Chalk Talk Discussion: Homer Smith says: Time of Possession is "meaningless". Why?

[KDawg]

First off, as a young coach who has dreams to make it big one day, and is currently very happy in the role I have as offensive/defensive line coach and strength and conditioning coach (but not satisfied) you can imagine I do a ton of reading.

I read books, blogs, websites, forums, ect.

Right now the book I'm taking on is a book by Homer Smith and Steve Axman entitled, "The Complete Handbook to Clock Management".

On it's face, clock management seems like a rather simple concept. Speed it up if you want the clock to run down, slow it down if you don't. But Smith sheds some incredible light on the subject that most fans at home would never even think to touch. He talks about how to install systems to run clock or to save clock. He talks about when and how to spend timeouts wisely. It's an incredible read, but it's not an easy one. He gets caught up in numbers and verbiage at times and sometimes leaves out some important details. But that doesn't change the fact that this book has so much quality information for a coach that its almost scary.

Smith was a former head coach who compiled mediocre records, but he coached at schools in the 60's such as Davidson, Pacific, United States Military Academy, ect. It's widely believed among my peers that he was the reason they saw success at all at times. Later in his career he was an offensive coordinator for Alabama, UCLA, Kansas City Chiefs and most recently the University of Arizona.

Smith passed away last April, but his efforts live on.

In the book, thrown haphazardly in at the very end of a chapter is a quote. It comes from no where, and after scouring the previous chapter and the next one I can find no basis for it, which makes it all the more interesting.

On page 22, there is an emphasis box that says:

It is possible to consume extra time while making the rhythm at the line seem the same

Directly after that box is a quote that has racked my brain for days.

"Incidentally, the time-of-possession statistic that is given with other offensive statistics is meaningless"

Mind = blown.

Why Coach!? Why is it meaningless in your opinion!?

I'm only on chapter four, as it's taken me that much time to analyze the first three chapters and even somewhat comprehend the material (I'm not the brightest mind). So perhaps he explains it later...

But, I thought this would be a good quote to discuss. It should be noted that this book is primarily written about high school and college as it discusses stoppages after first downs, but it very much applies to the NFL in every other way.

So what are some reasons why ToP may be meaningless?

Perhaps it has to do something with playing speed. There are varying tempos in a game, Smith has five different tempos and defines them in detail with them being: Fast, hustle, normal, deliberate and slow. But he notes that the referees will generally only let you run one play for every 20 seconds of clock time due to spots and such.

Perhaps the basis of his thought process is based on that, in regards to: It doesn't matter how fast or slow you move, it's how you execute and manage the clock that determines the result, thus rendering ToP meaningless.

What other thoughts do you have?

[Burgold]

From the sofa, TOP seems like such an easy thing to manage, but so many teams struggle with it in reality from managing time outs to leaving too much time on the clock. Makes me believe you that it is much harder than it appears on the surface.

[darrelgreenie]

Time-of-possession like any NFL stat is subject to many contributing situational factors. Football afterall is a situational game. Field position, turnovers, big play scoring/short scoring drives are all factors in TOP. Based on those factors a teams consequent TOP although numerically the same could have drastically different meaning or situations that lead to that TOP.

[LD0506]

Oh hell KD, if YOU don't understand it we're scrood..............

[KDawg]

Time-of-possession like any NFL stat is subject to many contributing situational factors. Football afterall is a situational game. Field position, turnovers, big play scoring/short scoring drives are all factors in TOP. Based on those factors a teams consequent TOP although numerically the same could have drastically different meaning or situations that lead to that TOP.

Agreed. Not every second is equal. Much like the concept that not every yard is equal. A yard inside the opponent 5 is more significant than a yard on your own 45 in most situations.

But, then, couldn't it be argued that ToP can certainly matter? If big plays are limited, teams exchange short/long scoring drives, turnovers are even, but one team does much better when it comes to controlling the football that team will likely be successful?

Yes, that's a "perfect storm" of sorts, but wouldn't that defeat Coach Smith's claim that ToP is "meaningless"? That's where I've come to a impasse. I keep thinking of ways it could be meaningful, and they seem to exist. But then again, those are strange conditions. Maybe I'm over thinking it, but a guy like Coach Smith doesn't just say things to say them.

