Fixing Football Overtime: A Modest Proposal

Overtime in football is badly implemented.

I believe that overtime should be of a reasonably known duration like the regulation game, be as fair to both teams as practical, always result in a clear winner, and most of all, be exciting to watch.  Neither the professional nor college rules for overtime consistently meet these goals.

In professional football (prior to March 2010), it’s well-known that the team winning the coin flip wins 6 out of 10 times. Worse, during the regular season, an entire extra 15 minutes of football can be played, and still end up with at tie. That’s like kissing your sister twice. During the playoffs, the rules get really weird, with the “fifth quarter” running until someone scores – unless the first possession results in a field goal, in which case the other team gets a series to try to score a field goal and keep the game going. It could literally go on forever.

College rules are somewhat better, in that the probability of winning the game is reasonably independent of winning the coin flip, and someone always wins eventually. However, even during the regular season, college overtime can run essentially forever – just ask those who endured all seven overtime periods in the Ole Miss vs. Arkansas game in 2001.

End the madness.  Both professional and college football should adopt a common set of overtime rules that always result in one team winning the game on the field in a reasonably short known time period.  I have just the solution – the Referee’s Point.

The Referee’s Point

With the Referee’s Point, a single untimed college-style overtime pair of series is played, with Visitors (V) always running the first series from Home’s (H) 25 yard line, and with H following with a similar series from V’s 25 yard line (a coin flip determines V and H when played on a neutral field - or, if you're really a fan of coin flips, you could start every overtime with a coin flip). Unlike current college rules, though, if overtime play ends in a tie, the referee awards a single point, the Referee’s Point, to determine a winner.

The Referee’s point goes to V in every case but one, because they overcame home field advantage to keep the score tied.  The exception occurs if H ends overtime by scoring a touchdown and 2-point conversion, in which case the referee awards the winning point (if needed) to H.

Common Scenarios

These simple rules unexpectedly provide a rich set of strategic considerations that, gratifyingly enough, result in the Referee’s Point rarely being awarded in practice.  Its mere existence results in strategic choices by both teams that avoid it if possible. Let’s look at the three most common outcomes of overtime with these rules first, with an exhaustive analysis of every possible overtime outcome later.

·         V scores a touchdown and extra point.  H must score a touchdown and 2-point conversion to win; otherwise, they lose.

·         V scores a field goal. H must score a touchdown to win;
otherwise, they lose.

·         V fails to score.  H will try to position for a field goal, winning if the kick is good and losing (via the Referee’s Point) if they miss.

Thus, the Referee’s Point normally needs to be awarded only if both teams fail to score in overtime (or in the statistically unlikely event that both teams score touchdowns and both miss the extra point).  Otherwise, both teams’ offenses are properly motivated to win or lose by the traditional scoring rules.

More Advantages

A single overtime of two series resolves the game in a fairly short and predictable time span, which is important to video broadcasts. 

A winner is always selected on the field of play, and always on the last play of overtime, maintaining suspense to the end. 

Unless H scores defensive points in the first series, both offenses and both defenses (and often special teams) play a critical role in determining the winner.

And these overtime rules help compensate for the ephemeral home field advantage, while still allowing the home team to overcome that counterbalance with a thrillingly successful 2-point conversion at the end.

In short, the Referee’s Point is the best solution available to resolving the overtime controversy in both college and professional football.  In my humble opinion, of course. ;-)

Appendix – An Exhaustive Analysis of Outcomes

This appendix lays out all of the possible outcomes of overtime following the Referee’s Point approach.  Options led by asterisks are unlikely to occur in practice, because a well-coached team wouldn’t choose a scoring option riskier than necessary to win or by which they would lose the game. Note the rich set of strategic options available with this system.

Remember, V always runs the first series in overtime.

