NFL overtime poll question (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Assume that NFL overtime rules are amended so that punting in overtime is now illegal. Would you elect to receive or kick?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Kick. 4 & out from the 20-30 gives you an instant FG chance.

 

[CalBear]

Definitely kick. First score in OT is not far from 50-50 now; if the team that receives isn't allowed to punt, it'll be a big advantage to the kicking team.

But I'd rather see them banning field goals than punts.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Definitely kick. First score in OT is not far from 50-50 now; if the team that receives isn't allowed to punt, it'll be a big advantage to the kicking team.But I'd rather see them banning field goals than punts.

Well, teams still get 4 downs. Teams are obviously more likely to score with 4 downs of offense than 3.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Oops - didn't notice the punting ban. Might depend upon the opponent. Voted receive reflexively.

Is it still first to score wins? (That is, no guarantee that both teams get possession?)

-QG

 

[Chase Stuart]

Oops - didn't notice the punting ban. Might depend upon the opponent. Voted receive reflexively.Is it still first to score wins? (That is, no guarantee that both teams get possession?)-QG

Yes, first to score wins. Only rule change being no punting allowed.

 

[golfguy]

Yes, first to score wins. Only rule change being no punting allowed.

this is basically a horrible idea IMO. take out part of the special teams aspect in OT? if they do this, I can't wait for like a 4th and 18 and they just toss it up, get a pass intf. call and win the game after that.

 

[gonzobill5]

Right now the argument is that it is "so easy to get into FG range to win." How come if punting is banned it is suddenly "so easy to force a 3 and out" and win?

ETA: actually, my comment is not currently reflected in the voting, just the posts I had read.

 

[CalBear]

Definitely kick. First score in OT is not far from 50-50 now; if the team that receives isn't allowed to punt, it'll be a big advantage to the kicking team.But I'd rather see them banning field goals than punts.

Well, teams still get 4 downs. Teams are obviously more likely to score with 4 downs of offense than 3.

Here are some first-down conversion stats from tied games from 2002-2009:1st down: 18.9% conversions, average gain 5.62 yards2nd down: 31.0% conversions, average gain 5.38 yards3rd down: 42.4% conversions, average gain 6.09 yards4th down(*): 63.7% conversions, average gain 4.19 yards(*) Historical fourth down stats aren't really useful here, because teams go for it on fourth down in only specific situations--either those with a high probability of success, or those where failing the first down is equivalent to losing the game. The sample sizes from fourth down in tie games are also extremely small. I'm going to make the unfounded assertion that the generic fourth down case results in 50% conversions with an average gain of 6.0 yards. (Lower than third down because plays will be more likely to be targeted at getting the first down than getting a TD.)Let's start the team on their own 28 (average starting position). They have a 16.1% chance of failing to make a first down, which would almost certainly result in a loss in that situation. On average their first down will be around the 43, which is probably pretty close to where the point expectation in a no-punts scenario is neutral/zero--that is, if you have a first down at your own 43, with no punts allowed, you probably have close to a 50% chance to win the game.In some cases, you'll score a TD and win without getting a first down. For all plays between your own 20 and own 30, 0.4% result in TDs. Kick return TDs are .38%. We'll throw in a couple of kick return TDs to field goal range and say that you have about a 1% chance of winning the game outright before getting a first down or facing a fourth down situation.It looks to me like if you receive the ball, you need a first down (84% chance) to get up to the point where you'll have a 50-50 chance of winning the game, and that chance is offset only 1% by the chance that you'll win before you get that first down. So I'll kick.

 

[Zoomanji]

Can't answer with out knowing- how good is my defense?

 

[cheese]

I would absolutely receive. The advantage of having 4 downs is being seriously underrated from these posts. I actually don't think this rule change will have that much of a statistical impact on the receiving team's winning percentage. Granted, part of this is related to the fact that many teams will be kept from punting when they really shouldn't.

