Chaka
Footballguy
If you want to avoid losing because of a coin flip, don't put yourself into a situation where you can lose because of a coin flip.

Talk about a fallacy.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to avoid losing because of a coin flip, don't put yourself into a situation where you can lose because of a coin flip.
Get back to me when that happens.Past history isn't a guarantee of future performance though.
Maybe the next 10 of 11 OT coin toss winners will lose the game.
You're not proving that the coin toss wins the game. You're only proving that in 10 of the last 11 playoff OT games, the team that won the coin toss subsequently played better football than the team that lost it.
That's it. It's a clear fallacy. They still need to go out and execute. And if the team playing defense executes better, they can win.
Thank you for the numbers lesson. Here's another one 11>21 out of the last 2 playoff OT coin toss winners won the game.
So it's 50/50. See how small sample sizes can skew the results..
It's irrelevant if it happens, because it proves nothing, and sets zero expectations for future teams.Get back to me when that happens.
His lesson made more sense than yours.Thank you for the numbers lesson. Here's another one 11>2
How many of those teams were the Vegas favorite?10 of the last 11 playoff OT coin toss winners won the game. Seven times on the opening drive.
It's not a fallacy, it's a clear advantage.
He don't fear no stinkin' sudden death. The whole rationale being it's not fair because the Bills didn't get a chance in OT... So what the Bills didn't get another chance in OT? Don't effing allow the Chiefs to go 43 yards in 10 seconds!“To be quite honest with you, I’m a sudden death advocate. I’m a traditionalist,” Tomlin, who is a member of the league’s Competition Committee, said this week. “I don’t fear sudden death and I never have, but obviously I lost that battle a decade ago. But my position remains unchanged. I am one of the few sudden death advocates I would imagine.”
“I just think 60 minutes everybody has had a fair opportunity to win the game,” Tomlin added. “When you’re talking about changes as it pertains to competitive fairness, I speak to the first 60 minutes that we all had. So, win the game. I don’t fear sudden death.”
I think that is the perfect solution. Vegas favorite wins all ties. If you really want your team to win, bet enough where they became the favorite.How many of those teams were the Vegas favorite?
Amen.The whole "fair" argument is bonkers. Football, like life, isn't fair. If you want to win the game, win it in regulation. Or as it's already been said, whatever squad you have out on the field in OT goes out and does its job; if offense go and score a TD. If defense, stop the opponent or hold them to a FG. Changing the rule in this manner is silly and it potentially lengthens the game.
I love Mike Tomlin's replay to this
He don't fear no stinkin' sudden death. So what the Bills didn't get another chance in OT? Don't effing allow the Chiefs to go 43 yards in 10 seconds!
I think there is something to be said in the fact that the new rules and the way the game is officiated is a lot different then the times Tomlin is speaking of.....the slant towards the offense and drives being so easily extended is different now then when it used to be....Amen.
what’s truly bizarre is that they’re saying they made the rules change in response to coaches like Tomlin advocating for a return to sudden death.
Uh, what?! NFL done lost they minds
You might be right.I think there is something to be said in the fact that the new rules and the way the game is officiated is a lot different then the times Tomlin is speaking of.....the slant towards the offense and drives being so easily extended is different now then when it used to be....
Wait till both teams score TDs, then the team that wins the coin toss scores a FG to win the game.That's my problem with it. This still sets up a team missing the playoffs because they never got O.T. possession in a regular season loss.
The whole "fair" argument is bonkers. Football, like life, isn't fair. If you want to win the game, win it in regulation. Or as it's already been said, whatever squad you have out on the field in OT goes out and does its job; if offense go and score a TD. If defense, stop the opponent or hold them to a FG. Changing the rule in this manner is silly and it artifically lengthens the game (so much for all that player safety stuff).
I love Mike Tomlin's replay to this
“To be quite honest with you, I’m a sudden death advocate. I’m a traditionalist,” Tomlin, who is a member of the league’s Competition Committee, said this week. “I don’t fear sudden death and I never have, but obviously I lost that battle a decade ago. But my position remains unchanged. I am one of the few sudden death advocates I would imagine.”
“I just think 60 minutes everybody has had a fair opportunity to win the game,” Tomlin added. “When you’re talking about changes as it pertains to competitive fairness, I speak to the first 60 minutes that we all had. So, win the game. I don’t fear sudden death.”
He don't fear no stinkin' sudden death. The whole rationale being it's not fair because the Bills didn't get a chance in OT... So what the Bills didn't get another chance in OT?
