Options
Game Theory and the 1984 Orange Bowl
halfcentman
Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The numbers part of it is not hard. I'll let you decide:
THE RANKINGS BEFORE THE BOWL GAMES STARTED WERE LIKE THIS:
1. Nebraska (12-0), 2. Texas (12-0), 3. Auburn (10-1), 4. Illinois (10-1), 5. Miami (10-1), 7 Georgia (9-1-1), 8. Michigan (9-2), (Not ranked) UCLA (6-4-1).
Miami was ranked 4/5, but it did not matter.
COTTON BOWL: Georgia beat Texas 10-9
ROSE BOWL: UCLA pounded Illinois 45-9
SUGAR BOWL: Auburn beat Michigan 9-7 on a last-second FG.
Since the 1984 Orange Bowl was the last game to be played, Nebraska and Miami knew that they were playing for the whole ball of wax given the results of the previous games.
In short, the argument is simple: The decision to go for the win given his previous decisions is not up for debate. It was made well before the game, and IMHO cemented TO's legacy. He did the right thing, even though the outcome was not the desired one.
The argument is HOW they went for the win.
Down 31-17 going into the 4th quarter, they scored a TD on Jeff Smith, 1-yard run with 6:55 to go in the game. the score was 31-23. They kicked an extra point. When they scored the second TD to make it 31-30, going for the tie would have been an unmitigated disaster, even though it was ever-so-slightly mathematically correct and if it were successful they would have won the NC with certainty since no other team would have been unbeaten. They were only 75/81 on XP's for the year. Can you imagine what would happen if they went for the XP and they did not get it?? Keep in mind that 1-A football did not have an overtime rule until the start of the 1996 season.
The argument is that if they had all intentions of winning the game, they should have went for the two-point conversion after the FIRST touchdown. If they got it, the score would have been 31-25. After the second TD, the game would be tied and there would no other decision but to kick the XP. Whether they missed it or made it, they still would have won the NC.
If they had missed it, the score would have been 31-23. After the next TD, the score would have been 31-29. Obviously, you have to go for the two-point conversion. If you make it, you have tied the game under totally different circumstances because you did not back into it. If you lose, YOU LOSE. Whether you lose 31-29 or 31-30, you still lose.
Two important points to see here:
1) Notice that by going for the 2P, there was no choice as to what option you had to choose. By Nebraska kicking the XP after the first TD, they left themselves with horrible dilemma that was totally avoidable.
2) Whether they made or missed the XP or 2P, they would have never been down by more than two scores if Miami scored anything on the next possession. Trust me on that one.
Take some time to read it over and follow it. It's the out-of-the-box thinking that's more important than the math.
Greg
THE RANKINGS BEFORE THE BOWL GAMES STARTED WERE LIKE THIS:
1. Nebraska (12-0), 2. Texas (12-0), 3. Auburn (10-1), 4. Illinois (10-1), 5. Miami (10-1), 7 Georgia (9-1-1), 8. Michigan (9-2), (Not ranked) UCLA (6-4-1).
Miami was ranked 4/5, but it did not matter.
COTTON BOWL: Georgia beat Texas 10-9
ROSE BOWL: UCLA pounded Illinois 45-9
SUGAR BOWL: Auburn beat Michigan 9-7 on a last-second FG.
Since the 1984 Orange Bowl was the last game to be played, Nebraska and Miami knew that they were playing for the whole ball of wax given the results of the previous games.
In short, the argument is simple: The decision to go for the win given his previous decisions is not up for debate. It was made well before the game, and IMHO cemented TO's legacy. He did the right thing, even though the outcome was not the desired one.
The argument is HOW they went for the win.
Down 31-17 going into the 4th quarter, they scored a TD on Jeff Smith, 1-yard run with 6:55 to go in the game. the score was 31-23. They kicked an extra point. When they scored the second TD to make it 31-30, going for the tie would have been an unmitigated disaster, even though it was ever-so-slightly mathematically correct and if it were successful they would have won the NC with certainty since no other team would have been unbeaten. They were only 75/81 on XP's for the year. Can you imagine what would happen if they went for the XP and they did not get it?? Keep in mind that 1-A football did not have an overtime rule until the start of the 1996 season.
The argument is that if they had all intentions of winning the game, they should have went for the two-point conversion after the FIRST touchdown. If they got it, the score would have been 31-25. After the second TD, the game would be tied and there would no other decision but to kick the XP. Whether they missed it or made it, they still would have won the NC.
If they had missed it, the score would have been 31-23. After the next TD, the score would have been 31-29. Obviously, you have to go for the two-point conversion. If you make it, you have tied the game under totally different circumstances because you did not back into it. If you lose, YOU LOSE. Whether you lose 31-29 or 31-30, you still lose.
Two important points to see here:
1) Notice that by going for the 2P, there was no choice as to what option you had to choose. By Nebraska kicking the XP after the first TD, they left themselves with horrible dilemma that was totally avoidable.