Think about a situation where a team is down 2 and having the ball kicked to them for one final possession. The only difference being that they have unlimited time for this one possession. I will take the offense scoring over 50% of the time in that scenerio and we're not even factoring the possibility to win anyway if you drive it across midfield and then turn the ball over to the other team somehow.

Receive by a mile IMO

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Errr, I voted before reading the post

Seriously though, might want to change the poll question to give some indication of the rule change as well, since with the vote button being at the top I'd imagine a lot of people just go straight to that.

 

[Not Sure]

Definitely kick. First score in OT is not far from 50-50 now; if the team that receives isn't allowed to punt, it'll be a big advantage to the kicking team.But I'd rather see them banning field goals than punts.

Well, teams still get 4 downs. Teams are obviously more likely to score with 4 downs of offense than 3.

Everyone already gets 4 downs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Errr, I voted before reading the post Seriously though, might want to change the poll question to give some indication of the rule change as well, since with the vote button being at the top I'd imagine a lot of people just go straight to that.

What did you vote and what did you mean to vote?

 

[Zoomanji]

Can't answer with out knowing- how good is my defense?

Seriously, it makes a difference IMO. I'd rather kick and stop them and take the short field but if my D can't stop anyone, I want the ball

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I would absolutely receive. The advantage of having 4 downs is being seriously underrated from these posts. I actually don't think this rule change will have that much of a statistical impact on the receiving team's winning percentage. Granted, part of this is related to the fact that many teams will be kept from punting when they really shouldn't.Think about a situation where a team is down 2 and having the ball kicked to them for one final possession. The only difference being that they have unlimited time for this one possession. I will take the offense scoring over 50% of the time in that scenerio and we're not even factoring the possibility to win anyway if you drive it across midfield and then turn the ball over to the other team somehow.Receive by a mile IMO

 

[Chase Stuart]

Can't answer with out knowing- how good is my defense?

Seriously, it makes a difference IMO. I'd rather kick and stop them and take the short field but if my D can't stop anyone, I want the ball

No doubt. But what if you had an average offense and an average offense and the opponent had an average offense and an average defense?

 

[FUBAR]

Can't answer with out knowing- how good is my defense?

Seriously, it makes a difference IMO. I'd rather kick and stop them and take the short field but if my D can't stop anyone, I want the ball

Who's my offense and who am I up against? Maybe I'm completely wrong but my gut tells me I don't give the ball to the Jets or Panthers if they have to use 4 downs, it's nothing for them to pick up 2.5 yards per carry. I'd rather give it to San Diego, maybe Arizona or other pass-first teams. Or at least more likely than I would be right now.

 

[FUBAR]

Can't answer with out knowing- how good is my defense?

Seriously, it makes a difference IMO. I'd rather kick and stop them and take the short field but if my D can't stop anyone, I want the ball

No doubt. But what if you had an average offense and an average offense and the opponent had an average offense and an average defense?

average run and pass? I'd probably take the ball if for no better reason than I don't want to tell my offense I don't trust them to win it.

 

[CalBear]

average run and pass? I'd probably take the ball if for no better reason than I don't want to tell my offense I don't trust them to win it.

You prefer to tell your defense you don't trust them to win it?

 

[Zoomanji]

average run and pass? I'd probably take the ball if for no better reason than I don't want to tell my offense I don't trust them to win it.

You prefer to tell your defense you don't trust them to win it?

Usually Offense scores. So I'll give the ball to my offense and tell them to win the game like they should. If they fail, I will tell my defense to bail us out cause our O stinks.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'll take the ball as well as the extra down.

No brainer.

 

[Mainevent]

I'll take the ball as well as the extra down.No brainer.

Extra down? like 5th down...

 

[Matt Waldman]

Given average offense-average defense vs. average defense-average offense, I would pick offense because the rules are so slanted in the favor of the offense in the NFL it will bear out. Here are the penalties that can earn you instant first downs and change field position that favor the offense:

1. Roughing the passer, which has become far more stringent and in a bad way.

2. Unnecessary roughness: Helmet to helmet contact of a receiver.

3. Pass interference

4. Personal foul face mask penalties.

Heck, the first three penalties can happen on one play, especially if the defense knows one play can make a difference between winning and losing. Unless we see officials adopt a "let 'em play mentality" in overtime that we often see in playoff games in other sports, the offense has the advantage.

