Are NFL Coaches Risk and Loss Averse? Evidence from Their Use of Kickoff Strategies

Urschel John D and Jun Zhuang ()
Additional contact information
Urschel John D: State University of New York at Buffalo

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 2011, vol. 7, issue 3, 17

Abstract: Quantitative analysis of football play calling suggests that NFL coaches do not choose their strategies optimally. They tend to be overly cautious. One possible explanation for this finding is that NFL coaches are averse to risk and loss. We propose a prospect theory based model of coaches' utility and estimate the model's parameters using kickoff data from the 2009 NFL season. Using an outcome measure of points scored on the initial post-kickoff possession we analyze two strategic kickoff decisions that involve risk-reward tradeoffs: the decision to kick a surprise onside kickoff or a regular kickoff, and the decision to accept a touchback or run the ball out of the endzone. Surprise onside kickoffs may yield a more favorable mean points scored value for the kicking team than a regular kickoff, yet surprise onside kickoffs are infrequently used (and thus the same size is small and the p-value of significance test is 0.68). Coaches appear averse to the possible loss involved in the surprise onside kickoff. Running the ball out yields a higher mean points scored for the receiving team than accepting a touchback, but it entails some risk (fumbles are lost in 2 percent of returns). Nevertheless, declining the touchback option and running the ball out is very common. Coaches do not appear excessively risk averse when presented with this choice over possible gains. Prospect theory models allow for risk aversion over possible gains, as in traditional expected utility theory, and in addition they permit an asymmetric aversion to losses. A prospect theory model therefore seems suitable for our analysis of kickoff strategies. We estimate a risk aversion coefficient value of 0.66 and a loss aversion coefficient value of 1.55, where values 1 indicate risk and loss aversion, respectively. Our analysis supports the notion that NFL coaches are both modestly risk averse and loss averse. In other words, coaches display diminishing sensitivity to changes in scoring outcomes as they move further from a reference point (zero), and for scoring gains and losses of equal magnitude they suffer more from a loss than they enjoy from a gain. This result may explain their propensity for making conservative strategic choices that, at first glance, appear sub-optimal.

Keywords: risk aversion; loss aversion; utility; prospect theory; football (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1311 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:jqsprt:v:7:y:2011:i:3:n:14

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/jqas/html

DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1311

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports is currently edited by Mark Glickman

More articles in Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().