NFL Overtime: A Flawed System

Disclaimer: I am a Minnesota Vikings fan, and Sunday's NFC Championship game most definitely "inspired" me to write this article. Yes, I'm bitterly disappointed, but my points stand independent of the result of that game.

Different sports have different overtimes: soccer simply plays an extra 30 minutes, and then goes to a shootout if the game is still tied. Baseball is similar, adding innings one at a time until the tie is broken. The "sudden death" or "golden goal" model is perhaps the simplest of all: the next team to score wins the game, period. It's unquestionably the most thrilling time in all of sports; every subsequent play has the potential to end the game. Leagues that use sudden death include the NHL, FIFA (until recently), and the NFL.

In light of Sunday's NFC Championship Game between the Vikings and Saints, the blog-o-sphere has exploded with editorials about how NFL overtime is or is not flawed. Here are most of the arguments that I have heard in favor of the current NFL overtime system (and why they're wrong):

WHY PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM

1) Them's the rules. I've read countless articles and comments today that say "the defense should have played better," "they should have won the game in regulation," or ultimately come down to "they didn't deserve to win the game." Let me be perfectly clear: I am not here to say "The Vikings got jobbed." With 5 turnovers, they certainly didn't deserve to win Sunday's game.

2) Winning the coin flip does not mean a team will win. History has shown that taking the opening drive of overtime for a score does not happen nearly as often as one would think. The statistics vary, but the figure I have heard quoted the most is the team that wins the coin toss will win 60% of overtime games, In the complete history of the NFL, the team that won the coin toss has won 54% (239 of 445) of overtime games, and in 2000-2007, that number increases to 60%. Many fans (and apparently the NFL) deem this "close enough" to half-and-half to not warrant a change.

3) Sudden death works well in other sports. Hockey and soccer both implement a sudden death overtime format, and nobody ever complains about overtime in those sports (except the shootout, which is an entirely different can of worms).

WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS FLAWED

1) The coin flip provides a statistical advantage. If 60% of teams that win the coin toss go on to win the game, the team that loses the toss will only win 40% of the time, which means the team that wins the toss is 1.5 times more likely to win the game. If an average NFL team were to go in to overtime in every regular-season game and lose every coin toss, they would go 6-10 or 7-9 on the season. To put it in perspective: the home team won 56% of games in the 2000-2007 season. So, winning the coin flip in overtime is almost as big an a larger advantage than being the home team. That's hardly a fair system; the rules should never give such an advantage to a team, especially in a way so arbitrary as a coin flip.

1b) Teams always elect to receive the ball in overtime. The opposite has happened only 7 times in the history of the NFL. Clearly, everyone that has ever played professional football (except for a few adventurous souls) perceives there's an advantage to going first, and since all those players and coaches are pretty good at what they do, I'm inclined to believe that there is.

Again, the the question here is, why should such an advantage be given out in the first place, let alone be awarded by a coin toss? Instead, what if the visiting team always got the first possession in overtime? Or, what if the team that lost the coin toss could only play with 10 players on defense? Surely such a rule would not stand for long.

2) Sudden death is not fair, given the nature of football. Sudden death is only fair in sports where changes in possession are significantly more frequent than scoring. As an example, let's compare hockey and football, both of which use sudden death overtime. I will estimate that in hockey, a possession lasts 30 seconds, for a total of 120 possessions per game, and that an average game has 5 goals scored. That works out to about 0.04 scores per possession. On the other hand, an average football game will see about 24 possessions (3 per quarter per team), and probably about 8 scores (2 TDs, 2 FGs per team), giving about 0.33 scores per possession.

What does this mean? According to our numbers, an average sudden-death hockey overtime will last about 24 possessions, which virtually guarantees that both teams will have an opportunity to make the winning score. However, the average overtime in football will only last 3 possessions; basic statistics tells us that quite a few football overtimes will be a one-possession affair, with the losing team never getting an opportunity to score (Update: the actual figure in 2000-2007 was 30%). What if baseball were to implement true sudden death, and the home team never got a chance to re-tie or win the game? Nobody in their right mind can argue that a high probability of a one-possession overtime is in the best interest of fairness.

3) Sudden death overtime in football changes the nature of the game. In other sports that use sudden death, a team can only score in one way: by putting the ball (or puck) in to the goal. The fact that the next score will instantly end the game does not change the ultimate strategy of the game, other than teams possibly playing more conservatively to avoid a loss.

However, in football, there are multiple ways to score, and naturally there is a trade-off between their ease of execution and their value. As a result, in regulation play, a team will obviously prefer a touchdown to a field goal, because it earns them more points. However, in sudden death overtime, a field goal and a touchdown have precisely the same value: a win. Clearly, it's not in a team's best interest to try to score a touchdown. Case and point: in the 2009 NFL regular season (by my count), there were 13 overtime games. Only two of these were decided by touchdowns. 70% of all overtime games have been won by kicking a field goal. You'd be crazy to say that's an accurate representation of the actual game.