 

[Chase Stuart]

After a bit more thought on this, I'm going to say receive.

 

[CalBear]

Think about it this way: instead of having a coin flip, Team A gets to decide on the starting field position (own 20, own 30, opponent's 10, etc.), and Team B then gets to decide whether to play offense or defense. You're Team B.

If the ball would be at the 50, clearly you'd play offense. If you'd have it at your own 1, clearly you'd play defense instead. What would the field position have to be to make you switch from playing offense to playing defense, given that you'd have no opportunity to punt?

I'd say the break-even point for playing offense or defense is probably around your own 40 yard line. Certainly if the offense gets the ball at their own 30 you should prefer to play defense. Since average starting field position is even further back than that, playing defense seems obvious.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Think about it this way: instead of having a coin flip, Team A gets to decide on the starting field position (own 20, own 30, opponent's 10, etc.), and Team B then gets to decide whether to play offense or defense. You're Team B.If the ball would be at the 50, clearly you'd play offense. If you'd have it at your own 1, clearly you'd play defense instead. What would the field position have to be to make you switch from playing offense to playing defense, given that you'd have no opportunity to punt?I'd say the break-even point for playing offense or defense is probably around your own 40 yard line. Certainly if the offense gets the ball at their own 30 you should prefer to play defense. Since average starting field position is even further back than that, playing defense seems obvious.

While I admit that a big return is a definite advantage to electing to receive, I think I'd still rather have the ball at my own 30 in a game where no one can punt and first score wins than to have my opponent have the ball there.

 

[CalBear]

While I admit that a big return is a definite advantage to electing to receive, I think I'd still rather have the ball at my own 30 in a game where no one can punt and first score wins than to have my opponent have the ball there.

What's your logic?

 

[Chase Stuart]

While I admit that a big return is a definite advantage to electing to receive, I think I'd still rather have the ball at my own 30 in a game where no one can punt and first score wins than to have my opponent have the ball there.

What's your logic?

I'd say my odds of getting a first down knowing I have four downs is pretty good. I should be able to move the ball and get a couple of first downs. I think teams tend to play too passively as it is, and should go for it more often than they do, so this might lead to better than the already good offense we see. Worst case scenario is I turn the ball over at my own 35, and my opponent goes Brad Childress on me, runs up the middle three times for no gain, and misses a 52 yard field goal. In all seriousness, I'm sure you can model this question using average offensive data and find the correct answer. My gut tells me I'd rather have the ball at my own 30 than be on defense, and I'm not sure I can add too much more than that. That's why I thought it was an interesting question. Teams score something like 30% of the time on their first possession of OT right now? I'd have to think that number would be a bit higher in the no-punt game; maybe 40-45% of the time. They'd only need to score on the 3rd or 5th possession of overtime 10% of the time then, to make getting the ball first worth it. But I'm open-minded on this issue.

 

[CalBear]

While I admit that a big return is a definite advantage to electing to receive, I think I'd still rather have the ball at my own 30 in a game where no one can punt and first score wins than to have my opponent have the ball there.

What's your logic?

I'd say my odds of getting a first down knowing I have four downs is pretty good.

As noted above, it's probably 80-85%.

I should be able to move the ball and get a couple of first downs. I think teams tend to play too passively as it is, and should go for it more often than they do, so this might lead to better than the already good offense we see. Worst case scenario is I turn the ball over at my own 35, and my opponent goes Brad Childress on me, runs up the middle three times for no gain, and misses a 52 yard field goal. In all seriousness, I'm sure you can model this question using average offensive data and find the correct answer. My gut tells me I'd rather have the ball at my own 30 than be on defense, and I'm not sure I can add too much more than that. That's why I thought it was an interesting question. Teams score something like 30% of the time on their first possession of OT right now? I'd have to think that number would be a bit higher in the no-punt game; maybe 40-45% of the time. They'd only need to score on the 3rd or 5th possession of overtime 10% of the time then, to make getting the ball first worth it. But I'm open-minded on this issue.

