The article explains that if the Jacksonville Jaguars had defeated the Indianapolis Colts before the game played later the same day between the Los Angeles Chargers and the Las Vegas Raiders, both the Chargers and the Raiders would make the playoffs if the game between these teams ended in a tie. (The Jaguars did, in fact, defeat the Colts.) This raised the unlikely possibility that the Raiders and Chargers could agree to play for a tie game. In the article an economics professor from Yale University stated: "It's really, really hard to sustain this collusion..." Why would it be difficult to sustain an agreement between the Raiders and Chargers to agree to a tie game when this result would guarantee that both teams would make the post-season playoffs?

How an NFL Game Became a Prisoner's Dilemma The Chargers and Raiders could face an unusual scenario where a tie would get both teams into the playo!s. Economists break down the game theory of it. The Los Angeles Chargers and the Las Vegas Raiders play on Sunday night. If the Indianapolis Colts lose earlier in the day, both AFC West teams would advance in the event of a tie. The final week of the NFL's first 17-game regular season includes a set of circumstances that could descend the sport into the absurd. The Indianapolis Colts and the Jacksonville Jaguars play on Sunday afternoon. The Las Vegas Raiders and the Los Angeles Chargers play on Sunday night. Either the Raiders or Chargers would make the playoffs by winning. But if the Jaguars beat the Colts, both the Chargers and Raiders would advance in the event of a tie. It raises the outlandish possibility that both teams could spend the game kneeling, punting or spiking the football with designs of a 0-0 tie. To football fans, it's a ridiculous scenario in which two teams could make a behind the scenes deal to secure a tie and playoff spot. To economists, it's a game theory problem known as a prisoner's dilemma. "It's really, really hard to sustain this collusion," said Benjamin Polak, an economics professor at Yale. "There's an incentive to defect from that agreement and try and win at the last minute." The classic prisoner's dilemma involves two people who are arrested for a serious crime and placed in separate rooms. If both suspects refuse to help with the investigation, they will get away on lesser charges. But if one suspect confesses and turns on the otherknown in game theory as defectingtheir help will be rewarded by going free while the other person goes to jail. If they both defect, they'll still face serious jail time but will get off a bit earlier for their assistance. That leads to a clear strategy for every rational suspect who is acting in their own self interest: to turn on their co-conspirator, even though they both end up worse off than if they colluded together.

The Chargers and Raiders theoretically face a version of this problem should the Jaguars upset the Colts. If they could somehow make a deal with one another and turn the game into a farce in which nobody tries to win and the score winds up 0-0, they may believe they're guaranteeing themselves a playoff berth. But economists say there are major risks with that. The NFL might decide that such a sham violates the league's competitive principles and force both teams a forfeit. The teams could face the social pressure of becoming laughingstocks. More crucially, each coach would have to wonder: What if the other coach defects and doesn't go along with it? Imagine the Raiders get the ball first and believe the plan for a tie is in place, just like the two suspects who agree to not snitch on each other. They kneel the ball three times, punt to the Chargers and expect them to do the same. But it turns out that the Chargers don't want to turn the game into a joke. Los Angeles quarterback Justin Herbert marches his team down the field for a touchdown after Las Vegas wasted its first possession of the game. Another possibility would be the team getting the ball at the end of the game deciding it would rather win and breaking the deal then. "There's too much of a risk that the second coach won't reciprocate," said David McAdams, an economics professor at Duke's Fuqua School of Business. This type of tie is particularly half-baked in football, where the nature of the sport isn't especially conducive to agreeing on a mutually beneficial result. Football teams have four downs to either get a first down or give the ball back to the other team and can't just sit on the ball for minutes on end. Chargers coach Brandon Staley has already dismissed the possibility. In other words, it isn't ftbolsoccerthe sport that was plagued by just this problem. At the 1982 World Cup, for example, West Germany and Austria both knew what had to happen for both to advance, because another country in their group had played its last game a day earlier. If the Germans won by precisely one or two goals, both countries would move on. Sure enough, after West Germany scored an early goal, the teams puttered around and produced what's known as the Disgrace of Gijon. Such problems prompted leagues and tournaments to rewrite their competition calendars. All games on the last day of the season in European soccer leagues are now played at the same time, as are the final matches of World Cup group stages. The NFL, however, has done the opposite. It placed two notable games on Saturday. Then it put the ColtsJaguars game on Sunday afternoon while slotting in the pivotal Raiders-Chargers game on Sunday night. "They're doing what soccer has realized they shouldn't do," said Glenn Ellison, a professor and head of the MIT economics department. Ellison can't fathom two NFL teams spending the entire game playing for a 0-0 tie. But he believes it's plausible it alters their behavior toward the end of the game. In the game's final minutes, they realistically may face a decision where their calculations are different because of these peculiar circumstances. The Chargers have been one of the NFL's most aggressive teams at going for it on fourth downs this season, but if they're presented with a fourth-and-1 at midfield in overtime, they would also be armed with knowledge they usually don't have: a tie would be as good as a win. The Chargers could opt to punt the ball away, in lieu of the risk that Las Vegas gets the ball near scoring position, knowing that there are only a few minutes left. The Raiders, in turn after the punt, may have an incentive to bleed the clock rather than trying to march all the way down field and chance an interception or giving Los Angeles the ball back. "At that point, you would expect to see people play for the tie there," Ellison said. "They're both going to play the cautious strategy." It's an improbable scenario. Most improbably: The Jacksonville Jaguars would have to win a football game.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The difficulty in sustaining an agreement between the Raiders and Chargers to agree to a tie game st... View the full answer