Is it better to receive or defer with the new OT rules (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

Even with the new overtime rules, with the first team getting a win on a TD, it seemed obvious to me that it is always strategically correct to receive. Even in the Chief's situation tonight where they are turnover prone, hadn't moved the ball much, and Pitt offense wasn't moving ball either. However, I did the win probability calculator and, assuming I entered the date correctly, it looks like win% is only 47.

This poll stems from this discussion:

Never understand with the new rules why you want the ball first especially when your defense has been so good all night and the other team's offense was so bad.

you have to be kidding. I'm assuming you meant to say "I don't understand the new rules..."

You realize that if you're the first team with the ball and you score a TD, it's over... right?

Yes, and when the other team scores 1 TD in 14 possessions, I have faith they won't score one more TD in an additional one. I'd also have faith in my defense to at the very least hold them to a FG. And when the other team puts up a total of 56 yards in the 4th quarter, I'd have faith you might be able to force a 3 and out and win the field possession battle. And if they hit a FG, then it is like college, you'd know at the very least what you'd need to do.

Your sentence wasn't speaking only about this independent decision - it insinuated teams in OT should always defer (and "especially" do so when the other team's offense has been bad). Regardless, I still believe you're statistically wrong even in the independent Chief's situation tonight. I'll try to find the website that has win percentages at game moments.

Well I think you'd have to have the Saints/Pats/Packers offense to take the ball. I think in this situation it is a no-brainer to defer and in other situations, it is probably at best 50-50. As I mentioned, in 12 OT games, only 1 was ended on the first possession in OT with a TD and only one TD has been scored in all 12 games. So that means 10 games were decided by a FG and 1 was tied. And again, I would liken it to college football, knowing the other team already has a FG you know what you have to do and get an additional down in 4th down to get a first down.

Well, the 12 game sample size is meaningless. However, I checked the win-calculator http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php and you may be right in that it is closer to 50/50 than I thought... in fact, the calculator shows 47% chance of winning with probably a similar percentage for losing (when you factor ties). Interesting.

 

[rockaction]

I went with game-dependent simply because if the opposition has an atrocious offense and you have an utterly dominant D, you might want to at least consider it.

 

[Raider Nation]

Ask Marty Mornhinweg how he feels about deferring.

Old rules... new rules... doesn't matter. Always take the rock.

 

[sporthenry]

Starting with the ball on your own 20 yard line (which is realistic with new kick off rules) gives you a 15% chance of scoring a TD.

The only reason I voted game dependent because there are offenses who if they were on my sidelines I'd give it to them and if they were on the opposing sideline I'd keep it out of their hands. But apart from Brees, Manning, Brady and Rodgers, I'd feel pretty safe giving it to just about any other QB.

But there is a certain stigma associated with deferring especially in overtime so I think it will be some time til you see this decision reversed. Additionally, one thing that will probably continue to make receiving popular is that many of the more revolutionary coaches like Bellichick or Payton have great QBs. But I wouldn't surprised to see a Harbaugh or Carrol type start championing this theory.

 

[CalBear]

I haven't run the numbers, but I'm pretty certain that kicking is the right thing to do with the new rules. There are three scenarios:

1) Your opponent fails to score.

2) Your opponent gets a FG.

3) Your opponent gets a TD (you lose).

Then you have sub-scenarios:

1a) You score (you win)

1b) You don't score (push)

2a) You score a TD (you win)

2b) You score a FG (push)

2c) You don't score (you lose)

So the losing scenarios are your opponent scoring a TD on the first possession, or your opponent scoring a FG and you failing to score on the ensuing possession (with the entire drive being four-down territory). The winning scenarios are the opponent not scoring, and you scoring (as happened tonight), or the opponent scoring a FG and you scoring a TD. I'm pretty sure the latter probabilities are higher than the former ones.

 

[Run It Up]

The only exception I can think of for a situation like this is maybe one in a hundred times you choose to defer and only if you are the chicago bears.

 

[sporthenry]

The only exception I can think of for a situation like this is maybe one in a hundred times you choose to defer and only if you are the chicago bears.

Stats don't back this up at all. It is about 50-50 either way so one exception in a hundred makes no sense.

 

[Run It Up]

The only exception I can think of for a situation like this is maybe one in a hundred times you choose to defer and only if you are the chicago bears.

