Overtime: is going 2nd really better?

I was discussing with some fans after the game.  We concluded that going second is clearly the right strategy in a road game or a home game, but you could make the case that you might want to pick "your" side of the field in a neutral game with the fans split.

Still, as has been pointed out, Alabama knew they had to go for it on 4th and goal, and knowing that was a huge advantage for them. If they had gone first, they would almost certainly have kicked the FG in that same situation. 

yes. you get an extra down (sort of)

Bama wouldn’t have gone for it on 4th and goal from the three if they went first 

Yes. The team that plays defense first wins 54.9% of the time. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4731867_An_Analysis_of_the_Defense_First_Strategy_in_College_Football_Overtime_Games

The thing people seem to forget is that if you're not first, you're last!

It's probably a wash except in this situation:

Team going first faces 4th-and-short, e.g., 4th-and-1 at the 9 or something. Go for it or kick? Coach gets paid to make that decision. (Or, in Dan Campbell's case, paid to not see it as a decision to be made.)

The team going second has an easier decision. If its down 7 (e.g., Bama), it has to go, period. If it's still tied (i.e. first team didn't score), it kicks for the win (Frankly, it probably should have kicked on third down). If it's down 3, well, now there is a decision to be made, but not many people (other than Dan Campbell) would go for it.

I immediately said to my family that Alabama deferring gave us the advantage because our defense was on the field more, and had played meaningful downs at the end of regulation. Putting our offense out first let the defense rest more for an OT stand. IMO, it was one of several coaching mistakes from Alabama.

Knowing what you need is a bigger advantage than whatever psychological edge or crowd noise edge you get otherwise. Yes, when the other team scores a TD, it doesn't matter, but if they get a FG instead, you can completely change the way you call plays.

the fact that we have the #1 defense made not going second not a big deal

the fact that we scored a touchdown when we went first made it even less of a deal 

The differences aren't that large either way.  The team that goes on defense first wins roughly 55% of the time.  It's significant but not damning.  Once Michigan scored a TD+XP, they had a roughly 78% chance to win according to historical results.  The study did not look at neutral games as a variable, so I do think that's worth exploring since there is an advantage to having the opposing team trying to score on the end of the field your fans are on, though I'm not sure how much.

(Note:  The study I'm referring to I believe was for games between 1995-2006, so definitely possible those numbers have changed as the game has evolved in the past 18 years)

I'd say hand off to Corum and don't worrying about it!

This article is from Sept of 2022. Paywalled, but the gist is that since OT began in 1996, teams that played defense first won 52% of the time, but in the last 7 years, teams that got the ball first have won 54% of the time. 

A few thoughts: In this type of game with two opposing crowds, picking your end zone is a nice advantage. Most games it's not like that. 

2) The outcome worked for us in this case so it's easy to be tricked into thinking that's how it had to be, even if subconsciously.

3) Going first and getting just 3 points seems like a disadvantage. But getting zero points seems like a large disadvantage.

4) But if you go second and other team gets 3, then I think you might not play as hard to get a touch down because you subconsciously know you can also get three and still be playing.

I don't know why it wouldn't be. When you go second, you know what you have to get in order to win or keep the game going. 

If it wasn't better to go second, like if there was some deep analytics reasoning as to why it makes sense to go first, I think we'd start seeing a lot more schools opt to go first. 

Very much better to go second. If I'm calling plays for Alabama and I have a QB with some legs, I'm going for 2 after a TD. It is too late for Michigan to counter that other than just getting a stop. Going second gives you more flexibility.

I feel the OT rule change to make going for 2 necessary is second OT has further benefited the 2nd team to go. Now only the second team has the opportunity to pull a Boise State and win it with a walk off 2 pointer, whereas before the first team would have that option in second OT. Going for 2 when it is not necessary is a huge advantage. It dictates that THIS play is definitely the final play, and I'm on offense.

I mean, flip the possessions in the Rose Bowl. 

Saban almost certainly kicks the FG on 4th and goal from the 3 rather than run QB power. Assuming it even got to 4th and 3 and he didn’t just play for the kick as soon as he hit 3rd and 14. 

Then Michigan calls two Corum runs and scores, game over. 

Bama still is in better position having gone second, knowing they needed to at least go for it on 4th and goal. 

I don't think it matters much when you go into overtime knowing that the ref crew are complete fan boys and after feeling up your players asses all game will give you a first down on 4th down when you came up short come hell or high water.  

Sorry, still not over it.

Were we actually disavantaged in OT by losing the coin toss? 

We got to choose our end of the stadium to play the OT session on, giving us de facto crowd advantage.
 

This is true only because it was a neutral site game. So it wouldn’t apply to a true home or road game OT. 
 

Knowing what you need has serious advantages. You essentially give yourself an extra down knowing you need a TD. Take Bama’s OT drive for example. 4th and goal from the 3, you would almost certainly kick the field goal. Scoring SOME kind of points is essential with your opponent starting their drive in field goal range. Since they knew they needed a TD, they had an extra down to accomplish that. Obviously they didn’t convert but there’s really no scenario where the pressure of needing a TD outweighs the benefits of knowing you need one.

Defense-first is the best strategy *all else being equal.*

All else is not always equal. An opposing player who gets the yips under pressure, for instance, or an opposing OC who is reduced to QB runs.

You go on defense first against James Franklin to maximize the chances of a coaching strategy error. You go on offense first against a center who biffs shotgun snaps when pressured. That latter scenario doesn’t happen much.

I have had similar thoughts.  But if they go first and you get a turnover, you can just line up and kick a field goal.  That's a big advantage.

It’s always better to know exactly what you have to do. There’s no question going second is better. 

It's always better, until it isn't. 

If the first team kicks a field goal or doesn't score, it is better to go second.

If the first team scores a TD, it's better to go first.

The team that goes on defense first knows what they need when they go on offense.  It should be a benefit to the team that goes on defense first.  The following Brady stories helps counter it:

1.  The other team fails to score when on offense so if you gain nothing all you need is a 42 yard field goal to win the game.  If you are Brady Hoke, you then effectively take 3 knees and end up with longer than a 42 yard field goal which you miss.  You go into another overtime and lose.

2.  If you're Tom Brady and take lead your team to a TD, the other team must match.  They score the TD but on fluke of fluke the PAT goes wide.

3.  If you're Marcia Brady, you get the car close to the egg while on offense.  When Greg Brady goes on offense, he has to get closer to the egg than Marcia.  He knows where he needs to be but he and the egg both crack.

If you go second and are down 7 and get yourself into a 3rd and long, it is very beneficial to know you have 2 downs to get the first. Going 2nd is always the much more beneficial way to go

It is unequivocally an advantage to go second in OT in every situation, regardless of pressure, crowd advantage, anything. Going second affords you additional information that the first team does not get. This additional information makes it so that 4th down decision are not guess work but are simple decisions dictated by the previous possession. Any other considerations are feelingsball, this is cold, hard math.

Yes, going second is better.

Always.

They only had to stop us 3 times, we had to stop them 4 times. No matter what, they were always going for it on 4th Down.

Also, I get what you're saying...but we had pressure as well (on defense).

I dont know about you guys but I did not jump up and down on Wilson or Corums TD.  I was extremely happy they made it to the endzone but I was scared about those PATs after what happened earlier in the game.