Oh hell KD, if YOU don't understand it we're scrood..............

Just some of the verbiage. I certainly didn't/don't know all the info, but none of the actual info is over my head. It's visualizing it, conceptualizing and making sense of it that's most difficult. Absorbing new concepts isn't too difficult

[LD0506]

In recent years the Skins would execute excruciating drives, eat a lot of time but crap out and score FGs, or Rex would throw a pick. Is winning that ToP something positive? I'd have to think that the overall efficiency of your offense, finishing drives, scoring at will when necessary or grinding it out when appropriate might be more important than ToP. Of course, having an adequate D figures into that as well, so for us this remains hypothetical.

[darrelgreenie]

From the quote "Incidentally, the time-of-possession statistic that is given with other offensive statistics is meaningless" I don't get that he's saying TOP is meaningless but rather non-contextualized TOP is meaningless i.e. 2 teams can have the same numerical TOP yet have completely different reasons and outcomes because of the context of their TOP.

[KDawg]

From the quote "Incidentally, the time-of-possession statistic that is given with other offensive statistics is meaningless" I don't get that he's saying TOP is meaningless but rather non-contextualized TOP is meaningless i.e. 2 teams can have the same numerical TOP yet have completely different reasons and outcomes because of the context of their TOP.

That's an interesting take, and one that seems to make a lot of sense. Thanks for that perspective.

[BobGriffin]

I think it comes down to this more times than not. The most likely way to score points by leaps and bounds is on offense. Scoring drives to tend to be more time consuming than drives that don't score. So in those facts if you win TOP you usually are on the winning side. TOP just happens as a result of playing better. Now there are instances that can skew this IE..turnovers, a ball control offense facing a up tempo passing offense but after everything averages out your pretty much left with; you win by scoring more, scoring comes mostly from offense, offense passively contributes to TOP.

[KDawg]

I think it comes down to this more times than not. The most likely way to score points by leaps and bounds is on offense. Scoring drives to tend to be more time consuming than drives that don't score. So in those facts if you win TOP you usually are on the winning side. TOP just happens as a result of playing better.

I'd like to see the data to back up the claim that scoring drives tend to be more time consuming. Von Miller had a pick six today that would have added about 5 seconds to the ToP. And that's also not accounting for short field drives. This would be an interesting statistic to find, if anyone knows the place to look.

I don't believe ToP has anything to do with how well you're playing. It may have a reflection of how well you're managing the clock, but even then there are some considerations to take in to account.

[BobGriffin]

I'd like to see the data to back up the claim that scoring drives tend to be more time consuming. Von Miller had a pick six today that would have added about 5 seconds to the ToP. And that's also not accounting for short field drives. This would be an interesting statistic to find, if anyone knows the place to look.

I don't believe ToP has anything to do with how well you're playing. It may have a reflection of how well you're managing the clock, but even then there are some considerations to take in to account.

If you don't have the ball you have to rely on defense and special teams to score. Which is a losing proposition given that those avenues don't score consistently or frequently. Good teams win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. It is reasonable to say that if you have the ball more than your opponent then you have more of an opportunity to score. Everything being equal if you have more of an opportunity to score you should win. Which supports that winning teams usually win TOP by default

[KDawg]

If you don't have the ball you have to rely on defense and special teams to score. Which is a losing proposition given that those avenues don't score consistently or frequently. Good teams win. You win by scoring more points than the other team. It is reasonable to say that if you have the ball more than your opponent then you have more of an opportunity to score. Everything being equal if you have more of an opportunity to score you should win. Which supports that winning teams usually win TOP by default

Again, I don't discount your thought process, but I'd like to see empirical evidence to back it up.

[8181]

It is meaningless in most contexts. 7 points scored in one play that takes 15 seconds is the same as 7 points scored over 10 plays that takes 8 minutes.

It's the same as "running the ball for over 100 yards means you win most of the time ". When I hope by now we know that iwinnong leads to running the ball.

Which means I bet we can make a more advanced statistic. .... Time of possession while winning. That may be more enlightening

We already know teams that can score quickly while losing also tend to be the more winning teams

[drtdrums]

Score in as few plays as possible

Make the other team run as many offensive plays as possible on their drive (ie - give up no big plays) in order to increase the chances of a turnover.