H scores a safety

·         H wins by 2

H Intercepts or recovers a fumble

·         If H returns the turnover for a TD, H wins by 6

·         Otherwise, treat this as “V fails to score”

V fails to score

·         If H also fails to score, V wins via
     the Referee’s Point

·         If V scores a safety, V wins by 2

·         If H scores a field goal, H wins by 3

·         If H scores a touchdown, H wins by 6

V scores a field goal

·         If H fails to score, V wins by 3

·         If V scores a safety, V wins by 5

·         ** If V returns a turnover for a TD, V wins by 9

·         ** If H scores a field goal, V wins by
     the Referee’s Point

·         If H scores a touchdown, H wins by 3

V scores a touchdown with no extra point

·         If H fails to score, V wins by 6

·         If V scores a safety, V wins by 8

·         ** If V returns a turnover for a TD, V wins by 12

·         ** If H scores a field goal, V wins by 3

·         If H scores a touchdown and misses the extra point, V wins by
     the Referee’s Point

·         If H scores a touchdown and extra point, H wins by 1

·         ** If H scores a touchdown and 2-point conversion, H wins by 2

V scores a touchdown with extra point

·         If H fails to score, V wins by 7

·         If V scores a safety, V wins by 9

·         ** If V returns a turnover for a TD, V wins by 13

·         ** If H scores a field goal, V wins by 4

·         ** If H scores a touchdown and misses the extra point, V wins by 1

·         ** If H scores a touchdown and extra point, V wins by
     the Referee’s  Point

·         If H scores a touchdown and 2-point conversion, H wins by 1

** V scores a touchdown with 2-point conversion

·         If H fails to score, V wins by 8

·         If V scores a safety, V wins by 10

·         ** If V returns a turnover for a TD, V wins by 14

·         ** If H scores a field goal, V wins by 5

·         ** If H scores a touchdown and misses the extra point, V wins by 2

·         ** If H scores a touchdown and extra point, V wins by 1

·         If H scores a touchdown and 2-point conversion, H wins by
     the Referee’s Point

 

A final few points. Note that V has no motivation to go for a 2-point conversion in overtime, as H wins by making their own 2-point conversion regardless.

Since each offensive series starts 75 yards from the team’s goal line, safeties would be exceptionally rare. They are included for completeness, however.

 

The Ape and the Innovator

I often read flames for the usability of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). What's often frustrating is that the usability of FOSS doesn't usually have anything to do with the bashing.

One common complaint is that FOSS just apes the user interface for commercial software – most often Microsoft's. “FOSS can't innovate!”, cry the fudsters, “They just copy all of the innovations that Microsoft's expensive research has developed!” OpenOffice.org's famous office suite is the poster child for this complaint, as its developers have worked long and hard to keep its experience similar to Microsoft Office to help home users easily alternate when Office is required at work.

The opposite complaint is that FOSS is so different that it's hard for people accustomed to commercial software to adapt. “FOSS developers can't even follow Microsoft's clear guidelines!”, they scream, “People want software that is familiar!” The Gnome desktop used in Ubuntu Linux is the poster child for this complaint, with its multiple workspaces famously spinning in a cube, Applications / Places / System drop-down menus in place of Start, application drawers on panels for quick access, and simple repository-based Add / Remove Programs instead of slow and painful “install wizards” that Windows users endure.

Of course, those of us who use FOSS extensively tend to appreciate the thoughtful innovations that keep us productive, and the solid foundation in user interface conventions dating back to 1970's Xerox PARC, gloriously free of ribbonized bastardization.

But if the Ape and the Innovator are equally bashed, which should dominate amongst free developers?

While both approaches are equally bashed, they have very different likely outcomes. The Ape creates software that is easy for Windows users to adopt, true, but is condemned to always follow in whatever direction Microsoft leads. When you're not the lead horse, you're constantly focused on a horse's behind (to coin a phrase). Innovators, on the other hand, may have more difficulty recruiting users, but those new recruits have a very real reason to switch – the free application is not only zero cost, and it not only respects their liberty, but it also makes them more productive!

