Overtime: is going 2nd really better?

Not when you win anyway. 

Going second reduces number of decisions, which one could argue is a coach execution advantage.

I mean, if you score a TD immediately, it of course changes the way you feel there. 

That said, in your one OT possession, if you go first and kick a FG not knowing that the opponent will score 7 next. You probably would have used that FG down to get the first down. So, yes, it is still advantageous to go second. The crowd helps, yes, but being able to effectively determine how to use your four downs optimally is a key advantage.

Yes, as opposed to going first. Definitely better for knowing what to do on offense.

But, maybe not outweighing end zone factors.

If you trust your team's focus, however, the end zone factor may not weigh heavily with you. 

I think knowing what you need to get is a definite advantage.  It can be reduced by the team in defense picking an advantageous end of the stadium.  I’d say sometimes teams give away that advantage by getting a bit conservative if the other team gets a FG first, but that could be all in my head.  Michigan does have a pretty amazing record in OT given it should be close to a coin flip.

Upon further thinking- going second also allows you the option of going for 2 and winning the game if the other team scored and kicked the XP.  Theoretically the team that goes first could also go for 2, but I honestly have never heard of that happening.

Okay, whatever...

By going second, Michigan got to choose which endzone they thought would be the loudest for them.

However, I like going second. Bama knew they had tobuse all 4 downs and that is huge. Had Bama went first and had a 4th and goal from the 3 they are likely kicking a FG.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4731867_An_Analysis_of_the_Defense_First_Strategy_in_College_Football_Overtime_Games

Division 1-A college football adopted overtime rules in 1996. There have been 328 overtime games since, and only four times have coaches opted to go on offense first upon winning the coin toss. Thus, there is an accepted belief that starting on defense first is advantageous, as validated by surveying college coaches. This study examines past game data to analyze whether there is truly an advantage to being on defense first. Results show some support for this idea, but that there may also be situations where not following the defense first strategy is worthwhile. Implications to coaches are discussed.

It's a good question.  Not knowing what will happen heading into OT, I have to think that going second is generally best for the standard reason that you'll know what you need to do.  But I suppose I could imagine an end of a stadium being so hostile that it would make a difference.  And certainly you've put yourself in the driver's seat if you manage to score a TD on the first possession of OT.  Your opponent now has to score a TD and then, assuming they successfully kick an extra point, immediately start over on another drive, after which you will know what you have to do.  

Another thought: it's absolutely ridiculous that a game can become an exchange of two-point tries.  The PSU-Illinois game that ended that way was absurd. 

Second is the right play.  I get the pressure argument if the first team scores a TD but that is not enough to give up the decision advantage. Especially if the first team fails to score at all.  Then the second team just needs to set up proper FG placement.

Just an aside I wish they would start with the ball at the 35.  Most college kickers can hit a 42 yard kick pretty consistently, but a 52 yard kick totally different story.  I think having to get at least one first down to get a  scoring opportunity is not unreasonable. 

its always better to go 2nd

If Bama goes first they kick a FG and Michigan wins with the TD run. They know they had to go for it because the went 2nd. Going 2nd gives you a complete data set and you always want to play with a complete set of information. 

It's better because you know before you run your first play what you have to do to either win or keep the game alive.  The team going first doest have that conundrum so if faced with a fourth and one at the 16, do you go for it or kick the FG?

Just because we won doesnt mean it's the better choice.  

Without looking up any data (as it pertains to how many overtimes games have on average)- it's probably just as beneficial to be going 2nd in the second overtime, if not more due to the 2 point rules.  So if you happen to be tied after the first one and you went first, you get defense second on the side of the field you want (I think) with the knowledge of if they converted the 2 pointer or not.  Same pressure caveats apply.

Older study shows there is a meanignful, but not overwhelming, advantage to going second. 

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2202/1559-0410.1049/html

I think the argument about the crowd is a good one - at a neutral site field especially. But knowing you need 7 is better than knowing your defense gets a chance to stop them. Especially when their kicker is that good. Had they gone first and the plays went the same way but on the Alabama EZ, they lose 26-23. Maybe there's no bad snap by the center on that side but also they're kicking it on 4th down. 

From 2012-2019, it was 54.7%-45.3%, in terms of who has the ball last in the last overtime winning the game.

That's statistically significant, that's not random noise.  There's definitely an advantage.

It was 51.1%-48.9%, in terms of who has the ball last in the first overtime winning the game.  It's still an advantage, but if the game moves to a 2nd OT, then you're working from a disadvantage.