TOP would seem to be irrelevant in a perfectly played game. If your offense is incredibly efficient, it's very likely you could lose the TOP battle 80-20% and win the game by 35. Even in games where your team is offensively overmatched and you try to take the ball out of the other offense's hands, you're going to end up with the same number of possessions -- give or take. There is probably not a very strong correlation between TOP and scoring in teams with efficient offenses.

Edit:

Let me do this from a different angle.

Assertion 1: The maximum number of points you can score per possession (call it 7) is the same as your opponent.

Assertion 2: The more plays you must run on a drive in order to score, the higher your chances of turning the ball over in that drive

Assertion 3: The more plays your opponent must run in a drive to score, the higher their chances of turning the ball over in that drive

Assertion 4: You will have roughly the same amount of possessions (usually a max of +-1) as your opponent.

If all of these are true, there is no advantage to be had by calling plays concerned with winning the TOP battle. All that truly matters is the scoreboard, and your opponent is going to get the same number of possessions as you no matter how long you hold the ball. The goal should be to score in as few plays as possible and to force your opponent to run as many plays as possible.

[maxiumone]

In recent years the Skins would execute excruciating drives, eat a lot of time but crap out and score FGs, or Rex would throw a pick. Is winning that ToP something positive? I'd have to think that the overall efficiency of your offense, finishing drives, scoring at will when necessary or grinding it out when appropriate might be more important than ToP. Of course, having an adequate D figures into that as well, so for us this remains hypothetical.

From the quote "Incidentally, the time-of-possession statistic that is given with other offensive statistics is meaningless" I don't get that he's saying TOP is meaningless but rather non-contextualized TOP is meaningless i.e. 2 teams can have the same numerical TOP yet have completely different reasons and outcomes because of the context of their TOP.

I think these two statements cover a lot of the TOP. TOP is a meaningless stat if you are driving down the field but as LD0506 said turnovers and fg skew that stat. I think TOP coupled with efficiency in scoring TD is far more important. You could dominate a game between the 20's with a strong running game, yet if 3 is all you are getting you allow the TOP to become less of a advantage. 2 long drives result in 6 points take 16 minutes to get and you are wining the game 6-0 yet are only up 1 score. Now you blow a coverage and allow the opposing WR to get behind the safety and score a TD then all of the sudden the TOP is in your favor 16 minutes to 3 minutes yet you are losing 7-6.

[Oldfan]

I can't see any value in the ToP stat. Most people think of it as an offensive stat, but the defense has equal influence on it. For example, your offense holds the ball for eight minutes. Then your defense allows your opponent to keep the ball for eight minutes. The ToP is back to equal.

Eight-minute drives take more time off the clock than the average drive. They lower the number of drives possible in a 60 minute game for both teams; and fewer drives usually means a lower scoring game. But, longer drives won't help a team win unless they outscore the opponent at the end of those drives.*

*Exception: Killing the clock to protect a lead.

As 8181 points out, if there is a correlation between winning and the ToP stat, it could be because teams that are ahead try to kill the clock; and teams that are ahead usually win. In other words "correlation doesn't infer causation."

Short drives are usually failed drives, three and out for example. Teams with the most failed drives usually don't win. Thus, again, correlation does not imply causation on the ToP stat.

KDawg, I would suggest that a coach always bear in mind that the goal is to win the game by at least one point. Winning by more than one doesn't matter. Losing by more than one doesn't matter.

When coaches substitute goals, like:

We have to win the turnover battle!

We have to win the time of possession battle!

We have to win the field position battle!

...they have gone off course because the best strategies to win those battles are not the best strategies to win the game.

Example: The best strategy for winning the turnover battle involves an over-aggressive defense and an ultra conservative offense.

[LD0506]

Personally I think that Rob G is going to rewrite a lot of old rules and well-worn adages about the game. Just his ability to run behind the line and keep plays alive, breaking ankles on opposing Ds as they try to keep up and exhausting them is going to win us games.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

I personally look at TOP like I do any other stat...it doesn't tell the whole story. But, I do think it is an attempt to indicate how well an offense manages the game.

