Hi Chuck -- congrats on your victory in Texas!
I like your blog post (http://edjanalytics.com/blog/another-look-at-the-worst-play-in-super-bowl-history/). I'm not a football fan so I can't really comment on the play or even on your specific analysis. But I am a Decision Theory guy (doctorate in Cog Psych and all that) so thought I might give you some very picky feedback.
Once again, I like the post! I agree with all your observations and conclusions. I would just use some of the lingo differently. So here are some notes and opinions for your consideration.
1. End of first paragraph: "Decisions that are judged solely upon their outcomes are called 'playing results', and this is exactly what appears to be occurring in the court of public opinion at the moment." This is just a grammar issue --"playing results" doesn't refer to a decision but rather to a judgment about a decision.
I think the sentence wants to be: "Judging decisions based solely upon their outcomes is called 'playing results,' and this is exactly what appears to be occurring in the court of public opinion at the moment." (Also note that the comma wants to be inside the quote marks, even when discussing a word or phrase.)
2. End of second bullet: "A play call that goes against common accepted practice, even if it is the most likely to win the game, will be second-guessed far more harshly when the result leads to a loss compared to the play accepted as correct by conventional wisdom. Psychologists refer to this as the risk-aversion bias."
Not quite. Risk Aversion is the preference for sure-thing outcomes over risky outcomes, such as the preference for a sure $700 over a .75 chance of $1000. Note that both of the football plays under consideration were risky -- neither offered a guarantee of even short-term success. So the aversion in question isn't to risk, but instead to perceived criticism just as you mention.
I think this is an example of Omission Bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omission_bias), where "actions" leading to poor outcomes are judged more harshly than "inactions" leading to poor outcomes. In this case the "action" is the violation of conventional wisdom.
And an even more technical note: Risk Aversion is generally considered a preference, not a bias. If you prefer $700 over .75($1000), so be it! That's your preference. Maybe you have a great reason, like your mom needs an operation that costs $600 and you want to be sure you can afford it. There are many rational reasons for risk aversion, and several times as many more irrational reasons for it. But Risk Aversion itself is (technically) not considered a bias.
3. Final bullet: "When faced with a decision which will win or lose immediately compared to one that prolongs the game, the tendency among the vast majority of games players (in particular football coaches) is to choose the second, even when the first has the higher expectation of winning. Again, due to risk averse tendencies, a coach can more easily distance himself from a failure if it occurs more gradually."
Nice! I'm sure I don't need to tell you that your description perfectly captures why beginning backgammon players miss this position (Backgammon For Profit, #97):
                      |
| ||||
| XGID=-BBBBaBB--C-------abcbbbb-:1:-1:1:14:0:0:3:0:10 | |||||
| Blue to play 14 | |||||
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
However, I don't think you can call this "risk aversion" for the same reasons as above. Both plays are risky, they just have different temporal risk dynamics. I have long thought of these types of decisions as showing a misguided preference for minimizing the chance of immediate loss, rather than the cumulative chance of loss.
4. Two paragraphs later: "There are two components to the analysis of any game decision, the technical part and the opponent adjustment part." And then, another two paragraphs down: "The second component of the decision has an academic name: game theory."
Almost! The problem is that "Game Theory," in its most accurate and limited definition, assumes that all players are perfectly rational actors who never make mistakes. Finding a mixed-strategy Nash Equilibrium is a purely mathematical exercise, which is why Game Theory is often taught in Math departments. Adjusting for human biases and imperfect cognition is called Behavioral Game Theory, and is often taught in Psychology and Management departments.
Once again, let me please repeat that I like your post, and am not trying to find fault! I love this field as only an ex-academic backgammon player can. Also, I fully realize that any writer must make a series of judgments about how to convey technical information to a lay audience. I wouldn't presume to advise you on those judgments -- I just want to be sure you have all the information you need to make them.
And one last time, Congratulations!