While I understand the Ape's motivation and applaud his motivation to lower the barrier for those seeking software freedom, the future lies with the Innovator. When you stop following the horse's behind, you are free to explore the world, and that makes for a far more exciting and fulfilling journey.

Installing Your Own OS - Who's Easy?

I like debating. I like technology. These two characteristics leads me to invest more time than I should debating the pros and cons of various technologies and technology-related products, including desktop operating systems. (Yes, Windows is not the only one! ;-)

I've extensively used every version of Windows from 1.0 to XP, and every version of Ubuntu Linux from 6.06 to 8.10. When debating the merits of each, I'm often told that “until Linux is as easy to install as Windows, it will never succeed on the desktop”. Thus, when Microsoft recently provided an open release (for a time) of Windows 7, I decided to perform a fair, unbiased side-by-side comparison of installing and configuring each from scratch. How could any self-respecting geek resist?

If you're not a hard-core geek, then let your eyes glaze over now. Otherwise, read the summary of my testing below (yes, that's the short version!), or see all the gory details at http://ricegf.com/index.php?page=review&review=0001.

Install Time

Windows 7 requires more than twice as long to install – almost 36 minutes, compared to Ubuntu's under 15 minutes – although nobody will find either process particularly tiresome or confusing.

Windows 7 required that I complete 9 screens of information across the 36 minutes and endure 2 reboots to install, while Ubuntu required only 4 screens up front and then no reboots. Ubuntu's inclusion of a LiveCD test mode (try before you install), live install mode (run while you install), and the famous wubi mode (install while you run Windows itself), make Ubuntu's installation much easier and more straightforward than Windows 7's experience to any objective standard. It's also a totally cool suite of technology, you gotta admit.

However, if installing an OS makes you at all queasy, then you should simply buy your OS pre-installed like most people. Ubuntu is available from Dell, System76 (where Janet bought my Starling Netbook), and ZaReason, Windows 7 from... well, just about anyone. ;-)

Configuration

Once installed, neither operating system offered any driver challenges at all on my older test hardware (but here, your mileage will vary the most). Windows 7 was mildly more challenging to configure on the test machine than Ubuntu, particularly if you try to follow its advice – the confusing and ultimately futile guided quest for malware protection should shame someone at Microsoft.

Initial User Experience

Windows 7 required quite a bit more work to get running than Ubuntu, primarily because so much functionality was missing. For instance, no Instant Messenger (IM) or email client was provided by default, and when you install Microsoft's IM client, it only works with Microsoft's service (all my friends use Yahoo! or AOL).

Ubuntu came pre-installed with a full-featured email client and multi-service IM client that quickly connected to the services I actually use. And Ubuntu included much of the other basic productivity software I need – browser, office suite, bitmap and vector graphics editors, and PDF readers; Windows required installing each program (other than Internet Explorer) separately.

Long-Term Usability

Windows 7 has some nice tricks up its sleeve once you get it going. It's somewhat easier to “pin” an application to the task bar than to add a launcher to Ubuntu's panel, but more importantly, the unique right-click menus provided by Windows 7-aware applications provide some real usability improvements. It's not a killer feature exactly, but it's innovative and useful. AeroPeek is also way cool.

It's actually easier to install and remove applications in Ubuntu, especially the several thousand available in the app store, but in terms of sheer quantity of apps Windows wins hands down – particularly niche, vertical market, and commercial applications. However, Ubuntu's multiple desktops and a more capable compositing manager (which means eye candy), its free price tag, and especially its immunity to the malware that infests most Windows computers, help balance the equation. And for those of us who care about software freedom, Ubuntu's focus on the computer owner's liberty is, well, priceless.

Why Switch?

Ubuntu isn't the only desktop Linux product available, but it's generally regarded as the most popular and one of the best. Yet desktop Linux powers a mere 1-4% of the billion desktops in the world, compared to 4-6% for Macs and 90-95% for Windows (statistics vary a lot, depending on who's measuring and the assumptions they make). So why switch?

Most Ubuntu users cite freedom from viruses, a strong community, and a focus on what works rather than what's profitable as incentives for making the switch. My reason was somewhat different, as illustrated by the old story of the proud old Soviet dog who nevertheless immigrated to America.

Taken to a grocery store, Comrade Dog haughtily exclaimed, “Russian food is much better!” Taken to the opera, Comrade Dog stated, “Russian culture is more refined!” Taken to a baseball game, Comrade Dog complained, “Russian sports are more exciting!”

In exasperation, his host asked, “So why exactly did you move to America?” With a look of contempt at the obviousness of the question, Comrade Dog replied, “I like to bark.”

I find Ubuntu an excellent fit for my work, but even if it didn't, the freedom to use the software as I choose, share it with whom I like, and never have to answer to a Corporation's demand for a 40-character “authorization key” or plead for the right to re-install it after replacing a broken component makes Ubuntu infinitely superior to the more popular option. Or even 7 of them.

Embrace liberty. It's worth it.

Modeling Society as a Heat Engine

I was a conservationist before conservationism was cool.

Maybe it was my dad, father and Scoutmaster to two Eagle sons, who put the environmental bug in my ear back in the 1970's. Maybe it's my training as an electrical engineer, leading me to recognize that energy is finite and Bad Things Happen when you run out. Maybe it's simple logic.

But as far back as high school, I was trying to find a way to build a practical electric car - a paper I wrote for my Presidential Scholar application as a high school junior in 1978 dealt with hybrids as a partial solution. Now, my family's life is based to the extent practical on renewable energy. Our all-electric house is powered by a Green Mountain "all wind" plan (Texas gives you a choice, don't you know), so even my lawn mower and chainsaw generate no appreciable greenhouse gases. Our direct carbon footprint is mostly driven by our conventional gas-powered cars and a lawn-and-garden tractor, none of which have practical alternatives yet (but we're getting close!).

Now, I'm not a fan of Al Gore at all, because his policies would have the effect of crippling the U.S. economy for (in my opinion) no good reason.  I believe that the Tragedy of the Commons makes efforts to restrict carbon emissions a fool's game. The solution to a sustainable economy is in my opinion principally technological, not legislative. Make environmentally-friendly power cheap and convenient, and you couldn't keep people away.

So I was double-fascinated (as an engineer and environmentalist) by an article today in Science Daily titled "Is Global Warming Stoppable". Tim Garrett, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Utah, modeled the economy as a heat engine which converts energy into wealth. (Yes, economists were scandalized, which makes the work that much more satisfying to me.)  His data, going back almost 2000 years, resolves down to Garrett's Constant (my term for his results) - 9.7 mW/$.  When an economy (not just ours) consumes 9.7 milliwatts of power, it produces a dollar of wealth. Remarkable.

Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation proved that mass is energy; Garrett's indicates that energy is the economy.  It's that simple.

The solution is inevitable: Put both equations together, and the USA must get serious about building out a nuclear powered electric infrastructure. For all of Al's preaching of his wind and solar gospel, and I do love wind and solar (remember my house?), the real challenge is for base electric load (power on a calm, dark night). Coal, oil and natural gas generate air pollution even with "efficient" plants. We've maxed hydroelectric (power from dams) and geothermal (power from underground heat). Nuclear is what's left. Wikipedia has an excellent summary of the pros and cons, but I don't see an alternative.

The future is nuclear after all. Let's get on with it before our economic engine runs out of fuel.

Quick Guide to Switching to Ubuntu

Quick Guide to Switching to Ubuntu

I was one of the first engineers at work to switch from DOS to a Mac, way back in 1984. I also began using Windows 1.0 just over a year later, though I didn't fully transition until Windows 3.0. So it's a little embarrassing that I didn't begin using Linux until 2000, a good 9 years after its initial release.