Stats don't back this up at all. It is about 50-50 either way so one exception in a hundred makes no sense.

Makes sense to me, just because the team to receive first doesn't always win, or as you suggest its close to 50/50 you still inherently have a better shot at winning.I think the one exception is the 2012 Bears who have a middle of the road offense capable of getting into field goal range reliable, and capable of stopping even the toughest offenses.

 

[Alkahsu]

You always receive, if you don't then you might not even get the ball. I don't care how good your D is, you take the ball.

 

[renesauz]

Take the ball. Would be differant if you got one chance on offense regardless of what the other team does. BUT...score a TD on your opening drive and it's over.

That said...statistically I doubt it matters much. Probably no more than a 3 or 4% advantage if that.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

Someone else said this too. Even if true how many NFL coaches would actually have the guts to do it? BB might.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

Someone else said this too. Even if true how many NFL coaches would actually have the guts to do it? BB might.

Agreed. But then again, NFL coaches actually reject the higher percentage outcome fairly often just because the conventional wisdom is actually wrong.

 

[FDC]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

How so?

 

[rick6668]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

I keep hoping this will happen, but it hasn't yet.

Onside kick is the way to go. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2011/01/so_crazy_it_just_might_work.html

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I haven't run the numbers, but I'm pretty certain that kicking is the right thing to do with the new rules. There are three scenarios:

1) Your opponent fails to score.

2) Your opponent gets a FG.

3) Your opponent gets a TD (you lose).

Then you have sub-scenarios:

1a) You score (you win)

1b) You don't score (push)

2a) You score a TD (you win)

2b) You score a FG (push)

2c) You don't score (you lose)

Except that in your sub-scenarios (1b) and (2b), you don't "push", because at that point your opponent has the ball back, in what is now a "sudden-death" scenario. Which, at that point, makes them a significant statistical favorite to win the game. Especially in the case of (1b), where the ball may very well not be at their own 20, but at their 40, or your 40.

I just can't imagine a set of reasonable assumptions in which the statistics will say that by kicking away you can, on average, make up the 15-20% chance you have of losing without ever seeing the ball.

 

[mbuehner]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

 

[BobbyLayne]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

No, but there is a decided statistical disadvantage to being on defense for the third possession.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

No, but there is a decided statistical disadvantage to being on defense for the third possession.

Yes, the "2 out of 3" is common enough where it goes to first with ball again.

 

[daveR]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

 

[Zow]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

I keep hoping this will happen, but it hasn't yet.

Onside kick is the way to go. http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2011/01/so_crazy_it_just_might_work.html

Wow, very interesting.

 

[RUSF18]

From the linked Slate article, I think this is an even more interesting scenario:

Another intriguing possibility would be an onside kick following a first-possession field goal. I think this would be even more surprising than an onside attempt on the opening kickoff—everyone on the opposing sideline will be deep in thought about what strategy they should use down by three points in overtime, a situation no one has ever seen. In this case, a successful recovery would end the game immediately. And even if the receiving team recovers, the kicking team can still give up a field goal and get the ball back; at that point, the game reverts to old-fashioned sudden-death overtime, where you get the ball and have the advantage.

 

[mbuehner]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

 

[belljr]

Ask Marty Mornhinweg how he feels about deferring.Old rules... new rules... doesn't matter. Always take the rock.

WE'LL TAKE THE WIND!!!

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Receive...no question.

Disagree. If the other teams backup qb is in, and weather conditions are bad, I can easily see kicking here.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

You always receive, if you don't then you might not even get the ball. I don't care how good your D is, you take the ball.

This ignores the other teams qb/conditions. I think a case can be made that Pitt or kc would have been better off deferring last night.

 

[Pipes]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Onside kick. With the new rules, I bet an onside kick actually favors the kicking team to win.

Really not a bad option either. Surprise onside % are better than you'd think. Especially if the adrenaline of it causes the returners to overlook the onside possibility. Would take some big balls.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

In a monsoon or rainy conditions I bet you get it back better than the 30. A lot tougher to punt/longsnap in the rain.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team thait can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

Agree. If ben was in no way should deferring be on the table.