I think that people are so enamored with scoring fast, that people forget the burden that scoring fast can put on a defense. If people asked me why Marino never won a ring, I would tell them that part of it was because his teams scored too fast. I know it sounds like a stupid observation, but I think it has some merit. For instance, Peyton finally won a ring the year that I felt he best managed the game. He figured out that 8 play drives that were balanced, were much more beneficial to wearing down the oppostition and resting his own defense. And the opposing offense gets to sit and watch.

I think Brady is doing a tremendous job of managing the game this year, and I think that will land them in the Superbowl. Just my opinion.

[Arsenic]

7 points scored over 2 minutes is = 7 points scored over 8 minutes..

unless you ask a defensive lineman.

edit: especially if his own team scores fast. then he's right back onto the field. there's too many variables to conclude a single definitive answer/theory.. all we can do is generalize that ToP usually wins the game, barring errors.

i think were over thinking this.. i'd guess that the Coach meant that ToP is a meaningless statistic on its own.. together, with all other stats considered it does tell a tale tho.

[Oldfan]

...It's the same as "running the ball for over 100 yards means you win most of the time ". When I hope by now we know that iwinnong leads to running the ball...

Good point. If there is a correlation between winning and the ToP stat, it could be because teams that are ahead try to kill the clock; and teams that are ahead usually win.

In other words "correlation doesn't imply causation."

[KDawg]

Assertion 1: The maximum number of points you can score per possession (call it 7) is the same as your opponent.

Assertion 2: The more plays you must run on a drive in order to score, the higher your chances of turning the ball over in that drive

Assertion 3: The more plays your opponent must run in a drive to score, the higher their chances of turning the ball over in that drive

Assertion 4: You will have roughly the same amount of possessions (usually a max of +-1) as your opponent.

If all of these are true, there is no advantage to be had by calling plays concerned with winning the TOP battle. All that truly matters is the scoreboard, and your opponent is going to get the same number of possessions as you no matter how long you hold the ball. The goal should be to score in as few plays as possible and to force your opponent to run as many plays as possible.

This is roughly the way I've always thought about it over the years, but I never really took the time to think about ToP as being "meaningless".

I guess the correlation center in my brain never equated them together. What I mean is: I've always believed that long drives increase your chances of turning the ball over and that possessions are virtually equal throughout the duration of a football game. But I guess my mind never went straight to ToP as being a poor indicator of anything. I guess I always just thought of it as being there with some base meaning. But now that I'm reflecting and seeing others talk about it, I'd have to say that I view it as virtually meaningless as well.

In context I suppose it has some merit, but the ToP stat isn't used in context, it's used in general.

You could measure the context without using "clock time", too. For instance: The Rochester Renegades NFL Football team had 13 of their 15 offensive drives end in three and outs, and their other two drives resulted in a field goal (they got the ball on a interception inside the opponent 30 and managed one first down) and a drive that started from their own 20 and they punted after achieving two first downs. Those numbers tell me the offense wasn't very good.

So even that is more meaningful than the ToP stat.

As 8181 points out, if there is a correlation between winning and the ToP stat, it could be because teams that are ahead try to kill the clock; and teams that are ahead usually win. In other words "correlation doesn't infer causation."

I'm on the same page here. But I'd still like to see empirical evidence on whether teams that win games general win the ToP battle, if for nothing else than a reference point.

KDawg, I would suggest that a coach always bear in mind that the goal is to win the game by at least one point. Winning by more than one doesn't matter. Losing by more than one doesn't matter.

Agreed.

When coaches substitute goals, like:

We have to win the turnover battle!

We have to win the time of possession battle!

We have to win the field position battle!

I think coaches use these goals as a motivational tool and a path, rather than absolute goals. The players are motivated by these things. Getting turnovers is fun. Not turning the ball over is sound. Getting the ball in good field position means the defense and special teams held up. The only one on that list that appears to be vastly insignificant is the time of possession battle. But with all things, it depends on what offense/defense style you're running. You don't want to make teams too timid by saying, "we can't turn the ball over!" You want to let them play, and as a coach attempt to drill the mistakes out of the player, rather than have them overthink and make stupid plays that cost you an opportunity to advance the football. As with most things football related, I think those things are contextual as well.

