What Carroll’s Call Actually Taught Us

Pete Carroll’s much debated call taught us something that we didn’t expect and no one is really talking about.

The internet blew up yesterday with posts about whether or not Pete Carroll’s call to throw the ball was a good one and what it taught us about making decisions and taking risks. While this is a great arena to talk about decision quality and risk taking, I think most are going about it the wrong way. More on that in a minute.

First, let’s look at some of the points that supporters of the call have made:

Had the pass been completed for the game winning touchdown, everyone would be singing a different tune.

There’s no guarantee that running the ball would have succeeded. Fans would be saying that he should have called for the throw if the run failed.

Coach Carroll, like any good leader in business, trusted his gut and it just didn’t work out this time around.

I don’t doubt that had that controversial play panned out and it was the Seahawks hoisting the Lombardi trophy overhead that Carroll would have been called a tactical genius by many fans. Likewise, had the obvious play failed, fans might have said that he should have mixed it up and called for the throw.

However, this teaches us nothing about evaluating the quality of decisions or taking risks. Instead, it illustrates how little most of us know about how to judge the quality of a decision and when it is correct to take a risk.

Decision Quality

Decision quality is independent of the outcome. The quality of Carroll’s decision was decided as soon as he called the play and before the play took place. Whether the pass succeeded or failed had zero impact on the quality of the decision. Decision quality is 100% dependent on what is done with the information available when the decision was made. It’s counterintuitive to separate decision quality from outcome, but to do otherwise is to fall prey to outcome bias. If you don’t believe me, I suggest reading Daniel Kahneman’s book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. He’s kind of a Nobel Prize winner on the subject!

So, to properly argue whether or not Carroll made the right call, we must first erase the outcome from our minds. Then, we need to look at the information available.

• 2nd and Goal (literally a yard away from touchdown and victory)
• Arguably the best running back is on your team
• Enough time on the clock
• Still have a time out
• If you run and fail, you could still try again
• Everyone is in the end zone so there isn’t much room for error
• An intercepted pass spells certain defeat

You have to argue that the call to throw was correct despite the information that was available. I have not yet seen an argument take this form on any of the posts so far. Instead, the arguments incorrectly connect the call to the outcome.

So maybe the quality of the decision wasn’t so great, but he was just trusting his gut and taking a risk like he and so many great leaders do.

Let’s talk about risk then.

Risk Taking

There is indeed a time for calculated risk taking. I can think of only two scenarios where it makes complete sense to make a decision that might be considered risky:

1. There isn’t enough information available and a decision needs to be made before said data can be gathered.
2. The risky decision that goes against the odds yields a return that is disproportionately greater if it works out when compared to the decision that is supported by the data.

I listed some of the key information that coach Carroll had at the time his decision was made. You’re free to argue whether he used that information correctly or incorrectly. As for having enough time, most of the football world automatically came to the conclusion that the right call was to run the ball, so having enough time wasn’t an issue.

In my opinion, and I think those well versed in football strategy would agree, the information suggested handing the ball to their star for the run or at least have their mobile quarterback try to run it in.

As for scenario number two, there was nothing additional to be gained by making an unconventional play work. They stood to either win it all or lose it all on that goal line.

So if Pete Carroll had the information required to make a good decision and there was nothing additional to gain had the long shot worked—why did he do it?

Humans Make Mistakes All of the Time

I think he went against the data and made a poor decision because he is an expert and it’s not uncommon for experts to trust their gut and turn a blind eye to the information available. Sometimes it’s due to gambles (bad decisions) that paid off in the past boosting their confidence. Sometimes it’s a belief that within their domain of expertise, the odds don’t apply to them. Sometimes it’s a thirst for the glory that comes with pulling off the improbable.

I think it’s just another case of a human being who sees himself as a rational decision maker, rationalizing an irrational decision. He was a man that was able to convince himself to make a decision that contradicted logic. He fell prey to the long list of cognitive biases.

What This Taught Us About Decision Making and Risk Taking

Well, it certainly didn’t teach us how to do these things correctly in our professional and personal lives.

It taught us that decision quality is independent of the outcome. So don’t argue about what did or didn’t happen after the fact. Argue the quality of the decision in light of what was known at the time the decision was made. Did he or didn’t he do the correct thing with the information that he had?

Taking risks only makes sense when there isn’t enough information available and there isn’t enough time to gather that information—or if you stand to gain disproportionately by making the riskier move. As an entrepreneur or CXO, there will be times when the time cost of getting more data is riskier than making the best decision you can given the data you currently have. Likewise, there will be times when a riskier decision could bring in a disproportionate amount of revenue when compared to the obvious choice. That’s business.

It taught us that we are naturally pretty bad at making decisions and judging the quality of them. We’re also not very good at judging when we should go against the odds. We aren’t nearly as rational as we’d like to think we are and we’d all benefit from implementing some measures to protect us from ourselves.

What do you think about the call? Did this post help you identify where many of us went wrong in analyzing this decision?

If you think this piece steered the conversation in the right direction, please give it a “recommend” and a share. Sports are a great arena to explore decision making and risk taking!