 

[Zow]

I haven't run the numbers, but I'm pretty certain that kicking is the right thing to do with the new rules. There are three scenarios:1) Your opponent fails to score.2) Your opponent gets a FG.3) Your opponent gets a TD (you lose).Then you have sub-scenarios:1a) You score (you win)1b) You don't score (push)2a) You score a TD (you win)2b) You score a FG (push)2c) You don't score (you lose)So the losing scenarios are your opponent scoring a TD on the first possession, or your opponent scoring a FG and you failing to score on the ensuing possession (with the entire drive being four-down territory). The winning scenarios are the opponent not scoring, and you scoring (as happened tonight), or the opponent scoring a FG and you scoring a TD. I'm pretty sure the latter probabilities are higher than the former ones.

I don't think this is correct. I do agree that if you hold the other team initially you have a very high percent chance of winning - but I'd bet that percentage is essentially offset by the %15 chance the opponent had to score a TD and win the game. What it really seems to be dependent for a few percentage point changes is field position - in which I could now see an argument for a game like last night to kick first if you believe you have a better chance of stopping them before they reach their own 4-0 yard line versus your chance of scoring a TD.

 

[mbuehner]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

If you take the kickoff you should get the ball between the 20 and the 30. You really want to kick the ball away for plus or minus 5 yards?

 

[mbuehner]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

In a monsoon or rainy conditions I bet you get it back better than the 30. A lot tougher to punt/longsnap in the rain.

Also a lot tougher to kick a field goal.

 

[Pipes]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

If you take the kickoff you should get the ball between the 20 and the 30. You really want to kick the ball away for plus or minus 5 yards?

It's not just that but you get to be the 1st team to win with a FG which is worth 30 yards or more in itself. Again I not advocating kicking away all the time and certainly wouldnt against even an average offense but in a defensive struggle facing a backup QB it warrants seriuos consideration.

 

[mbuehner]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

If you take the kickoff you should get the ball between the 20 and the 30. You really want to kick the ball away for plus or minus 5 yards?

It's not just that but you get to be the 1st team to win with a FG which is worth 30 yards or more in itself. Again I not advocating kicking away all the time and certainly wouldnt against even an average offense but in a defensive struggle facing a backup QB it warrants seriuos consideration.

How is that worth any yards at all? You're just swapping when the other team gets their chance to win the game. Assuming you have a strong advantage when your defense is on the field, giving them the ball after you kick your field goal is no different then giving them the ball first. You have to make a stop either way, which you should do. On the other hand if you give them the ball first you risk them scoring a touchdown on a fluke, or a great run back, or a PI penalty, all of which are fairly common, and you will never have put your offense on the field at all (and put those risks on the other team).

 

[Buffaloes]

You always receive, if you don't then you might not even get the ball. I don't care how good your D is, you take the ball.

As last year's Denver/Pitt game showed, all it takes is 1 play.

 

[renesauz]

Receive...no question.

Disagree. If the other teams backup qb is in, and weather conditions are bad, I can easily see kicking here.

I think a strong argument could be made that in some specific and relatively limited cases, it might be slightly better to go ahead and kick off.From that perspective, the poll becomes flawed...because it asks for near certainty in one direction or for complete dependance on game situation.Of the two choices "always kick" or "game dependant", I chose always kick because I think most of the time it's a no-brainer to kick, and those few times you might change your mind based on situation are both limited and not exactly clear.For those who talk of having a dominant defense...if you are tied in OT...generally this is going to mean your own offense has also been largely ineffective or turnover prone. You're in OT for a reason.

 

[Pipes]

If you have a dominating defense, assumedely, they are going to be equally as dominating on the first possession of overtime as the second, so I don't see the advantage of trotting them out first.

You put your offense in field goal range right away. Field Position.

Are you assuming a turn over? If you have a dominating defense, you should win the game through field position the majority of the time regardless. However if you give the ball away to start you open yourself to an outlier- one missed tackle or PI penalty and you're at a very bad, probably fatal, disadvantage.

True but if its a 3 and out you should get the ball around the 30 yard line. All you need then is 40 yards and you're in FG range to win the game. While I don't advocate kicking every time it's a HUGE advantage to be the first team that can win with a FG. I can see kicking in certain situations such as having a great defense, great kicker, or if the other teams backup QB is in. The Chiefs defense isn't great so I'm not second guessing however if there ever was an instance to strongly consider kicking the ball away last night was it.

If you take the kickoff you should get the ball between the 20 and the 30. You really want to kick the ball away for plus or minus 5 yards?

