Welcome to Gaia! ::

In the last 10 years, about 60% of teams that win the coin toss win the game.

In NCAA, the advantage is only 52% to the team choosing to take the ball 2nd. Still, taking the ball at the 25 yard line is.... Dumb. NCAA should change that.

But what if that team throw an Interception. The Defense can win it. There are multiple ways for any team to win and chances are it'll affect the Season as a whole.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

Would a first-to-six overtime rule do any better?

In the current issue of the College Mathematics Journal, Michael A. Jones of Montclair State University in New Jersey uses a probability model and data from the 2002 NFL regular season to compare the current overtime rule with the suggested first-to-six rule. His analysis looks at the impact of the coin toss on both the outcome of the game and the efficiency of eliminating ties.

Using a so-called Markov chain model, Jones examines the consequences of sudden-death overtime on two fairly matched teams, assuming that both teams have equal probabilities of scoring a touchdown and kicking a field goal. He does the same for the first-to-six proposal.

"The first-to-six proposal does decrease the probabilities that the receiving team wins the game on the first possession and that they win the game eventually," Jones concludes. However, "although the first-to-six rule reduces the impact of the coin toss on the outcome of the game, it is less efficient at eliminating ties."

Applied to 2002 data, the model developed by Jones suggests that the team winning the coin toss and receiving the ball would win with a probability of 49 percent under the first-to-six rule (versus 60 percent for sudden-death overtime). The probability of games ending in a tie would rise to 12 percent (versus 9 percent).

Is the suggested rule worth implementing?

"This reduction in the impact of the coin toss on the outcome of the game is a trade-off because of the increase in the number of tie games," Jones writes. "Although fans would be happy that the outcome of the game is decided less by luck and more by play on the field, coaches may regret Monday morning quarterbacks second-guessing their decisions of whether or not to attempt field goals in overtime. Scoring three points still gives the other team an opportunity to score a touchdown and win the game."

"One thing is certain," he adds. "The first-to-six proposal increases the probability that fans will discuss the National Football League in the off-season."

If overtime changes to a "first to six points" rule, then people will still complain. They'll complain if the opposing team gets the ball first and scores a touchdown, without their own side seeing the ball. They'll also complain if the opposing team kicks two field-goals in their first two possessions, while their own team only got the ball once.

The way I see it, a coin-flip is a coin-flip. Each team has a 50% chance of getting the ball first. That's an even chance for either team. And if outdoors, the losing team gets to choose the side, which can be a consolation if there is wind.

Overtime in the NFL is one of the most exciting things in all of sports. Why change it? Why change history? And an NFL team should be prepared to develop their defensive unit and special teams unit, as much as their offense. You can't always rely on an offense to win a game.

I don't see to many complaints about college over-time..

But why do we always hear complaints about NFL overtime while we almost never hear complaints in college?