Sam Schwartzstein wrote a Twitter thread about it, which I recommend:
https://twitter.com/schwartzsteins/stat ... 2194489345
Interesting tidbits (some of which I'm sure most of you already know): that they were emphasizing "perceived fairness" rather than just actual fairness and that they took sportsbooks' preferences heavily into account.
One part I didn't totally get:
https://twitter.com/schwartzsteins/stat ... 0154581000Problems some people had with my overtime: Defense can't score. In a team meeting a NY Guardians player "You gonna have to change that OT rule, no defense scaring is BS" and my response "No I don't".
It makes it unfair again to go second if the defense could score.
I'm not sure what makes this unfair to the team going second on offense?
And as an aside, I thought this was fascinating:
https://twitter.com/schwartzsteins/stat ... 5674252293Old California HS football had teams alternating plays from midfield with each team next play starting where the last team play ended. Winner is after 5 rounds who gained the most distance from the 50. A true tug of war version of football.
I think the format I like best is that you give one team a 1-point lead and the other team the ball with 2:00 on the clock. Each team has to "bid" on what yard line they would want to start on if they have to play on offense. Whichever team bids lower gets the ball. Eg, the Roughnecks are willing to go down a point and drive for the game-winning field goal from their own 15. The Defenders are only willing to go back to their own 25. So the Roughnecks take the ball on their own 15, down 1, with 2:00 on the clock for the XFL Championship.
Or maybe you do the same format but the team is down 4, so you need a touchdown to win rather than field goal.