There's a clear advantage to winning the coin toss here too. I want to go second.10 of the last 11 playoff OT coin toss winners won the game. Seven times on the opening drive.
It's not a fallacy, it's a clear advantage.
i believe he was saying that Sudden Death is not arbitrary. Complaining that one team didn't get the ball in OT is irrelevant because you had the entirety of regulation to possess the ball and win the game. That is not arbitrary. There is no need to force an equal number of possessions. Play sudden death and first team to score wins. Done.Then why even bother playing sudden death? Why not just flip a coin and the winner wins the game? Or why not count the number of brown haired people in the stands and if it's over 40,000 then the home team wins?
If his point is essentially "fairness is only necessary in regulation, anything after that can just be arbitrary" then why play more football at all and risk people getting hurt? Just play rock paper scissors, right?
Walt…so you’re saying…there’s more to it than simply flipping a coin?!There's a clear advantage to winning the coin toss here too. I want to go second.
You have to consider punting on fourth down if you're outside field goal range. If you score, i will always use all 4 downs.
If you don't score, I know i can win with a field goal.
If you score 3, i can win with any touchdown or tie with a field goal.
If you score a touchdown and miss your extra point, i can win with a td and xp.
If you score 7, and neither defense can stop each other like that kc buffalo game, i can go for two.
If you score and go for two, you risk giving me the chance to win with 7. You can never surprise me by going for two and making it - i always get a chance to respond.
It's like being the dealer in blackjack. Massive advantage for the team that goes second.
They should give the overtime loser a participation trophy. That way nobody goes home with hurt feels after the game.i believe he was saying that Sudden Death is not arbitrary. Complaining that one team didn't get the ball in OT is irrelevant because you had the entirety of regulation to possess the ball and win the game. That is not arbitrary. There is no need to force an equal number of possessions. Play sudden death and first team to score wins. Done.
Whoever wins the coin toss always has the option to go second. I believe only two times in NFL history has a team decided to 'go second under the current scheme (well two times that I can remember at any rate). There is a reason for that.There's a clear advantage to winning the coin toss here too. I want to go second.
You have to consider punting on fourth down if you're outside field goal range. If you score, i will always use all 4 downs.
If you don't score, I know i can win with a field goal.
If you score 3, i can win with any touchdown or tie with a field goal.
If you score a touchdown and miss your extra point, i can win with a td and xp.
If you score 7, and neither defense can stop each other like that kc buffalo game, i can go for two.
If you score and go for two, you risk giving me the chance to win with 7. You can never surprise me by going for two and making it - i always get a chance to respond.
It's like being the dealer in blackjack. Massive advantage for the team that goes second.
i believe he was saying that Sudden Death is not arbitrary. Complaining that one team didn't get the ball in OT is irrelevant because you had the entirety of regulation to possess the ball and win the game. That is not arbitrary. There is no need to force an equal number of possessions. Play sudden death and first team to score wins. Done.
Hmm.......I don't see it that way at all. I took it as you had 60 minutes to win the game. Now it comes down to sudden death. It has nothing to do with fairness. To me the "fairness" aspect he is talking about is people saying that sudden death isn't fair because both teams don't get a chance at the ball.That's not why I got out of his quote at all. He basically said "everyone already had 60 minutes of fairness" and "when we talk about making things fair, we should only be talking about the first 60 minutes". He's basically saying we only need to try and keep things fair for regulation, and then after that we can just do whatever, so we may as well just make it sudden death since that's what we grew up with traditionally.
I think it's a ridiculous argument by him, personally, to think trying to keep the game fair should only matter for regulation.
That’s how I read it.Hmm.......I don't see it that way at all. I took it as you had 60 minutes to win the game. Now it comes down to sudden death. It has nothing to do with fairness. To me the "fairness" aspect he is talking about is people saying that sudden death isn't fair because both teams don't get a chance at the ball.
Under the current system winning the coin toss provides a greater than zero advantage. That is not debatable.Walt…so you’re saying…there’s more to it than simply flipping a coin?!
![]()
Actually, that's exactly why the NFL has a draft. I am not sure there are any other employment models in dependently capitalist economies that outright deny prospective employees the opportunity to have a say in their future employer. It's all about giving bad teams a better chance to find the next Mahomes.That’s how I read it.
What’s next, it’s not “fair” that one team has Patrick Mahomes while the other team has JimmyG?
So in OT both teams must have an offensive possession, and Mahomes has to switch jerseys so that both teams have a Patrick Mahomes behind center for the drive?
“fairness” is kind of a stupid concept in this context.