2) Whether they made or missed the XP or 2P, they would have never been down by more than two scores if Miami scored anything on the next possession. Trust me on that one.
Take some time to read it over and follow it. It's the out-of-the-box thinking that's more important than the math.
Greg
0
Comments
I'm on board with the basic premise you've laid out in your post, except for a couple issues. So if I'm following you right - they make the 2P conversion to make it 31-25, then Miami runs back the kickoff to make it 38-25...that isn't being down 2 scores? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Also, if the goal was winning the NC, then kicking the XP at 31-30 was WAAAYYY more than "ever-so-slightly mathematically correct" than going for 2. There was a 92.5% (75/81) chance they'd make the PAT, whereas the chances of converting a 2P try are somewhere between 45-50%.
<< <i>
In short, the argument is simple: The decision to go for the win given his previous decisions is not up for debate. It was made well before the game, and IMHO cemented TO's legacy. He did the right thing, even though the outcome was not the desired one.
>>
How did he "do the right thing" ? If he went for the tie, then his team finished as the only undefeated team in college football that year.
Would not the voters have voted Nebraska #1 ? The game was played in Miami's back yard, wasn't it ?
<< <i><<2) Whether they made or missed the XP or 2P, they would have never been down by more than two scores if Miami scored anything on the next possession. Trust me on that one.>>
I'm on board with the basic premise you've laid out in your post, except for a couple issues. So if I'm following you right - they make the 2P conversion to make it 31-25, then Miami runs back the kickoff to make it 38-25...that isn't being down 2 scores? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Also, if the goal was winning the NC, then kicking the XP at 31-30 was WAAAYYY more than "ever-so-slightly mathematically correct" than going for 2. There was a 92.5% (75/81) chance they'd make the PAT, whereas the chances of converting a 2P try are somewhere between 45-50%. >>
RESPONSE:
1) I said MORE than two scores.
2) By going for the XP at 31-23, they painted themselves into a horrible corner after Jeff Smith scored the second TD at 31-30. Nebraska was only 2/3 on 2P, which is not enough of a sample size. However, they had a lot of momentum as well as one of the best offenses in college football history. Can you imagine what would have happened if that XP was blocked or wide??? This is a perfect case of QUALITATIVELY interpreting statistical data, because you have to deal with the ramifications that went along with it. The team decided that they did not want to back into a NC. Even though it was virtually certain that they would have won with a tie, people still vote. Hence, by going for the XP at 31-23, you essentially lose all control by facing a dilemma at 31-30, and putting your NC hopes in the hands of voters - even if there was a 99.95% chance that they would have won.
3) As I stated, by going for the 2P at 31-23, it did not matter whether you made it or missed it because after the second TD was scored at 31-29 (if the previous 2P was missed), or 31-31 (if the previous 2P was made). You can see that in this scenario there is no dilemma; it's either a 2P, or an XP respectively. In short, by going for the 2P at 31-23, Nebraska would have been in complete control; win or lose.
It was not until after the cringing loss of the 1994 Orange Bowl (where I was never more proud of my team) that this argument was presented to me by my mathematics professor. It is scenarios like this which prove that the cerebral aspect of sports is not used often enough to guide proper decision making. The implemenation of this does not require a genius-level IQ. It requires the ability to follow advice that is reinforced by logic, and this can be achieved by anyone willing to accept it.
For anyone interested in this sort of stuff, I highly recommend the book "Scorecasting". It's an excellent read.
<< <i>Like I said, I agree with the point of your post. but stating they will be down by no MORE than 2 scores after the first TD if Miami scores again adds nothing to your argument. Also, the potential backlash if the PAT at 31-30 is missed or blocked doesn't play into the equation, nor should it affect the decision. Just like the backlash that Belichick got when he went for 4th and 2 didn't play into his decision making. I was one of the few on this board that agreed with him going for it. Having a math and science background, I agree with any strategy that mathematically gives your team a better chance to win, however "unconventional" it may be.
For anyone interested in this sort of stuff, I highly recommend the book "Scorecasting". It's an excellent read. >>
BTW, I like your signature thread with the Boston legends.
As far as ramifications are concerned, I understand the purity of the whole thing (and I am in your corner about the 4th and 2 as well) and your point is well made - so much so that I think I will need to revise of POV a bit. Fourth down strategy in FB is another story, to which I think I'd be preaching to the choir with you.
I do have a question for you, though. What do you think the mathematical ramifications are of the NFL Playoff OT rule?
Thanks for the great discourse,
Greg
Funny you ask, because they tackle this topic the Scorecasting book I mentioned above. The book presents data through 2009, but I added the data from last season, even though it works against my argument (see below).
From 2000-2010, there have been 177 overtime games. Two of those games ended in ties, and one time Detroit did not choose to recieve or kickoff, but instead chose the side of the field (they lost). Everyone else chose to recieve when winning the toss. So of the other 174 games, the team winning the coin toss won 104 times (60%), and 60 of those were on the first possession. So the coin toss winner has a GIGANTIC 3:2 advantage in OT.