If teams only need a field goal to win, the entire game changes. In regulation, holding an opponent to a field goal and then scoring a touchdown on the ensuing possession is a legitimate strategy; why shouldn't it be the same during overtime? In order to effectively win the overtime, an offense only needs to get to their opponents' 35-yard line; the defense is more or less playing on a 50-yard field with the game on the line.

4) The rules should work all of the time, not just most of the time. Using Sunday's game as an example, consider that it's equally likely that the Vikings could have won the coin toss and the "undeserving" team could score and advance to the Super Bowl. Perhaps some would say the Vikings deserved it because they won the overtime, but could you honestly say they were "deserving" when they committed 5 turnovers, and the #1 offense in the league sat on the sidelines, helpless to do anything to win the game?

Just because a rule works every once in a while (or even most of the time) doesn't mean it's not flawed; rules should work all of the time. For an example of this, look up the play that caused the 2003 Vikings to miss the playoffs (the rule was in fact eliminated in the off-season due to that very play).

WHAT SHOULD REPLACE SUDDEN DEATH?

1) Use the NCAA's overtime rules. This system has each team trade drives, starting on their opponents' 25-yard line. It's unquestionably fair in the sense that it gives both teams opportunities to score, but if we're trying to keep the nature of the game identical to regulation play, this is clearly not the way to go.

2) Add additional quarters as needed. This goes the furthest toward accomplishing the goal of not changing the game. Unfortunately, with an average overtime currently lasting about 7 minutes on the clock (by our calculations above), this would greatly extend the length of the game. Concerns about injuries and game broadcast length have prevented its implementation.

3) Require a team to score 4 points in overtime to win. This is my favorite, as a compromise between preserving the nature of the game and keeping game length to a minimum. In this system, the incentive to score a touchdown is not removed. Yes, there would still be one-possession overtimes, but only if a team scores a touchdown on the opening drive, at which point it's a much more convincing win. In order to win on field goals, a team would need to score two of them and prevent their opponents from scoring a touchdown in the intervening possession.

4) Hold a closed bid for possession. In this system, both coaches would secretly write down what yard line they would like to start on to begin overtime; the team that has volunteered to start further back would be awarded the ball, and the overtime would proceed as normal. I don't like this one because, as with the current system, it is played on a shorter field than regulation play, and it's very difficult to predict what would actually happen were this implemented.

4b) Choose where the opening kickoff/possession begins. One team (determined by a coin toss) would choose what yard line the opening drive (or kickoff) would start on, and the other team would choose whether they would like to kick or receive the opening possession. Again, I'm not a fan of this option, because while it's an interesting way to get teams to not automatically choose to receive the kick, it's still played on a short field.

----

Whatever is chosen to replace the current system, the point remains: the current NFL overtime system is flawed and ultimately unfair to the teams that play the game. Unfortunately, the league has not seen enough of a need for change to do anything about it; countless games that were decided by only giving one team a chance to score are apparently not enough of a reason.

It will probably take until a (possibly "undeserving") team kicks a field goal in the opening possession of overtime in the Super Bowl for the league to have a serious chance of changing the overtime rules. Until that happens, we can all hope that our team just wins the coin toss.

On the Origin of "Indians"

The Trombones' "Indians" section feature is music from "Go Go Gophers," a short-lived cartoon show from the late 1960's featuring two Dogs in the U.S. Army that are constantly after two Gophers that are, yes, Indians.

The actual tune is a combination of the introduction music and the actual theme for the Indians/Gophers.

An Episode of the Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH7TXnFJNeE
(for the impatient, watch the first 10 seconds and then skip to 3:30 for the music in question)

Wikipedia Article on the Show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Go_Gophers

The Future of History

(Random note: while writing this piece, I realized that "media" is the plural of "medium." Mind=blown)

Here's an experiment: Look through your bookshelf. How many items there are 10 years or older? Perhaps a few? A lot? Okay. How many will still be there 10 years from now? 20 years? 50 years? Probably most of them, if you're anything like me.

For the vast majority of recorded history, physical media has been the preferred medium of record. That is to say, if you had something important, or something to be remembered, you wrote it down, and you could hold it in your hand. You could bet pretty good money that it would be around for a while.

The examination of books, art, photographs, and other physical media from decades, centuries, or millennia ago gives us fantastic insight in to the nature of society from whence they came. This is made possible through the incredible property of physical media being able to preserve itself. That is, it has endured in spite of society's neglect, or occasionally even efforts to destroy it.