It's not just that but you get to be the 1st team to win with a FG which is worth 30 yards or more in itself. Again I not advocating kicking away all the time and certainly wouldnt against even an average offense but in a defensive struggle facing a backup QB it warrants seriuos consideration.

How is that worth any yards at all? You're just swapping when the other team gets their chance to win the game. Assuming you have a strong advantage when your defense is on the field, giving them the ball after you kick your field goal is no different then giving them the ball first. You have to make a stop either way, which you should do. On the other hand if you give them the ball first you risk them scoring a touchdown on a fluke, or a great run back, or a PI penalty, all of which are fairly common, and you will never have put your offense on the field at all (and put those risks on the other team).

But under the 2nd scenario you're giving their offense an extra down. If they have the ball 1st they punt on 4th down if you kick a FG 1st they go for it on 4th down. Plus if you have a great defense and their offense is struggling I'd be willing to bet you'd get the ball in much better field position than the 30. The yardage difference should be alot better than the 5 to 10 yards than you suggest.I'd say 95% of the time it would be incredibly stupid to defer instead of taking the ball. However there are times, as seldom as they may be, where it makes sense to defer.

 

[daveR]

It's intriguing how this topic has shown how the human mind is divided.

One side says, "OMG! You have to take the ball! What if...?" The other side says, "Forget WHAT IF, the majority of the time X will happen".

I wonder what psychiatrists think about this.

 

[mbuehner]

But under the 2nd scenario you're giving their offense an extra down. If they have the ball 1st they punt on 4th down if you kick a FG 1st they go for it on 4th down.

But if you stop them anywhere on the field, you win(which is an insta-win as well, in its own way), you dont need to field a punt. I think WAY too much value is being placed on the insta-win, aside from scoring the initial touchdown its value is trivial in my opinion. If you score first you should win the game, period. Whether your defense sees the field initially or secondly isn't really important. What is important is minimizing insta-losses, ie, the other team scoring a touchdown either on ST or on offense before you ever put your offense on the field. Put the pressure on the other defense not to make a fatal mistake.

 

[daveR]

Another question raised by this discussion is where the defending team normally starts after holding the opponent to a thee-and-out from the 20.

I'd be interested in knowing the stats on this if anyone has them.

 

[flc735]

the mistake here is people brushing off the chance that their opponent scores a td first. it's easy to say "i trust my defense to stop them" and rationalize the odds of that happening down to zero. if you are going to say that, why not say "i trust my offense to score a td" and be done with it all?

it is still better to receive.

as far as 4 downs for the second team go:

it's better to be ahead than to have an extra down and trying to catch up. lets say team A kicks their FG. which team would you rather be? i'd choose team A+3 over team B + an extra down.

also, if team A does not score, team B is not going to use all 4 downs on their drive.

 

[Sarnoff]

Game dependent, but leaning towards "always defer and onside kick".

Also, I'd always defer the opening kickoff in favor of receiving to start the second half.

 

[Pipes]

But under the 2nd scenario you're giving their offense an extra down. If they have the ball 1st they punt on 4th down if you kick a FG 1st they go for it on 4th down.

But if you stop them anywhere on the field, you win(which is an insta-win as well, in its own way), you dont need to field a punt. I think WAY too much value is being placed on the insta-win, aside from scoring the initial touchdown its value is trivial in my opinion. If you score first you should win the game, period. Whether your defense sees the field initially or secondly isn't really important. What is important is minimizing insta-losses, ie, the other team scoring a touchdown either on ST or on offense before you ever put your offense on the field. Put the pressure on the other defense not to make a fatal mistake.

But if it's a defensive struggle, the other team's backup is and they've only scored on 3 of 14 possessions (1 TD)why are you so concerned about them scoring a TD first? To me in games like that it's all about field position so it makes sense to consider deferring. I know those kind of games are rare in today's NFL but they happen from time to time.

 

[sporthenry]

the mistake here is people brushing off the chance that their opponent scores a td first. it's easy to say "i trust my defense to stop them" and rationalize the odds of that happening down to zero. if you are going to say that, why not say "i trust my offense to score a td" and be done with it all?it is still better to receive.as far as 4 downs for the second team go:it's better to be ahead than to have an extra down and trying to catch up. lets say team A kicks their FG. which team would you rather be? i'd choose team A+3 over team B + an extra down. also, if team A does not score, team B is not going to use all 4 downs on their drive.