![]()
Except we’re talking about fairness in the playoffs where special rules changes are being made so no one gets hurt feels over perceived unfairness.Actually, that's exactly why the NFL has a draft. I am not sure there are any other employment models in dependently capitalist economies that outright deny prospective employees the opportunity to have a say in their future employer. It's all about giving bad teams a better chance to find the next Mahomes.
Winning the coin toss is an actual advantage, not a perceived one.Except we’re talking about fairness in the playoffs where special rules changes are being made so no one gets hurt feels over perceived unfairness.
Except it’s not.Winning the coin toss is an actual advantage, not a perceived one.
Arbitrary, yes. Perceived, no.
But the game isn’t “decided by a coin toss”, right?Under the current system winning the coin toss provides a greater than zero advantage. That is not debatable.
Fred's scenarios are well considered and could, indeed make a difference in the calculus of OT decision making. But only under the new system. No right minded coach is choosing to receive after winning the coin toss under the old system. Because no amount of analytic gymnastics could defend it as the correct decision.
The new rule absolutely puts the analytics on the table and it will be fascinating to see if teams start deferring after winning the coin toss.
It's a much better rule.
The winner of which benefits from a demonstrable advantage. We can debate if it is a 2.6% advantage or a 63.6% advantage but it is unquestionably an advantage.Hot Sauce Guy said:Except it’s not.
it’s just a coin toss.
My position is the winner of the coin toss receives a demonstrable advantage. If there was none you would expect to see close to 50% deferral rate based upon multiple factors, many of the enumerated by Fred, but you don't see that, you see 0.01% deferral, maybe less. Because winning the coin toss imparts an advantage.Hot Sauce Guy said:But the game isn’t “decided by a coin toss”, right?
right?
That’s been your position.
Because that’s not what you said twice. You said the coin flip decided the game.My position is the winner of the coin toss receives a demonstrable advantage. If there was none you would expect to see close to 50% deferral rate based upon multiple factors, many of the enumerated by Fred, but you don't see that, you see 0.01% deferral, maybe less. Because winning the coin toss imparts an advantage.
Not sure why that is a problem for you.
Semantics? Really?Because that’s not what you said twice. You said the coin flip decided the game.
It’s not at all semantics.Semantics? Really?
It imparts an advantage, I have said that more than twice. Maybe instead of trying to win a semantics battle, which I concede, you win, we can talk about whether or not arbitrarily receiving a greater than zero advantage by virtue of winning a coin toss is the best way to resolve a football game.
Reminder.Chaka said:Let's just get rid of OT entirely and let the coin decide the victor.
Pretty sure Marty Mornhinweg is the only coach to ever win the toss but not take the ball first when it was sudden death rulesChaka said:Whoever wins the coin toss always has the option to go second. I believe only two times in NFL history has a team decided to 'go second under the current scheme (well two times that I can remember at any rate). There is a reason for that.
Let's take the opportunity to see how it plays out under the new scheme.
Getting the ball second with the new rule is objectively an advantage. It's like the dealer in blackjack. More information is better.Semantics? Really?
It imparts an advantage, I have said that more than twice. Maybe instead of trying to win a semantics battle, which I concede, you win, we can talk about whether or not arbitrarily receiving a greater than zero advantage by virtue of winning a coin toss is the best way to resolve a football game.
Thanks! Surprised there were so many.
I recall many times during the sudden death era… Just got to a point where no matter what the coach did, the MMQB would rip them if they lost the game.Thanks! Surprised there were so many.
The answer has always been getting rid of sudden death.
Can you imagine the chaos of Basketball games were decided by sudden death?
Maybe the worst analogy that I've ever seen.I am hoping the World Cup brings a coin flip into penalty shoot outs. Why waste time with five shots each? First goal wins. If you lose the coin toss all you have to do is make a save. If you don’t like it you should have played to win in regulation.
Just to demonstrate that it is all relative.if you go to sudden death because it is still tied aftereach team has a possessionregulation....neither teamcanshould really complain....you had your chance...
Fair rationale. But I thought the flip gave an element of randomness; that either team could get the ball. Knowing ahead of time could influence end of regulation strategy.I actually think the coin toss for playoff OT shouldn’t exist. The home team should get the advantage. They theoretically earned it by being better during the season.
I agree but my thought is what’s wrong with both teams knowing who gets the ball? If both teams know, it’s fair and they both operate under that knowledge. It would only impact the strategy in the final 1-3 drives.Fair rationale. But I thought the flip gave an element of randomness; that either team could get the ball. Knowing ahead of time could influence end of regulation strategy.