Teams would score on the second possession a lot more than they do now, because average field position would be better for the team that kicked. If they can force a four-and-out, they'd get the ball already in field goal range, which in the normal game only happens on turnovers or big punt returns. Four-and-out is a lot more likely than those.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Assume that NFL overtime rules are amended so that punting in overtime is now illegal. Would you elect to receive or kick?

Depends on your team and possibly the weather conditions. If I have Peyton Manning and playing in a dome, I'm taking the ball and say stop me when I have 4 downs.If I have a top defense and we're playing in some rough weather conditions, I put my strength on the field first.Anyone just saying one or the other as a blanket statement as it would fit every situation really hasn't thought that much about it.

 

[Da Guru]

4 downs to make 10 yards.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Assume that NFL overtime rules are amended so that punting in overtime is now illegal. Would you elect to receive or kick?

Depends on your team and possibly the weather conditions. If I have Peyton Manning and playing in a dome, I'm taking the ball and say stop me when I have 4 downs.If I have a top defense and we're playing in some rough weather conditions, I put my strength on the field first.Anyone just saying one or the other as a blanket statement as it would fit every situation really hasn't thought that much about it.

Let's run it this way.Suppose the NFL makes one change to the OT rules -- no punting allowed.After 100 overtime games, how many do you think will have been won by the team that received the ball?

 

[CalBear]

Assume that NFL overtime rules are amended so that punting in overtime is now illegal. Would you elect to receive or kick?

Depends on your team and possibly the weather conditions. If I have Peyton Manning and playing in a dome, I'm taking the ball and say stop me when I have 4 downs.If I have a top defense and we're playing in some rough weather conditions, I put my strength on the field first.Anyone just saying one or the other as a blanket statement as it would fit every situation really hasn't thought that much about it.

Let's run it this way.Suppose the NFL makes one change to the OT rules -- no punting allowed.After 100 overtime games, how many do you think will have been won by the team that received the ball?

I'm estimating 43 (15% advantage to kicking team)

 

[cheese]

Assume that NFL overtime rules are amended so that punting in overtime is now illegal. Would you elect to receive or kick?

Depends on your team and possibly the weather conditions. If I have Peyton Manning and playing in a dome, I'm taking the ball and say stop me when I have 4 downs.If I have a top defense and we're playing in some rough weather conditions, I put my strength on the field first.Anyone just saying one or the other as a blanket statement as it would fit every situation really hasn't thought that much about it.

Let's run it this way.Suppose the NFL makes one change to the OT rules -- no punting allowed.After 100 overtime games, how many do you think will have been won by the team that received the ball?

I'm estimating 43 (15% advantage to kicking team)

I believe 39% of receiving teams have won in the first possession using the current rules in the last 10 years. You're suggesting that trying to convert fourth downs as well as the chance of winning after neither team scoring (don't forget they can't punt either) is only worth an additional 4 wins.My personal guess is 60%... or roughly the exact same as it is now. 50 times they will score on the first possession instead of 39.... 10 times they win later in overtime (instead of ~20).

 

[CalBear]

I believe 39% of receiving teams have won in the first possession using the current rules in the last 10 years. You're suggesting that trying to convert fourth downs as well as the chance of winning after neither team scoring (don't forget they can't punt either) is only worth an additional 4 wins.

In college, the team getting the ball second has what would seem to be a significant advantage; they know how many points they have to score, and they know whether they need to go for it on fourth down. Football Commentary analyzed this and found that the team which starts on defense has a 52% chance of winning. So being forced to go for it on fourth down isn't a very big advantage.Conversion of fourth-and-long isn't a very high probability; fourth-and-5 or more is converted at 36%, fourth-and-10 or more at 29%. In this scenario, you'd see a lot more fourth-and-longs attempted than you do in normal play, because they're required.