[Wildbunny]

TOP is meaningless? I would say that somehow it's true, to a certain extend. But it's definately true is the sense that winning the TOP wins the game.

As many have already pointed out, it doesn't really matters how long you hold onto the ball that what to do with it. It's pointless, and counter productive to hold onto it for 6 or 7 minutes and ends up with a missed FG. You screwed yourself all alone.

The TOP comes into interest when you look at it on: "How long does it take for each offense to score a TD?". It's obvious that not every team will take the same time at scoring a TD. But, they should both have an equal number of drives minus one or two considering the end of second and fourth quarters. I'll come onto this later.

Thus, if an offense scores a TD every 2 minutes, while it requires 7' for the other. No matter who start, the offense that requires 2' to scores will win 49 / 42 if the other scores on every drive.

What really matters to me is time management at the end of both halves. Especially the first. I'm a big fan of receiving if I win the toss. So I can receive it at the beginning of the second half.

Then, the thing is to control the pace of the game, so the last first possession of the half is between my hands. Which means slower the game if needed, and accelerates it if needed. By means, I simply mean to hand the ball over faster or slower. Because, at any time, you'll have to hand the ball back to the opponent. So, In the second quarter, it matters most when you do have the ball back to finish the half.

If you need around 3' to score a TD, getting the ball back with less than 4' or 5' is a good thing. If you get it with 7' or 8'. You're likely to give the ball back to the opponent to close the half. Something you just don't want, especially if you choose to receive for the KO. Thus, you might as well try to score quickly, to get the ball to close the half, or go 3 and out, to also, close the half.

Why? The interest here, is to have your offense being able to score twice in a row, without the other offense being even able to enter the field (which she'll do at anytime). That's up to 14 points, unanswered, from both th last drive of the first half, and the first one of the second half. If you were tied before your last first half possession, you then have a +14 lead, which will require the offense to score twice to even tie the game.

Finally, of course, take the ball to your offense hands for the end of the game. It's better than having the ball in your opponent's hands.

So yeah, to me, TOP, solely regrded as the one that hold onto the ball the longer is irrelevant, as what you to do with the ball, and when do you have it matters more than how long you have it.

[KDawg]

But it's definately true is the sense that winning the TOP wins the game.

I'd like to see empirical evidence to support this. "Definitely" is a statement that is quite bold, and I haven't seen anything that states you must win ToP to win the game.

The TOP comes into interest when you look at it on: "How long does it take for each offense to score a TD?".

Why does ToP even matter in this regard? If I score in 15 seconds or 8 minutes, as long as touchdowns are going on the board, I'm okay. And the killer part of the statement you made is "how long does it take for each offense to score a TD". Yes, offenses are generally responsible for scoring most touchdowns in a game, but they certainly can come in all forms. Offenses aren't the only unit that can score a touchdown. Special teams and defenses can score as well.

Thus, if an offense scores a TD every 2 minutes, while it requires 7' for the other. No matter who start, the offense that requires 2' to scores will win 49 / 42 if the other scores on every drive.

This is assuming a lot. Let me run a similar scenario by you.

For this scenario, there is a touchdown scored on every offensive drive and no special teams or defensive touchdowns. Field position is also not a factor (in other words this is a hypothetical that likely will never happen).

-Team A receives the ball to start the game. They take 8 minutes to score a touchdown. 7-0. Team B drives and scores a touchdown in 2 minutes. 7-7. 5 minutes left in the first quarter.

Another 8 minutes elapses, touchdown Team A. 14-7. 13 minutes remaining in the second quarter. Team B scores with 11 minutes left, 14-14. Team A scores 21-14, 3 minutes left. Team B scores, 1 minute left, 21-21. Second half: Team B scores first, leaving 13 minutes in the 3rd quarter and taking a 28-21 lead. Team A scores leaving 5 minutes in the 3rd, 28-28. Team B scores with 3 minutes left in the 3rd, 35-28. Team A scores with 10 minutes left in the game 35-35. Team B scores leaving 8 minutes on the clock, 42-35. Team A scores with no time remaining, 42-42.

Now let's change it to a really quick strike offense vs a really plodding offense. Team A takes 1 minute to score, team B takes 10.

