How about this rule for the super bowl:

The team with the best record (so they get rewarded for a superior ref season) gets +.5 points.

Then we'd have no overtime to worry about.

Lost in all this, Reid let them run the clock down to the 2 minute warning after this:

(2:45) 2nd & 5 at KC 35: B.Purdy pass short right to G.Kittle to KC 35 for no gain.

If the Chiefs call timeout here, they get the ball back with a ton more time and don't have to kick a FG on 2nd down at the end of regulation.

There aren't many things the NFL prefers over having to worry about OT in a Superbowl. Everyone has their fingers crossed for that to happen.

Kyle Shanahan addressed the OT situation, basically saying the would have received in a high scoring game but decided to take the ball first in a low scoring game. That's obviously the correct approach, the question is just how low scoring the game has to be. 2011 #1 vs #2 LSU - Alabama went to OT at 6-6. If that's the game Sunday, I doubt many people argue with Shanahan's decision.

The other point they brought up: If KC gets the ball first, the 49ers D (that looked very tired on the last drive of regulation) stays on the field. OTOH, once they get the ball after the KC drive the Chiefs D had a lot of rest.

Nah this is an old school mentality. The chiefs had two minutes and two timeouts. That’s an eternity. It’s not just about maximizing the time left. You also have to consider scoring with too much time left. Offenses move the ball so easily in 2024 in endgame situations. I was fine with him not calling a timeout.

That's not what happened. 49ers had the ball and were one 3rd down conversion at the 2min warning away from running the clock down to roughly 20-25 seconds before kicking the go ahead field goal.

KC calls timeout at 2:39.
49ers get a first down on 3rd down.
KC calls their last timeout.
49ers run the ball on first down to the two minute warning.
49ers run on 2nd down and third down. (Each play takes 45 seconds off the clock)
49ers kick a FG with 25-30 seconds left.

There was no difference. I’d rather let 40 seconds burn off the clock and have an extra timeout and be able to better manage the clock and endgame to prevent the 49ers from answering.

There’s actually a (somewhat) meaningful difference in this scenario - if Reid used his timeouts before the 2 min warning, the 3rd down conversion play and the 1st down play (assuming the 49ers converted and then the chiefs correctly used their last timeout right after the conversion) would be run before the 2 min warning.

By saving his timeouts for after the 2 min warning, the 3rd down attempt (and the subsequent 1st if they converted) would’ve happened after the 2 min warning. Assuming each play would’ve taken 4 seconds, that’s the difference of giving Mahomes the ball down 3 with 20 seconds left and 28 seconds left.

Yeah, that is a valid point.

Kyle should just surrender his keys and leave with his box of stuff. How embarrassing is that. And lying about it on top of that.

I hope they pick some POS DC and they go 8-9. Then he will get fired.

If I were Lynch I am having serious talks with Vrabel right now. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

Honestly he had to lie to cover his ass in that situation. The truth is just too damning. All humans would do that. That's the only play in that spot so I can't hate. Altho I will hate on all the gullible mother****ers that took his word for it when it was obvious--to anyone who watches football beyond a casual level--he didn't know the rules the moment he chose to receive.

Shanahan is a great coach with terrible game management. He wasn’t even that bad in the super bowl.

we want the ball, and we're gonna score!

Thread title change?

I'm open to suggestions.

Don't think we can beat super mario

How about something along the lines "Kyle Shanahan don't need to know no stinking OT rules."

update:

Kyle Shanahan don't need to know no stinking OT rules. Mario CRYSTALBALL is still unreal dumb

After we've established that the second team is always going for 2 after scoring a TD in OT, I've been wondering about less obvious spots. Specifically how aggressive you're supposed to approach 4th down if the first team scored a FG.

Let's assume 4th & goal:
- From inside the 5 I'm pretty sure the answer is go
- From outside the 10 you probably have to kick
- What are you doing between the 5 and 10?

How much do you factor game conditions into your equation aka how likely it is for the other team to score after reaching sudden death?

The examples for the latter:
AFCCG Ravens vs. Chiefs: 11 second half drives that resulted in one score FG. Of the other 10 drives, one went inside the 10 and two others inside the 25.
Super Bowl 49ers vs. Chiefs: The final 7 drives of the game all resulted in points.

So you could argue it would have been more likely in the Super Bowl for the first team in sudden death to score than in the AFCCG.

I wonder if part of Shanahan's decision was because he didn't want to be faced with going for 2 with Brock if Mahomes scored a TD first and SF answered. Better to let the other coach face that pants-shitting moment.

I saw Ben Baldwin, who I normally respect, say that his decision would come down to how much you like your two point play. Which is pretty dumb because it matters a small percentage of the time.

Even if we assume a TD percentage of 28% for the receiving team (league average is 22%), 40% for the team who gets the ball second, you only add 1.7% in win probability between having a great play (65%) and an average play (50%).

There are more important considerations, obv.

Those %s don't account for exhausted defense. It's probably > % for td each way, but your point stands that 2PT conversion confidence is pretty negligible factor.

Typical NFL coach, take zero blame because you can blame somebody/someone else.

The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that none of the actual scoring mechanics matter for this discussion. It's pretty close and honestly doesn't matter based off of them. Anyone with a strong take on one side or the other needs to produce mathematical odds and simulations.

The real equity and why the 49ers should have kicked is getting 4 downs if you get the ball second and have to score. The Chiefs had to do it in OT, but it was 4th and 1 so I think the majority of teams getting the ball first would've gone if it was the first possession of OT in the same spot.

Let y equal the probability of a team scoring after receiving the kickoff when any score wins the game. If y is assumed to be equal for both teams, the probability then of a team kicking off and losing the game after 2 possessions is:

losing in next possession + opponent not scoring and team not scoring and then losing in subsequent possession +..., which is:

y + (1-y)^2 * y + (1-y)^4 * y + (1-y)^6 * y ...

This breaks down to a Maclaurin series whose sum equals 1/(1-x), or in this case:

y(1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ...) where x = (1-y)^2.

So, below is a short table of the probability of the 2nd possession team tying game w/ 100% successful FG, then losing to 3rd possession team:
So if we assume both teams have about 50% chance of scoring, then KC should try to win the game outright when their 4th down conversion chance exceeds the FG win rate, or (1-0.667), or 0.333. If instead we assume 70% chance of both scoring, then the 4th down play only needs to exceed (1-0.769) or 0.231.


Below is a conversion of the above table for KC minimum win equity needed for 4th down conversion: