Game Theory in Football
Super Bowl XLIX (between the New England Patriots and the Seattle Seahawks) was definitely one to remember, particularly due to its thrilling and rather unusual ending. Trailing the Patriots in the final minutes, much pressure was on Pete Carroll, Seattle’s head coach, and the rest of the Seahawks’ offense. Impressively, the team managed to put together a strong drive and ended up quite close to the end zone. If they had actually reached it, the Seahawks likely would have won the game and as a result, the NFL championship. Carroll’s gutsy call to pass the football, instead of running with it, while only a few yards from the goal line, however, resulted in the Seahawks’ losing possession and their chances to win the Super Bowl for a second straight year. Following the game, Carroll’s decision was the subject of tremendous controversy and criticism; most considered it to be one which lacked sense altogether.
Numerous articles have analyzed the brains behind this call. In fact, using game theory, an economic concept covered in class that not only takes into account one’s own options but also the potential strategies of others, a number of experts have come to the conclusion that Carroll’s decision was actually justifiable. These theorists make the argument, “A mix of passing and running plays is optimal over the course of the season, so that defenders do not constantly stack up against one play type.” Therefore, in context, because he wanted to intersperse the team’s running with passing, Carroll opted to direct his offense to pass. If he had not, it would be reasonable to assume that the Patriots would expect a running play every play. This analysis connects well to the class material about mixed strategies, which involve randomizing and incorporating probability to determine the best strategies to pursue.
Robert Lane Greene, the author of the piece “Applying game theory: Three’s a charm,” also discusses “how optimal strategies evolve over the course of a game, especially near the end.” In particular, he explores the role of signaling in game theory. Greene does so in the context of Super Bowl XLIX and Carroll’s decision as well. He first makes the distinction between randomizing throughout an entire football season and randomizing during the last plays of a single football game. Greene argues that using mixed strategies is important in the long-term, but when it’s crunch time, “The value of developing an unpredictable reputation decreases, and the value of high-percentage plays increases.” Nevertheless, if there are three possible plays left, as there were in Super Bowl XLIX, signaling is still possible and can potentially be effective, especially during the first of those plays; this was probably what Carroll had been thinking. By calling a pass on the first play, Carroll likely thought that he could catch his opponent off-guard and cause him to set his defense in a way that focused more on the pass and consequently less on the run in the following two plays. As Greene puts it, “This is your last chance to establish any reputation for unpredictability with an unexpected pass call.” Using these fundamental concepts of game theory, it is easier to understand Carroll’s questionable, yet defensible decision.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/02/applying-game-theory