 

[cheese]

I believe 39% of receiving teams have won in the first possession using the current rules in the last 10 years. You're suggesting that trying to convert fourth downs as well as the chance of winning after neither team scoring (don't forget they can't punt either) is only worth an additional 4 wins.

In college, the team getting the ball second has what would seem to be a significant advantage; they know how many points they have to score, and they know whether they need to go for it on fourth down. Football Commentary analyzed this and found that the team which starts on defense has a 52% chance of winning. So being forced to go for it on fourth down isn't a very big advantage.Conversion of fourth-and-long isn't a very high probability; fourth-and-5 or more is converted at 36%, fourth-and-10 or more at 29%. In this scenario, you'd see a lot more fourth-and-longs attempted than you do in normal play, because they're required.

I don't disagree with these points, but how do they disprove my post that you quoted?Are you just saying that fourth down percentages would go down? I agree with that. The college example has so many other factors I don't know how you can isolate that to say that going for fourth downs isn't a huge advantage. The only case in which that is even related is situations where one team scores a touchdown (causing the other team to use all 4 downs). To find a connection, you'd probably want to compare the winning percentage of a team where they started on defense and the other team scored a touchdown against the winning percentage where a team started of offense and the other team scored a touchdown. In that example, they face the same circumstances except the only difference is they will be going for 4th downs.

 

[CalBear]

I believe 39% of receiving teams have won in the first possession using the current rules in the last 10 years. You're suggesting that trying to convert fourth downs as well as the chance of winning after neither team scoring (don't forget they can't punt either) is only worth an additional 4 wins.

In college, the team getting the ball second has what would seem to be a significant advantage; they know how many points they have to score, and they know whether they need to go for it on fourth down. Football Commentary analyzed this and found that the team which starts on defense has a 52% chance of winning. So being forced to go for it on fourth down isn't a very big advantage.Conversion of fourth-and-long isn't a very high probability; fourth-and-5 or more is converted at 36%, fourth-and-10 or more at 29%. In this scenario, you'd see a lot more fourth-and-longs attempted than you do in normal play, because they're required.

I don't disagree with these points, but how do they disprove my post that you quoted?Are you just saying that fourth down percentages would go down? I agree with that. The college example has so many other factors I don't know how you can isolate that to say that going for fourth downs isn't a huge advantage. The only case in which that is even related is situations where one team scores a touchdown (causing the other team to use all 4 downs). To find a connection, you'd probably want to compare the winning percentage of a team where they started on defense and the other team scored a touchdown against the winning percentage where a team started of offense and the other team scored a touchdown. In that example, they face the same circumstances except the only difference is they will be going for 4th downs.

I don't think either point is provable; it's a hypothetical situation and we have no real data to examine, so the most we can do is conjecture.So here's a point to think about: What expectation would a team have for being the first team to score after receiving a kickoff, if they decided to go for it on fourth down regardless of the situation? I can't imagine that their chances of scoring first would increase. In fact, if their chance of scoring first would increase, teams should never punt in OT.

 

[renesauz]

Assume that NFL overtime rules are amended so that punting in overtime is now illegal. Would you elect to receive or kick?

Depends on your team and possibly the weather conditions. If I have Peyton Manning and playing in a dome, I'm taking the ball and say stop me when I have 4 downs.If I have a top defense and we're playing in some rough weather conditions, I put my strength on the field first.Anyone just saying one or the other as a blanket statement as it would fit every situation really hasn't thought that much about it.

Let's run it this way.Suppose the NFL makes one change to the OT rules -- no punting allowed.After 100 overtime games, how many do you think will have been won by the team that received the ball?

I would say 80% Automaticly going for it on fourth down is a huge (planning) advantage IMHO

 

[renesauz]

I believe 39% of receiving teams have won in the first possession using the current rules in the last 10 years. You're suggesting that trying to convert fourth downs as well as the chance of winning after neither team scoring (don't forget they can't punt either) is only worth an additional 4 wins.