The chance of them scoring a TD on a drive that starts at their own 20 is 15%. I'm not brushing it off, I'm just going with the other 85% of the time. As far as the 4 down scenario, your comparison is lacking. You have an 8% chance of kicking a FG on a drive starting at your own 20. So of course I'd like to be up 3 in OT, but those chances are rather slim and the chance to get a first down with 4 downs rather than 3 downs will be greater than 8% (although can't find the stats exactly). This is still simplified and it'll take an extreme statistical analysis with more information based on drive statistics but it isn't as simple as people make and I'd say the statistics are very close to 50-50.

 

[CalBear]

You always receive, if you don't then you might not even get the ball. I don't care how good your D is, you take the ball.

As last year's Denver/Pitt game showed, all it takes is 1 play.

As this year's KC/Pitt game showed, all it takes is 1 play.I don't have access to enough statistical data to really provide the analysis. The calculation is this combination of probabilities:

A1) Probability of scoring TD on opening drive

A2) Probability of scoring FG on opening drive and stopping opponent on 4 downs

A3) Probability of winning when game is tied after each team's first drive, with possession of the ball

vs.

B1) Probability of holding opponent to FG and scoring a TD

B2) Probability of holding opponent to no score and scoring a FG or TD (last night's scenario)

B3) Probability of winning when game is tied after each team's first drive, without possession of the ball

A1 is larger than B1, A3 is larger than B3, and B2 is larger than A2. My intuition is that the difference between B2 and A2 is larger than the combination of the differences between A1/B1 and A3/B3, but without the numbers it's just speculation.

I'll just note that the knee-jerk "always receive" reaction is like Karl Rove's reactions on election night. There is a correct answer here: it might be that kicking is slightly better, it might be that receiving is slightly better, it might be close enough that it's a judgement call based on secondary factors. But it's clear that there's not a big advantage to be had from receiving; even with the old rules the receiving team won only a hair over 50% of the games.

 

[sporthenry]

You always receive, if you don't then you might not even get the ball. I don't care how good your D is, you take the ball.

As last year's Denver/Pitt game showed, all it takes is 1 play.

As this year's KC/Pitt game showed, all it takes is 1 play.I don't have access to enough statistical data to really provide the analysis. The calculation is this combination of probabilities:

A1) Probability of scoring TD on opening drive

A2) Probability of scoring FG on opening drive and stopping opponent on 4 downs

A3) Probability of winning when game is tied after each team's first drive, with possession of the ball

vs.

B1) Probability of holding opponent to FG and scoring a TD

B2) Probability of holding opponent to no score and scoring a FG or TD (last night's scenario)

B3) Probability of winning when game is tied after each team's first drive, without possession of the ball

A1 is larger than B1, A3 is larger than B3, and B2 is larger than A2. My intuition is that the difference between B2 and A2 is larger than the combination of the differences between A1/B1 and A3/B3, but without the numbers it's just speculation.

I'll just note that the knee-jerk "always receive" reaction is like Karl Rove's reactions on election night. There is a correct answer here: it might be that kicking is slightly better, it might be that receiving is slightly better, it might be close enough that it's a judgement call based on secondary factors. But it's clear that there's not a big advantage to be had from receiving; even with the old rules the receiving team won only a hair over 50% of the games.

I will agree that it is much closer to 50% and one is probably 1-3% favorite but the receiving team in the old form won 60% of the time hence why they fixed it.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Let's not forget the obvious, that being if it's "close" a coach is not likely to overturn years of tradition. You are really going to have to prove it to get them to go against the grain.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

From the linked Slate article, I think this is an even more interesting scenario:

Another intriguing possibility would be an onside kick following a first-possession field goal. I think this would be even more surprising than an onside attempt on the opening kickoff—everyone on the opposing sideline will be deep in thought about what strategy they should use down by three points in overtime, a situation no one has ever seen. In this case, a successful recovery would end the game immediately. And even if the receiving team recovers, the kicking team can still give up a field goal and get the ball back; at that point, the game reverts to old-fashioned sudden-death overtime, where you get the ball and have the advantage.

Completely disagree. If you already have only a fbg, last thing you want there is to give em the ball one 1st own away from fbg range.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Game dependent, but leaning towards "always defer and onside kick".Also, I'd always defer the opening kickoff in favor of receiving to start the second half.

That coaches don't do this baffles me. Defer the kick that is.