turn to wins for the better team; i.e., when the better team scores 3 TDs and the worse team scores 3 TDs and a FG, now the better team has a chance to win.

Yes I mentioned that in my last post. That will happen sometimes, but it will happen less often than vice-versa by definition of what "better team" means.

So would you say you feel pretty comfortable that this rule change would on average, both increase the role of randomness in a game and increase the likelihood that the weaker team would win? Do you have any thoughts on how to test it?I suppose everyone can have their own answer as to whether we want more or less randomness/upsets. I think that's an interesting aspect to this potential rule change.

I would like the rule because I think it would make games more exciting. One-point conversions are boring. Two-point conversions are fun.

I think the biggest effect, aside from making games more exciting, would be to help teams like the Panthers -- teams that ought to be better at two-point conversions (considering both offense and defense) than they are at the rest of the game.

Another effect, I think, would be to result in more upsets. (Incidentally, this is why I think underdogs should go for two a lot more often than they do even under the current rules.)

 

[CalBear]

I like the idea of not banning 1-point conversions, but requiring the guy who scored to kick them.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Good discussion, MT. The other side of the coin would be losses that turn to wins for the better team; i.e., when the better team scores 3 TDs and the worse team scores 3 TDs and a FG, now the better team has a chance to win.

Yes I mentioned that in my last post. That will happen sometimes, but it will happen less often than vice-versa by definition of what "better team" means.

So would you say you feel pretty comfortable that this rule change would on average, both increase the role of randomness in a game and increase the likelihood that the weaker team would win? Do you have any thoughts on how to test it?

I suppose everyone can have their own answer as to whether we want more or less randomness/upsets. I think that's an interesting aspect to this potential rule change.

The NFL is random enough as it is without going full-on NHL.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I finally made the connection I was missing in your example, and it was fairly obvious. I was just blanking on the percentages for conversion already being considered in the win percentages. You said it like three times, and I spaced.

What I still wonder about is the frequency of all possible scenarios. What percentage of possible scoring outcomes fit into something similar to your example (close, but favoring the favorite). How much is the pro-favorite factor in those scenarios evened out by the less likely (but still common) converse scenarios (like the one I mentioned, and the ties, etc)?

And of course, I also still wonder whether I care if the underdog has a new advantage (however slight) if the advantageous scenarios are only realized when they convert really well and the other team doesn't.

In the end, I still feel that if there is an advantage to the underdog, it is "in the weeds" - way less than the 8% for one ideal scenario. Compared to the advantages of replacing non-plays (essentially) with real plays, I don't think I do, even if I were 100% convinced the net effect is a small bump for the underdog.

One last thought. The traditionalists will never let this fly, but if you wanted to minimize additional variance (and the additional "artificial" weight of a small number of plays), you could limit your conversions to one point. So TDs are either 6 or 7 pts., not 6 or 8. That might also slightly increase the value of kickers (FGs now worth a tad more relative to TDs), since we are taking XPs away from them. We dumb Americans do still call it "foot"ball after all, and we seem to be getting further and further away from that as time goes on.

 

[Riversco]

Here's my question: Would this rule change make it more likely or less likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

Some teams would be really good at 2 point conversions and others would not. The group that is really good at it would intersect with the group of "better teams" but not be an identical match.

Yes. But the question is would this make it more likely that the better team, on average, would win each game?

The better team always wins every game.

Let's say team A has a better offense, defense, and special teams than team B. In a game between them, team A commits 5 turnovers and loses, while team B commits 0. Did the better team win? I guess it depends on how you define a "better team". If its just about offense, defense, and special teams, and not at all about protecting the football, then you will say the better team lost.

If team A has a great offense, defense and special teams, but is terrible at 2 point conversions, while team B has just average offense, defense, and special teams, but is great at 2 point conversions, and team B beat team A on the strength of their 2 point conversion game, I have no problem saying the better team won.

 

[Riversco]

I think the concern is that if we made this change, that success at 2 point conversion attempts would turn out to be random. And then if 2 point conversion success started deciding outcomes often, the entire league would feel random.

But turnovers are mostly random, and they decide the outcome of a lot of games. The team with fewer turnovers is usually the winner. People who are concerned about the randomness of 2 point conversion success might want to complain about turnovers as well. If we eliminated turnovers, I'm sure the league would be much more predictable.