In college, the team getting the ball second has what would seem to be a significant advantage; they know how many points they have to score, and they know whether they need to go for it on fourth down. Football Commentary analyzed this and found that the team which starts on defense has a 52% chance of winning. So being forced to go for it on fourth down isn't a very big advantage.Conversion of fourth-and-long isn't a very high probability; fourth-and-5 or more is converted at 36%, fourth-and-10 or more at 29%. In this scenario, you'd see a lot more fourth-and-longs attempted than you do in normal play, because they're required.

College is insanely differant! Why...the second team ALWAYS GETS THE BALL at least once. Terrible logic here

 

[CalBear]

College is insanely differant! Why...the second team ALWAYS GETS THE BALL at least once. Terrible logic here

How much of an advantage do you think the second team always getting the ball should be?If you think the team receiving the ball would win 80% of the time because they can't punt, why would anyone ever punt, even if they could?

 

[TWP]

College is insanely differant! Why...the second team ALWAYS GETS THE BALL at least once. Terrible logic here

How much of an advantage do you think the second team always getting the ball should be?If you think the team receiving the ball would win 80% of the time because they can't punt, why would anyone ever punt, even if they could?

Because they are wimps obviously. Coaches punt all the time in situations where it is very easily provable statistically that it is a mistake. Because if you go for it, you end up having a million radio shows and FBG posts about how BB went for it on 4th-and-2 and didn't make it and how he's an idiot. And if you're anyone except for BB, you care a lot about things like public perception and the resulting job security.

 

[cheese]

I believe 39% of receiving teams have won in the first possession using the current rules in the last 10 years. You're suggesting that trying to convert fourth downs as well as the chance of winning after neither team scoring (don't forget they can't punt either) is only worth an additional 4 wins.

In college, the team getting the ball second has what would seem to be a significant advantage; they know how many points they have to score, and they know whether they need to go for it on fourth down. Football Commentary analyzed this and found that the team which starts on defense has a 52% chance of winning. So being forced to go for it on fourth down isn't a very big advantage.Conversion of fourth-and-long isn't a very high probability; fourth-and-5 or more is converted at 36%, fourth-and-10 or more at 29%. In this scenario, you'd see a lot more fourth-and-longs attempted than you do in normal play, because they're required.

I don't disagree with these points, but how do they disprove my post that you quoted?Are you just saying that fourth down percentages would go down? I agree with that. The college example has so many other factors I don't know how you can isolate that to say that going for fourth downs isn't a huge advantage. The only case in which that is even related is situations where one team scores a touchdown (causing the other team to use all 4 downs). To find a connection, you'd probably want to compare the winning percentage of a team where they started on defense and the other team scored a touchdown against the winning percentage where a team started of offense and the other team scored a touchdown. In that example, they face the same circumstances except the only difference is they will be going for 4th downs.

I don't think either point is provable; it's a hypothetical situation and we have no real data to examine, so the most we can do is conjecture.So here's a point to think about: What expectation would a team have for being the first team to score after receiving a kickoff, if they decided to go for it on fourth down regardless of the situation? I can't imagine that their chances of scoring first would increase. In fact, if their chance of scoring first would increase, teams should never punt in OT.

Why would you assume that? It isn't only the receiving team that isn't allowed to punt.Unless you are addressing other people, I'm not suggesting that never punting automatically makes you win more independent of what the other team is doing (although no question they should punt much much less). I'm saying that neither team being able to punt doesn't make the receiving team win less.

 

[CalBear]

College is insanely differant! Why...the second team ALWAYS GETS THE BALL at least once. Terrible logic here

How much of an advantage do you think the second team always getting the ball should be?If you think the team receiving the ball would win 80% of the time because they can't punt, why would anyone ever punt, even if they could?

Because they are wimps obviously. Coaches punt all the time in situations where it is very easily provable statistically that it is a mistake. Because if you go for it, you end up having a million radio shows and FBG posts about how BB went for it on 4th-and-2 and didn't make it and how he's an idiot. And if you're anyone except for BB, you care a lot about things like public perception and the resulting job security.