What took me so long? Well, Linux represented a strange new world, where technology wasn't owned and marketed by a *company* but rather created and distributed for free by a loose confederation of geeks. Thus, it was a little, well, unpolished. Over my 9 years of using various Linux products, however, that polished feel has crept into Linux bit by bit until, in my opinion, it now compares very favorably with Windows and Mac OS/X.

I recently read a blog entry by Jackson Chung titled “A Windows User's Quick Switching to Mac Guide”, and realized just how far Linux, and in particular the Ubuntu product that is based on Linux, has come in terms of usability. Let's consider the categories that Mr. Chung (who has no apparent interest in Linux) chose to highlight for transitioning Windows users, as they compare to Ubuntu. (Note: I mention Windows 7 a bit, but stick mostly to Windows XP, as that appears to be Mr. Chung's Windows of choice.)

Installing Apps

Installing a new application in Windows usually means buying a DVD from a store or searching the web for a download file. Running setup.exe from the DVD or download by double-clicking it typically leads you through a “wizard”, answering several screens of questions, until an Install button appears. Click it, wait a bit, and you're done.

Installing a new application on a Mac involves acquiring a DMG file from a store or an Internet search. Double-clicking the DMG file “mounts” it, displaying its contents. Dragging the app's icon to the Applications folder completes the install. Unmount the DMG by dragging it to the Trash, and you're done.

In Ubuntu, click Applications → Ubuntu Software Center, click the application of interest, select Install, and you're done.

My Opinion: I find the Ubuntu approach to be more intuitive and modern than Windows or Mac, in fact very similar to using Apple's App Store for the iPhone. I especially appreciate the program descriptions and screenshots for many of the Center's available applications. Ubuntu also uses the same consistent mechanism for providing critical updates, where applications on Windows and Mac must implement their own update strategies (and many don't).

Uninstalling Apps

In Windows, go to Control Panel → Add or Remove Programs, find the application in the list, and select Uninstall.

On a Mac, simply drag the app's icon from the Applications folder to the Trash.

In Ubuntu, open the Ubuntu Software Center again, select the application (most conveniently by selecting from the Installed Software list), and select Remove.

My Opinion: The Mac and Ubuntu both win here in my book, because they are consistent with how the application was installed in the first place.

Tweak Settings

In Windows, open Control Panel for the applets to change any setting you like.

On a Mac, select the Apple menu (upper right of the desktop) and select System Preferences.

In Ubuntu, select System → Preferences.

My Opinion: I honestly see little difference between these approaches, nor do I see a way to make them much easier.

Exploring for Files

In Windows, you normally browse the file system by double-clicking My Documents (or My Computer) on the desktop.

On a Mac, click the smiley face on the Dock to open Finder.

On Ubuntu, the Places menu directly lists everything that Windows Explorer and Mac Finder keep in the sidebar (which Nautilus, the file browser, also supports), but without opening a separate program.

My Opinion: Ubuntu is slightly more direct here, but you won't be challenged at finding files on any of the three operating systems.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Windows shortcuts consist of a combination of Control, Alt, Shift and a letter or function key. They are fairly consistent across most programs – for example, F1 gets you help, F5 refreshes the application's display, Control C or X or V copies, cuts and pastes whatever is selected, and so on.

The Mac replaces Control with the clover-themed Command button, again in combination with Shift and (in place of Alt) Option. Some of these are similar to Windows, but many are quite different and require some finger training to adopt.

Ubuntu generally uses the same shortcuts as Windows. In addition, the Super key (which sports an Ubuntu logo on pre-loaded computers and a Windows logo on most others) can be used for Compiz shortcuts (to paint fire on the screen, to dynamically zoom in and out using the mouse scroll wheel, to rotate the “cube” of desktops, and many other highly fun and sometimes useful actions).

My Opinion: Shortcuts are most useful when you know them. Switching between Ubuntu and Windows thus offers some advantage over switching between either and the Mac, but functionally they all work similarly.

