Game Theory Question (Illinois vs. Penn State OT)

I was more shocked when Illinois went second and just needed to get the 3 yards they didn’t pound the rock. That’s why I’d like to go second. It’s easier to call a run play in that situation. If you go first, it seems like you’d want to get a pass into the end zone IMO.

I dislike this rule because it means the outcome of the entire 100+ play game hinges on a single play, rather than on a series of plays no matter how many overtimes have been played.  It certainly is dramatic and perhaps would draw more viewers but seems like an undeserved outcome could easily result. 

Defense going first gives the offense more time to figure out a preferred single play; I guess that makes sense.

You weren't really watching superior tacticians during that game. I'm sure they chose D just out of rote habit than any deep thought.

As you mention, starting in the 3rd OT, there is no benefit to being on defense because you can't play conservative knowing you don't need a TD and I doubt you'd willingly play it safe knowing you'll always have the next OT as a fall back. They should just alternate possessions and stay on the same side of the field for two sets of OTs.  Pretty stupid to run 2 plays and have to go back to the other side of the field

I somewhat disagree with this take but it isn't a hill I would die on.

Let's say you are the first team to have the 2pt try, if your QB is under pressure, it might be smart to take a sack or throw the ball out of bounds. But if you know you need to score, you have to toss that ball up in the air, or try a riskier play.

What is of most interest to me is how would Michigan approach this situation? Would love to see a package where they get a "goal-line look" but then spread out and get mismatches for Corum for instance.

It is certainly a lot less relevant than in standard overtime periods, where you actually change your down-and-distance calculus depending upon what the team in the first period does. I suspect there is something to the pressure issue, though. And, theoretically, there is a bit of a risk difference. You want to avoid a pick-six type throw (pick-two, really, but you understand what I mean) if you go first or if you know the other team didn't score, but your QB will know they need to make a play no matter the risk* if you're two points down. So there's a slight advantage in game situation. Still, it's a lot less significant. Good question. 

*Unless that QB is Joe Milton

I think you're right that playing D first doesn't matter, and also that makes this OT format a good thing.  I think playing to home field advantage maybe helps a bit but is probably moot so it's not a terrible decision to pick something else.

There's been some hate for the new OT but I think it's more fair than the first two OTs, since there isn't the variability of FGs/XPs. In those first two OTs, playing defense first is a huge advantage in just getting information for offensive decision making on say, 4th down. The first two OTs may be more fun, but if you're still knotted up after 2 OTs (or even after 60 mins) then you truly have two evenly matched teams. 2P attempts is a fair way to break the tie.

FWIW, I am not a huge soccer fan but ties are so much more frequent at the end of regulation in that game that PKs do seem very fluky. OT games in football are rare enough that I think this format is fine, and 2P conversions still are a real football play with both teams evenly matched to determine the outcome.

Sometimes we ponder things that don't really move any needle.  I find such musings to be a complete and utter waste of time.  Like posting on sports blog boards.

I don't think it matters all that much so avoiding crowd noise could be a factor.  You are always calling your best play in every situation.

I picture us throwing corner fades to 5'8" receivers over and over...

Yeah going first once you reach 3OT is irrelevant.  If you go first on defense, your offense knows what is needed.  If you go first on offense, your defense knows what is needed.  There is no advantage to either.  

The only advantage I can think of  is that if you go defense first you have more time to draw up some new play on the sideline.

I don't know why they would eliminate the special teams portion of the game. Seems like much of the game strategy is lost.

Nine-innings.  Thus we could say that Illinois won on a walk-off in the bottom of the 9th. :)

Was wondering if you also saw the very poor football execution?

I agree and thought the same thing. Especially when it was Illinois' choice and they clearly had a preference for an end of the stadium.

I'm guessing the analytics guys haven't thought about this yet, so neither did the coaches.

I thought you were going to ask if the game now makes PSU the primary rival to Illinois.  

Speaking about the OT system in general, I like it.

At SOME point, you have to get the game over with- there are two major changes I'd make to it:

First- Don't make the teams switch ends. Whichever end you get, that's where you will be the rest of the game. They spent way too long walking back and forth.

Second- Do the conversion thing after three overtimes, not two.

I wasn't a fan of it as it seemed gimmicky.  If you're going to keep the rule in place then I'd like to see a coin toss to begin the 3rd OT.  The choices would be the usual (offense/defense/end of field).  However, I'd make it so that whatever the end of field was chosen was the way it would stay for the remainder of the game.  I think we can agree that there isn't a huge difference of offense vs. defense in this scenario as chronicled in many of your answers but if I was the visiting team who won the coin toss I'd seriously consider what end of the field I'd want to play in for the entirety OT period

Best practice for Illinois...

If you run for 300+ yard during the game, run it up the gut in at least 5 of those OT's.  Probably a 50% chance you get it each time.

Terrible coaching by Bert.  Thankfully, Frames is even worse.

Has anyone seen W-L stats on teams who get the ball first in OT vs going second? 

Also seems like getting the ball first, your offense would play more relaxed and confident, whereas going last might tend to make offenses play with more pressure on them and prone to make mistakes.

It would be cool if you could choose to kick the PAT.  

Anyone on the board know if a team can drop kick for 2 during a 2-point conversion?

After 2 OTs have a kicker shoot out. It is called FOOTball. Set the ball at the 45 yard line (55 yard FG) on a tee. Flip a coin to determine who goes first. It ends when one makes it and the other misses.