Now, to continue our little experiment: page through your computer's hard drive. How many files are at least 10 years old? Probably relatively few (unless you're a digital pack rat), but most likely because the majority of us didn't have our life centered around a computer 10 years ago, back when AOL was both the leading ISP and content provider on the web.

Finally: take another look at the files on your computer. How many of those will you still have in 10 years? How about 20 years? 50 years? Fewer than your books?

----

The prevalence of the internet and computers allows people to create information at a truly unfathomable rate--worldwide, an amount of data equivalent to the size of the Library of Congress is generated in the order of minutes, if not seconds. Websites, articles, blogs, photos, and tweets are created and stored in the digital multiverse, all waiting to be retrieved for the foreseeable future.

But here lies the problem: when a library shuts down, the books remain. One can still go and retrieve the information contained in that building. The written word is, generally speaking, accessible to everyone, anytime. However, when a website (for example) shuts down, the information within is--poof--gone forever, unless someone consciously decides to retain that data in a usable form.

So, I propose my question: Given the increasing dependence on the computer and digital (not physical) media, what will serve as the historical record of our society? How will people centuries from now generate an account of what our lives are like, with so much of our world taking place in the world of 1's and 0's?

Fun Fact: Uptown Rainbow Edition

The Uptown Rainbow grocery store is built on the site of Minneapolis Arena, which served as the home of Golden Gopher Hockey before Williams Arena (old Mariucci) opened in 1950. [Vintage Minnesota Hockey]

Yoga is not an alternative to vaccination

The following was written in response to a column in the Minnesota Daily and published on November 24, 2009 with minor changes.

Yoga is a great way to achieve a healthy diet, daily physical activity, and good mental fitness, which can lead to better overall health. However, Hadley Gustin's suggestion that yoga is a "viable alternative to... vaccinations" is irresponsible at best, and dangerous at worst. There are no scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of yoga in preventing illness beyond the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and the placebo effect; vaccines are unquestionably the best way to prevent communicable diseases.

Smallpox, which is estimated to have killed over 300 million people in the 20th century alone, was completely eradicated in 1977. This was not achieved through everyone "eradicating toxicity" through "a series of forceful exhalations," but through a miracle of modern "Western" medicine and science: vaccines. Many other diseases are becoming increasingly uncommon because of vaccination programs. Those who are not vaccinated are protected by herd immunity: since those around them are vaccinated, their risk of exposure is greatly reduced.

Few people will deny that our society needs to start living a healthier lifestyle, and doing so will take large steps towards reducing the the occurrence of preventable ailments such as Diabetes and obesity, but adhering to the delusion that this same regimen will prevent the spread of communicable diseases like H1N1 influenza is the kind of thinking that has led to recent outbreaks of Whooping Cough in Australia and Mumps in Great Britain.

So, you can pose and exhale all you like, but for the benefit of yourself and everyone around you, please get your vaccinations--there really is no other alternative.

Sportsmanship vs. Atmosphere

There has been a lot of recent debate in the papers and on the internet concerning the behavior of University students, especially in the context of the conduct of Gopher fans during and around sporting events. Issues range from complaints from the larger Minneapolis community about rowdy behavior on weekends and in the late hours of the night, to issues with the student section using foul language to intimidate opposing teams at games.

On one side of the issue, people take the side of the students: after all, they are college students, and they're doing "what college students are supposed to do." It is ridiculous to assume that fans of college sports will sit idly on their hands and applaud as if they were watching a golf tournament, and then go home and peacefully drink tea: college sports are special because of the fans and the atmosphere surrounding the games. It's no coincidence that 21 of the 22 largest stadiums in the U.S., including all of the top ten, house college football teams.

On the other side of the issue is the assertion that students are representatives of the University of Minnesota, and should conduct themselves as such. They should respect the community, opposing teams, and fellow students in the name of good sportsmanship. This does not necessarily mean “no fun,” but there are serious issues to be addressed in the conduct of some fans that are deeply engraved in their vision of the “college experience.”

It is here that we find ourselves at an impasse: the administration and community-at-large would like to see more respectful students, but students are unwilling to give up the culture and traditions that have developed on campus for the past 150 years. Both are advancing their agendas in the name of creating a "better game day experience." They are equally admirable goals, and are part of what makes our University great.

Possibly caused by the infamous "hockey riots" following the Gophers' 2002 and 2003 NCAA Hockey Championships, the University of Minnesota has repeatedly imposed sets of rules on the student body in a well-intentioned but feeble attempt to control fan behavior. These have taken many forms: the "Student Code of Conduct," the "Fan Bill of Rights," and most recently, the "Fan Code of Conduct."

Through all of these additions and changes to policy, one thing has remained constant: the University of Minnesota has not taken any real steps toward improving the atmosphere at sporting events. Yes, the rules technically absolve the University of any wrongdoing or responsibility for fans' actions (after all, it is ultimately up to the individual to obey rules), but if the University is truly serious about improving fan conduct, they must do more than develop guidelines for fans.

