The Economist looked at how the overtime rules in football favored the Patriots in the Super Bowl.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/02/overtime-rules-american-football
Now I'd argue that this particular game was likely to lead to one of the highest theoretical differentials between win probabilities depending on who won the coin flip given the nature of Atlanta's offense and defense, and maybe generally the current OT system is fair. Still, there was a lot of discussion of the OT rules and what the ideal OT rule should be in the Celebrating What Is thread, and the topic seems like it deserves a new thread.
In my opinion, OT systems have to balance a few things:
1. Fairness - game shouldn't be overly determined by who wins the coin flip
2. Decisiveness - game shouldn't go on interminably
3. "Football"ness - OT rules shouldn't create a system that changes the nature of the game too much (this I believe is part of what makes penalty kicks a weird decider for the other kind of football)
4. Entertainment - OT systems preferably would keep play exciting
That Economist article, like many OT rule suggestions, suggested that for fairness the NFL implement a modified version of the college rules, which require equal possessions, even as it notes this could affect decisiveness. I believe there is other one major disadvantage of implementing right-of-reply rules for OT, which is that these games often end in more unsatisfying ways from an entertainment point of view than the current rules, Aaron Rodgers Hail Mary attempts aside. Assuming you maintain right of reply throughout, most of the time this mean the game ends in an offensive failure rather than a successful TD/FG. A game ending on a sack or a great defensive stop is one thing, but ending on a 4th-and-3 run that gains 2 yards or a poorly thrown incompletion is generally less fun for the casual viewer than ending on a FG.
So what say people about the NFL OT rules generally? Should they be changed? If so, what to?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2017/02/overtime-rules-american-football
Now I'd argue that this particular game was likely to lead to one of the highest theoretical differentials between win probabilities depending on who won the coin flip given the nature of Atlanta's offense and defense, and maybe generally the current OT system is fair. Still, there was a lot of discussion of the OT rules and what the ideal OT rule should be in the Celebrating What Is thread, and the topic seems like it deserves a new thread.
In my opinion, OT systems have to balance a few things:
1. Fairness - game shouldn't be overly determined by who wins the coin flip
2. Decisiveness - game shouldn't go on interminably
3. "Football"ness - OT rules shouldn't create a system that changes the nature of the game too much (this I believe is part of what makes penalty kicks a weird decider for the other kind of football)
4. Entertainment - OT systems preferably would keep play exciting
That Economist article, like many OT rule suggestions, suggested that for fairness the NFL implement a modified version of the college rules, which require equal possessions, even as it notes this could affect decisiveness. I believe there is other one major disadvantage of implementing right-of-reply rules for OT, which is that these games often end in more unsatisfying ways from an entertainment point of view than the current rules, Aaron Rodgers Hail Mary attempts aside. Assuming you maintain right of reply throughout, most of the time this mean the game ends in an offensive failure rather than a successful TD/FG. A game ending on a sack or a great defensive stop is one thing, but ending on a 4th-and-3 run that gains 2 yards or a poorly thrown incompletion is generally less fun for the casual viewer than ending on a FG.
So what say people about the NFL OT rules generally? Should they be changed? If so, what to?