-Team B starts with the ball. 7-0 with 5 minutes left in quarter. Team A scores, 7-7, 4 minutes left in quarter. Team B scores, 9 minutes left in the quarter 14-7. Team A scores 8 minutes left in quarter 14-14. No score in last 8 minutes because it takes team B 10 minutes to score. Team A gets the ball, 21-14, 14 minutes left. Team B scores, 21-21, 4 minutes left. A scores, 28-21, 3 minutes left. B scores 28-28 8 minutes left. A scores 35-28, 7 minutes left. A will win the game because B takes too long to score.

Total Time of Possession:

A: 7 minutes

B: 53 minutes

ToP doesn't matter there. Or in the scenario above as the game was tied.

Now you have to account for defenses as well. I'm not sure ToP EVER matters.

What really matters to me is time management at the end of both halves. Especially the first. I'm a big fan of receiving if I win the toss. So I can receive it at the beginning of the second half.

You don't get to receive if you win the toss and receive at the half as well. If you mean you're a fan of deferring, you'd likely wind up kicking first. I don't know any team that's willing to give the opposing team the ball twice at the beginning of the respective halves, although technically it could occur.

Then, the thing is to control the pace of the game, so the last first possession of the half is between my hands. Which means slower the game if needed, and accelerates it if needed. By means, I simply mean to hand the ball over faster or slower. Because, at any time, you'll have to hand the ball back to the opponent. So, In the second quarter, it matters most when you do have the ball back to finish the half.

But how do you control it? Players make mistakes, turnovers happen. The longer you hold the ball, the more mistake prone you'll become. So how do you guarantee you play it perfect enough to control the clock as you mention?

or go 3 and out, to also, close the half.

You're advocating going three and out so that you can get the last possession? Interesting choice.

Why? The interest here, is to have your offense being able to score twice in a row, without the other offense being even able to enter the field. Finally, of course, take the ball to your offense hands for the end of the game. It's better than having the ball in your opponent's hands.

Keep in mind, that is also your opponents goal, and score dictates how each team will play.

as what you to do with the ball, and when do you have it matters more than how long you have it.

So it's irrelevent.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 09:56 AM ----------

TOP is meaningless? I would say that somehow it's true, to a certain extend. But it's definately true is the sense that winning the TOP wins the game.

Went ahead and looked at JUST this weeks games. Of the 15 games played, 12 were won by the team with more ToP. Three were not. In those three cases, or roughly 25% of the time, winning the ToP did not win the game. In fact, Indianapolis held the ball for over a quarter LESS than Detroit and managed to win. There were cases that were the opposite as well, Green Bay defeated Minnesota with about a quarter more worth of possession.

I'd go back to Oldfan's earlier posting and 8181's that basically state that correlation doesn't imply causation.

---------- Post added December-3rd-2012 at 10:04 AM ----------

Also, fresh off the presses, a new Smart Football post that I saw this morning about the Georgia/Bama game and whether or not Georgia should have spiked the football:

http://smartfootball.com/game-management/should-georgia-have-spiked-the-ball#more-4117

Ironically enough, it talks about Mark Richt learning clock management from Homer Smith.

[RandyHolt]

Focusing on offense. I think the greatest factor in TOP is the ability of teams to vary it. We want to keep Brees off the field, yeah well they want to keep RG3 off the field as well. An offense must be able to vary the attack.

Does a team need to milk the clock? Having the ability to put together long slow methodical drives, can close out games with ease. That same offense with the ability to score quickly, doing so, is lethal as well.

Statisticians can focus on the teams with that dual ability and look for the team most efficient at both tasks, focusing on TOP / 10 yards - somehow factoring in game situations and points scored... Scoring really fast, and scoring really slow - look for a high variance. yeah its over my head. My point being teams that can effectively do both may well be mired in the middle of the pack in TOP. But if that "middle of the pack" TOP team wins a high percentage of their games, it may rest of the case of TOP importance. Maybe a closer to balanced 50/50 split is best.

Focusing on defense, a D can be ultra aggressive and give up quick strikes and get off the field quickly. TOP must thus somehow factor in scoring.

From the Hogs days, TOP is almost in our DNA as a key to winning. Its a passing league now, things have changed a lot since 1981.