One might ask why I only went back to 2000. Two reasons: 1) that is the only data I have, but more importantly 2) in today's NFL, the rules favor the offense more than they did before 2000, so this past decade is more statistically relevant than previous decades. It's much easier to score in this day and age.
I dislike anything that gives an unfair advantage to a team that didn't earn it. It's the same reason that I HATE (maybe more than anything in sports) the MLB rule that gives World Series home-field advantage to the All-Star game winner.
So, to answer your question, I like the NFL playoff OT rule. I would expect the W/L percentage of the coin toss winner to drop closer to 50% under these new rules. Anyone that points to last season (where coin toss winners only won 42% of the time) as a reason why the NFL should have never changed the rules, is flat-out wrong. It is too small a sample size to draw a conclusion from. 10 years of data prove the regular season OT rule is unfair.
Perhaps if the field was a quagmire, icy, it was 10 degrees below zero, a 30 mph wind, you have a top-5 defense???
Without question, the biggest anomoly is the on-sides kick (unheard of under the old system). Recovering an on-sides kick automatically turns the game into sudden death since the receiving team had a shot at possession. Hence, a FG ends the game if the kicking team recovers the ball and scores anything.
"Opportunity to possess: The opportunity to possess occurs only during kicking plays. A kickoff is an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. If the kicking team legally recovers the kick, the receiving team is considered to have had its opportunity."
Two things stand out: 1) There is no specific mention of onsides kick in those rules. 2) "A kickoff is an opportunity to possess for the receiving team". The way I read that definition is that if the kicking team attempts an onside kick, but doesn't recover, and the receiving team goes ahead to kick a FG, that the kicking team would then get a crack, because they haven't had an opportunity to possess the ball yet.
If the above scenario is true, then there are probably some specific scenarios where it would be best to defer. If I had a top 5 defense, and there a noticable wind advantage, I might defer (assuming my opponent would choose to receive) and then choose the end with the wind advantage. I would then try an onside kick (element of surprise would be huge, especially in the first playoff game using the new rule). If I didn't recover, I'd hope my defense could hold them to a 40 yd+ FG try into a tough wind.
That's just my gut feel....If I have some time, I'll try to dig up all the pertinent data (onside kick recovery %, % chance of possession ending with a FG when starting from my 40-45, % of FGs missed beyond 40 yds, etc) and post my findings.
You are completely missing the point. Tom Osborne wanted to win the national championship by WINNING THE GAME, not by playing for a tie. The OP is postulating that since winning the GAME was the goal, not backing into a national championship, if Osborne thought it through clearly, he would have went for 2P after the first TD. If they were unsuccessful, he could have gone for 2P after the second TD to possibly tie the game. If they tied the game in that fashion, at least he could look everyone in the eye and say did everything he could to win the national championship by WINNING THE GAME.
Of course he could have kicked 2 XPs and won a national championship, and most people wouldn't have given him any grief for doing that. Because Osborne is a man of dignity, he went for the win. He just went about it the wrong way.
Shouldn't that be "Because Osborne is an idiot....." Why is going for two on the first XP any better than going for two after the second XP? Either way, he needs one two point conversion.
Isn't the goal of every top tier time to win the national championship? What is dignified about throwing away months of hard work to satisfy TO's warped sense of machismo? He had a NC in his hand and threw it away. Kick an extra point, and you are national champions. How hard is that?
<< <i>Because Osborne is a man of dignity, he went for the win. He just went about it the wrong way.
Shouldn't that be "Because Osborne is an idiot....." Why is going for two on the first XP any better than going for two after the second XP? Either way, he needs one two point conversion.
Isn't the goal of every top tier time to win the national championship? What is dignified about throwing away months of hard work to satisfy TO's warped sense of machismo? He had a NC in his hand and threw it away. Kick an extra point, and you are national champions. How hard is that? >>
As stated above, this scenario is predicated on the fact that Nebraska (not Osborne, but the entire team) decided that THEY needed to win the game in order for them to win what they deemed a "legitimate" national championship.
The point that you are arguing is whether or not Nebraska should have played for a tie in the first place. That is mutually exclusive from the initial point that I made.
eyebone
<< <i>i remember the game well. i agree with the op (both now and then).
eyebone >>
Thanks.
I was a senior in HS when that game was played. I started rooting for Nebraska in 1982, and I have never stopped 30 seasons later.
I've come across the following article by Brian Burke, the guy that came up with the statistics I quoted above:
Onside Kick to Begin OT
The interesting thing is that this article was written before the rules were further changed last month to have kickoffs start at the 35-yd line. I would expect that the break even point has increased even farther (somewhere between 45-50%), but the surprise onside kick is still the better percentage play.
After reading some of Burke's work, I would revise my answer to your previous question. If my kicker did not have a strong enough leg to get a touchback, I would almost definitely try an onside kick to start OT. If I know my kicker will get a touchback so the other team will start at the 20 (which is the breakeven point where either team is equally likely to score next), then I might be more inclined to kick deep.