The time-in and other ideas.

by sammy on Aug 19, 2009 5:24 PM PDT

Filched off kottke.

Samuel Arbesman proposes the introduction of the time-in.

To quantify how powerful a tool the time-in would be, I ran this idea by Brian Burke, the head of the website Advanced NFL Stats. Burke has developed a computational model that outputs the win-probability for a team over the course of a game. Assuming that it would only be used by the leading team on defense near the end of the game when there’s a small point difference, he found the time-in could produce up to a one-third drop in win probability for the losing team.

Following a discussion in a OT LL thread, if you were God of Football for a day, what one rule change would you introduce?

Personally, I think it'd be interesting to see what the game would look like if you relaxed the rules about eligible receivers. I'd be pumped to see some desperate team try out the A-11.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The A-11 absolutely

although it’s feels more Arena League than football.

Time in’s don’t sound like much fun. Close games and big come backs are exciting and a 1/3 drop in win expectancy is huge.

by Nate Dogg on Aug 19, 2009 5:44 PM PDT reply actions

I think it's more about the suspense of when a coach uses it.

Since the proposal is that each team only gets 1 per season. Think of all the second-guessing that would ensue if: a) a coach uses it and the other team wins anyway or b) a team wins in the last few seconds when the coach could have used it.

I agree, though, that overall, it’s not too interesting.

The other idea I had was the penalty box a la hockey. Football power plays would be exciting.

by sammy on Aug 19, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Ohhh, one per season

I thought it was one per game. Jesus you can’t trust most coaches with a simple challenge, it’d be awesome to see what they’d do with a once per season time in.

by Nate Dogg on Aug 19, 2009 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions

I prefer we just modify the time-out rule

So that when it’s called, for next play one of the opposing players has to go to a corner in the stadium and stick their nose in it at height indicated by the coach who called the timeout.

by B.B.Finnegan on Aug 19, 2009 5:58 PM PDT reply actions

I would make overtime not blow so much.

Or maybe I’d make kicks be like college; kicked from the left, right, or middle depending on where the ball went down last.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 19, 2009 7:05 PM PDT reply actions

College football overtime is the best thing in sports

by Nate Dogg on Aug 19, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Nothing comes close...

NCAA Tourney.
Period.

Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!

by Tyler Jorgensen on Aug 19, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Pro football's overtime is the most rediculous thing in sports.

Either go the College Football route or just allow draws. If two teams are evenly matched after 3 hours, why not let the record show that?

by Fear on Aug 20, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Correction: most rediculous overtime in sports.

by Fear on Aug 20, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions

That's ridiculous.

If we’re in a correcting mood… I let it go the first time, but my English teaching background wont allow me to sit on it a second time.

I do agree with you, a coin flip is a pretty lame way to start an OT. When was the last time the winning team chose to kick? I can’t remember it happening once ever… that should tell the NFL something…

by Tyler Jorgensen on Aug 21, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Hah sorry.

Normally I’m pretty good about that, but there’s a few words that I inexplicably and perpetually spell wrong. And when a spell check isn’t watching, I’m in trouble.

Anyways, what are the ‘s for winning on the first drive in overtime? I think it’s something like 60 (pulling a number I vaguely remember hearing being connected to overtime wins). It seems to simply come down to who wins the coin toss. And, failing that, who gets a lucky call or lucky play.

by Fear on Aug 21, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Next to the Tour de France

In what other sport…

•does the event go on for three weeks straight?
•will the other athletes wait up while you take a leak by the side of the road?
•are the fans permitted to run alongside the athletes and give them a push?
•can you see the fans do this:

by dagraham on Aug 20, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Oops

tried to post a vid link but didn’t work.

by dagraham on Aug 20, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions

make PI a challangable call

it can be a (in theory) a 98 yard penalty, i think refs should be givin the chance to review it

bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo

by thomasikehara on Aug 20, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions

Gotta second that.

by thebyron on Aug 20, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Make any 'major' play or penalty be challengable for that matter.

by LantermanC on Aug 20, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions

He argues that the time-in will make games more exiting

but the opposite is true.

say a team is up by 3, 52 seconds left and they have the ball at their own 8 yard line. the other team has all 3 time outs.

if there were no time ins, the trailing team could get the ball around the 50 with 30 seconds to get into field gull range.

with the time-in, the game would be over, as the last time out would be nullified by the time in.

You can also forget about about game winning field goals, after the timeout, a time in is called at the field goals team can’t get in.

the time out leads to less scoring and more predictably outcomes. Stupidest idea ever.

bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo

by thomasikehara on Aug 21, 2009 8:31 AM PDT reply actions

*time-ins leads....

bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo

by thomasikehara on Aug 21, 2009 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions

I think the idea is that the coaches would have to account for the time-in.

Therefore, they would have to construct a drive using only 2 timeouts, saving the third in reserve in case the opposing coach used his time-in. They could use their third, but then they are running the risk of the opposing coach using his time-in. And it then become a cat and mouse game of spiking the football, but being ready to spike it again in case the time-in is called. All while trying to engineer a winning drive.

by Fear on Aug 21, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions

If you want to make the game more exciting...

this isn’t the stupid idea I would come up with.

I’d rather eliminate/restrict the punt.

There, I said it.

Only allow a team to punt if they do not get any forward progress on their 3 prior downs. Say, 4th and 7 or farther, punts are allowed. And no punting allowed past the 50 yard into opposition territory at all.

by Tyler Jorgensen on Aug 21, 2009 7:45 PM PDT reply actions