First, they must directly and non-arbitrarily enforce the rules that are in place. Aside from the alcohol policy, the "Fan Code of Conduct" is largely a joke--has anyone ever seen someone get kicked out of a game for swearing at the referees? Disciplinary action is currently only taken for offenses that are otherwise punishable under the letter of law. Publishing a newsletter doesn't do anything to influence fan behavior short of increasing the number of paper airplanes thrown on the field. If the rules in place are not enforceable, they should be replaced with ones that are.

Second, the University must actively help to replace the practices that they oppose. Tradition, no matter what it is, is still just that--tradition. For a tradition to "die" peacefully, a suitable alternative must be proposed and accepted. Currently, when the administration does manage to exact a change in the cheers (usually by prohibiting the band from playing the appropriate cues--hardly a good solution), students are liable to act out in ways that are worse than the original "offense." This is the cause of the viscous cycle in which we are currently trapped, resulting in increasingly Draconian policies dictating behavior that--as previously mentioned--are rarely enforced, and an overall disdain for said rules among the fans they are prescribed to.

To date, both the students' and administration's actions have been similarly polarizing to the opposite party. Admirably, neither has compromised their primary principles. It is an unfortunate consequence of the human condition that University policy is much more flexible than the mob mentality of 10,000 students; the University must begin to work proactively with fans to change the common perception of a “college atmosphere” to the kind of game day experience we can all enjoy.

Battle for The Axe

It can be said that I have a strong dislike for the University of Wisconsin's athletic teams. I was born in the Twin Cities, and was raised as a Golden Gophers fan. I received a degree from the University of Minnesota, and participated in the Minnesota Marching Band. As such, the Gophers' rivalries are engraved in my mind, including the "Border Battle" between the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin, truly one of the best in all of sports.

But let me clarify: I do not "hate" the University of Wisconsin, or its athletic teams. I have always tried to remain in good spirits about the Border Battle; to see through the intense emotions, posturing, and slogans that inevitably arise every time the Gophers and Badgers take the field together, in order to enjoy the rivalry for what it is: a classic contest between two storied Universities, adding yet another chapter to a long tradition of competition. I have always respected the University of Wisconsin, as a quality institution, with a successful athletics program.

So, this weekend, as I cheered on my Gophers against their rivals from across the St. Croix River, I tried my hardest to exhibit nothing but the best sportsmanship. Fully aware of all of the slogans that inebriated students love to scream at anyone within earshot (especially toward those wearing red), I graciously welcomed fans of the Badgers to my home state, or at the very least let them be, hoping for them to enjoy their game day experience in Minneapolis.

At the game, I sat in my seat in the upper deck of TCF Bank Stadium, which happens to be directly in front of one the blocks of seats that are sold to opposing teams' fans. Again, I let the steady stream of Badger fans pass by me without incident; I was there to cheer on my team, not to ridicule and harass their opponents. As the clock expired, resulting in a Gophers loss, I accepted the fact that I would have to cheerfully endure yet another year of the good-natured ribbing that goes hand-in-hand with a rivalry such as this.

I sat in the emptying stadium, immersed in my own thoughts about how wonderful it would have been to see my Gophers hoist The Paul Bunyan's Axe Trophy in victory. I watched with quiet envy as the University of Wisconsin Football team cheerfully paraded around the field with the coveted prize, something that they had earned the right to do after a well-fought football game.

Then, I saw something that instantly made my dejection turn to silent rage.

Following the game, I stood and removed my hat to sing Hail! Minnesota (our Alma Mater) with the band, football team, and student section at the end of the game, as we do at every game. As I began to sing, the Wisconsin Football Team, Axe Trophy in hand, ran in between the Minnesota Football Team and Band, and began to "chop" down the goalpost that stood there, while fans of the University of Minnesota were singing their Alma Mater.

I have attended a decent number of contests between the Gophers and the Badgers; it seems that all too many of them ended in disappointing losses. I was mere yards away from the decisive touchdown in the 2005 "Miracle in the Metrodome." I was at the game at the Kohl Center when the Badgers' Men's Hockey team ended the Gophers' 22-game unbeaten streak in 2006. I was there when the Wisconsin Women's Hockey team defeated Minnesota for the National Title. But after none of these games did I ever say, as I do now:

Today was the day I lost my respect for the University of Wisconsin.

The University of Wisconsin football team should be reminded that they are not only an athletics team, but also are representatives of their institution and the state for which it is named. Today, in their rude and disrespectful actions following their victory against the Minnesota Golden Gophers, they have utterly failed in that role.

Now, I too can state with certainty: "When you say 'Wisconsin,' you've said it all."