Launching Applications

To launch an application in Windows, you can always click Start → All Programs → [vendor] → application name. More commonly, you place a copy of the icon on the quick launch bar and launch by clicking it. Adding the app to the quick launch bar in Windows XP is a bit unintuitive, though. Right-click All Programs and select Open, find the icon, and drag with the right mouse button to the task bar (using the left mouse button removes it from the Start menu). Then select Copy from the resulting menu. (Windows 7 drops the quick launch bar in favor of a more souped up Dock-like integrated task bar, which is very nice indeed.)

On a Mac, you can always open the Applications folder and double-click the application of interest. More commonly, you place a copy of the icon on the Dock by simply dragging it there from the Applications folder. The dock acts as an integrated quick launch bar / task bar, which is quite convenient. The bouncing icons when attention is required is amusing, too.

On Ubuntu, you can always click Applications → [Category] → application name. More commonly, you place a copy of the icon on the panel (sort of a super-quick launch bar) by right-clicking it in the menu and selecting “Add this launcher to panel”.

My Opinion: The Mac's Dock and Windows 7 task bar are certainly snazzier that the XP quick launch bar or Ubuntu panel, but functionally all four are equivalent for launching an app. Ubuntu and XP are a bit behind the times with separate launcher and task manager panels, though.

Dealing with Unresponsive Apps

In Windows, the ubiquitous hourglass cursor is the most obvious clue to an unresponsive app. The most direct path to killing it is to right-click the task bar entry and select Close, or click the Close button on the app's window. Oddly, Mr. Chung only mentions selecting Control-Alt-Delete to invoke the Task Manager, where apps are listed as “Running” or “Not Responding” with an associated “End Task” button.

On a Mac, right-clicking the app's icon on the Dock and selecting “Force Quit” in the resulting menu will kill the application.

In Ubuntu, unresponsive applications are immediately apparent, as the window visibly darkens. Simply click the close button and acknowledge the prompt to kill the app, or right-click the task bar entry and select Close. (Control-Alt-Delete brings up the Shut Down menu in Ubuntu, not a Task Manager.)

My Opinion: Ubuntu's darkened windows are the best way to highlight an unresponsive app, but all three operating systems approach killing apps in similar ways.

System Maintenance

Mr. Chung's blog spoke only of disk fragmentation here, which is a pretty small subset of system maintenance considerations. However, I'll stick to his definition.

In Windows, disk fragmentation is a significant issue that is dealt with using a separate program called Disk Defragmenter (from Start → All Programs → Accessories → System Tools → Disk Defragmenter).

Mac's have fewer problems with file systems, but still provides a Disk Utility when some work is required.

Ubuntu provides a marvelously comprehensive tool at System → Administration → Disk Utility (the formal name is Palimpsest, if you look in Help → About). Edit → Check File System is the rough equivalent to the Disk Defragmenter, but it's capabilities go far beyond basic disk repair. It's worth the price of admission.

My Opinion: Window's Disk Defragmenter is surprisingly well hidden. Disk Utility is much easier to find in Ubuntu or on a Mac, even though needed less often on those platforms. Ubuntu's Disk Utility is the most capable of the three.

I have nothing against Windows or Mac OS/X - they both work well for general purpose computing, as long as you are comfortable with the lack of freedom that comes with proprietary systems. I'm quite pleased, though, at the progress Linux products like Ubuntu have made toward providing a powerful and enjoyable platform for those of us who place liberty at the top of our requirements sheet.

This Blog's Topic

The topic for this blog is liberty in the Internet age. I'm fairly passionate when it comes to my desire to be left alone by the various levels of government, to deal with businesses on my own terms, and to exercise real choice in all aspects of my life. I'm fond of technology that is free of arbitrary constraints and available to be creatively used however I choose. I advocate free and open source software (see http://fsf.org) and creative commons culture (see http://creativecommons.org). I enjoy thoughtful debate, so please leave your thoughts!