[Wildbunny]

Why does ToP even matter in this regard? If I score in 15 seconds or 8 minutes, as long as touchdowns are going on the board, I'm okay. And the killer part of the statement you made is "how long does it take for each offense to score a TD". Yes, offenses are generally responsible for scoring most touchdowns in a game, but they certainly can come in all forms. Offenses aren't the only unit that can score a touchdown. Special teams and defenses can score as well.

Sure I know, but before the start of the game, you assume your offense will put points on board. defense or ST scoring points (asides from FG) are just bonuses that you may get to me.

This is assuming a lot. Let me run a similar scenario by you.

For this scenario, there is a touchdown scored on every offensive drive and no special teams or defensive touchdowns. Field position is also not a factor (in other words this is a hypothetical that likely will never happen).

-Team A receives the ball to start the game. They take 8 minutes to score a touchdown. 7-0. Team B drives and scores a touchdown in 2 minutes. 7-7. 5 minutes left in the first quarter.

Another 8 minutes elapses, touchdown Team A. 14-7. 13 minutes remaining in the second quarter. Team B scores with 11 minutes left, 14-14. Team A scores 21-14, 3 minutes left. Team B scores, 1 minute left, 21-21. Second half: Team B scores first, leaving 13 minutes in the 3rd quarter and taking a 28-21 lead. Team A scores leaving 5 minutes in the 3rd, 28-28. Team B scores with 3 minutes left in the 3rd, 35-28. Team A scores with 10 minutes left in the game 35-35. Team B scores leaving 8 minutes on the clock, 42-35. Team A scores with no time remaining, 42-42.

Now let's change it to a really quick strike offense vs a really plodding offense. Team A takes 1 minute to score, team B takes 10.

-Team B starts with the ball. 7-0 with 5 minutes left in quarter. Team A scores, 7-7, 4 minutes left in quarter. Team B scores, 9 minutes left in the quarter 14-7. Team A scores 8 minutes left in quarter 14-14. No score in last 8 minutes because it takes team B 10 minutes to score. Team A gets the ball, 21-14, 14 minutes left. Team B scores, 21-21, 4 minutes left. A scores, 28-21, 3 minutes left. B scores 28-28 8 minutes left. A scores 35-28, 7 minutes left. A will win the game because B takes too long to score.

Yeah, that was my point. A lot of teams used to play it that way, with some "No Huddle" offense throughout the whole game, trying to score as quickly as possible, without caring much about the TOP.

Total Time of Possession:

A: 7 minutes

B: 53 minutes

ToP doesn't matter there. Or in the scenario above as the game was tied.

Now you have to account for defenses as well. I'm not sure ToP EVER matters.

As I said, TOP doesn't really matters in my example, or those you just written. In every of those cases, the TOP have no impact on the game as the team that wins the TOP battle either lose or only tie the game.

You don't get to receive if you win the toss and receive at the half as well. If you mean you're a fan of deferring, you'd likely wind up kicking first. I don't know any team that's willing to give the opposing team the ball twice at the beginning of the respective halves, although technically it could occur.

After reading my post, you're right, I completly fumbled on this one... I meant to choose "Kicking at the beginning". ot receive... That one is for me.

But how do you control it? Players make mistakes, turnovers happen. The longer you hold the ball, the more mistake prone you'll become. So how do you guarantee you play it perfect enough to control the clock as you mention?

Well, I don't really care about it until the beginning of the second or fourth quarter. Let the game evolve by itself, and see the point about it in the beginning of the second quarter of each half to see how you can control it. in any way.

You're advocating going three and out so that you can get the last possession? Interesting choice.

Well, that's either you score quickly, by forcing long throw and big plays, or you just take the 3 and out. trick here is to get your offense out of the game as fast as possible to me. IMO, you can shorten plays to some extends, but you can never go past 45 seconds. Or you'll eat a DoG penalty.

Keep in mind, that is also your opponents goal, and score dictates how each team will play.

So it's irrelevent.

I never lose this in mind. So is our defense here to stop them. And vice versa as well, obviously. Both teams wants to win, and the opposing coach also wants to manage the clock to suits its team betters. Which makes it quite interesting.