Romer's stats are interesting (and he's at Berkeley, Go Bears!), but they don't exactly constitute proof. And in any case, the differences tend to be very small; kicking a FG for 3 points when the expected value of going for it is 4 points, decreasing your chance of winning by 5% or something. I guarantee you that if going for it on fourth down all the time increased your chances of winning by 20-30%, every team would be doing it.

 

[puckalicious]

College is insanely differant! Why...the second team ALWAYS GETS THE BALL at least once. Terrible logic here

How much of an advantage do you think the second team always getting the ball should be?If you think the team receiving the ball would win 80% of the time because they can't punt, why would anyone ever punt, even if they could?

Because they are wimps obviously. Coaches punt all the time in situations where it is very easily provable statistically that it is a mistake. Because if you go for it, you end up having a million radio shows and FBG posts about how BB went for it on 4th-and-2 and didn't make it and how he's an idiot. And if you're anyone except for BB, you care a lot about things like public perception and the resulting job security.

Romer's stats are interesting (and he's at Berkeley, Go Bears!), but they don't exactly constitute proof. And in any case, the differences tend to be very small; kicking a FG for 3 points when the expected value of going for it is 4 points, decreasing your chance of winning by 5% or something. I guarantee you that if going for it on fourth down all the time increased your chances of winning by 20-30%, every team would be doing it.

It may not be as large as 20%, but I think the chances of scoring (and by correlation, winning) definitely increase if punting is taken out of the equation so I would receive. The reason coaches don't go for it on 4th down more often is based on the fear of failing. It is well proven that the human mind puts more value on failure than success, this is called Loss Aversion. In the case of a football coach, if he calls a 4th down play and it fails the blame is all on him. If he calls a punt/FG and for some reason a turnover happens it is the player's fault, not his.

 

[kaa]

Honestly its such a stupid rule that it doesn't even feel like football anymore, so I don't have an answer for you. It would probably make a mockery of the game and cause me to tune out.

 

[kaa]

I think this rule is designed simply to hurt the Cleveland Browns, because their only lethal weapon is Josh Cribbs. This rule basically eliminates him as a weapon, because no one ever punts so he can't return anything. It also helps the Steelers, because the only aspect of the game they've sucked at for years is returning kicks.

 

[Fovea capitis]

Maybe they should have one player from each team come out to the 50 and each take a Wonderlic test. Highest score wins outright.

 

[CalBear]

The reason coaches don't go for it on 4th down more often is based on the fear of failing. It is well proven that the human mind puts more value on failure than success, this is called Loss Aversion. In the case of a football coach, if he calls a 4th down play and it fails the blame is all on him. If he calls a punt/FG and for some reason a turnover happens it is the player's fault, not his.

The actual conversion rate on 4th and 5+ is 36%. Given that knowledge, how often do you think coaches should go for it on 4th and 5 in their own half of the field?

 

[puckalicious]

The reason coaches don't go for it on 4th down more often is based on the fear of failing. It is well proven that the human mind puts more value on failure than success, this is called Loss Aversion. In the case of a football coach, if he calls a 4th down play and it fails the blame is all on him. If he calls a punt/FG and for some reason a turnover happens it is the player's fault, not his.

The actual conversion rate on 4th and 5+ is 36%. Given that knowledge, how often do you think coaches should go for it on 4th and 5 in their own half of the field?

Well 36% of the time, if they are omniscent. You bring up a good point that making a decision to punt vs going for it on 4th down all boils down to field position. Basically, any 4th down play has a negative expected point value in your own half of the field with the exception of 4th and short (4th & 1 isn't a negative value until inside your own 35).By simplifying things I would say that eliminating punts would make the team on offense score more on average when in opponent territory merely because it is statistically better to do so anyway based on expected points. However, things would appear to change when the team on offense is in their own half and skew in favor of the team on defense especially if the offense is inside their own 20. However if we assume an average starting field position of at least the 25 it's really a pretty small window of field position where the defense gets an increase in expected points compared to the punts-allowed condition.