Applying Game Theory to the Worst Play in Superbowl History
For those 115 million who watched, it is easy to remember the defining moment of last year’s Super Bowl between the Seattle Seahawks and, now champion, New England Patriots. That moment being in the final minute; Seahawks coach Pete Carroll’s infamous decision to pass the ball on the one-yard line (which resulted in a game ending interception for the Seahawks), instead of handing the ball to Marshawn Lynch arguably the best running back in the NFL. In the article by The Economist, game theory is used to analyze/rationalize Pete Carroll’s very controversial decision to pass the ball instead of run it, with an NFL championship on the line.
The article argues that although “Seattle secured a first down or touchdown 81% of the times they attempted a run with less than two yards to go on third or fourth down,” the Patriots were sure to know this fact as well, and therefore the Seahawks could not be so predictable. The writer argues in order for the defense to believe that there is a chance of the Seahawks to pass, “Seattle must call a different play every so often” to prevent the Patriots from simply putting everything they have into stopping the run. The Seahawks must account for the fact that there running game is so strong, and balance their decision making to account for that. The rest of the league in similar situations on the goal line passed the ball nearly one-thirds of the time following the same logic, according to the article. In the end the writer defends Seahawks coach Pete Carroll using game theory as reasoning for his decision, arguing if the play had resulted in a completion he would “be the toast of the town.”
The article relates greatly to our recent discussion of Game Theory. In this particular case the game is one that is easy to view as a “game”, football. The players were the two teams involved in the Superbowl the Seahawks and the Patriots, and the strategies can be seen as the play calls for each team; for the Seahawks running or passing and for the Patriots scheming to stop the run or pass. In this game the offense is trying to predict what the defense is going to do and vice versa. The writer of this article argues that the Seahawks should not choose to run the ball every time in that situation because it is a very predictable strategy for the other team. This relates to what we discussed in class regarding dominant strategies. In this particular game we should be looking for a mixed strategy equilibria, because although the Seahawks running the ball with their Pro-Bowl running back is a dominant strategy for the Seahawks, it cannot be played every time because it is too predictable. Pete Carroll (in theory) made his decision based on a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium, where he would choose to run the ball a certain percentage of the time, and pass the other percentage. In this case, the decision to pass was one that lost the Seahawks the most important game of the season.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2015/02/game-theory-american-football