Interesting read

[AjaxTheMighty]

Math prowess + football = offensive excellence! Not revolutionary, but still mostly ignored by coaches.

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201211/how-oregon-coach-chip-kelly-can-spark-moneyball-revolution-nfl

[1998braves64]

this should excite Bisonaudit believe he's a proponent of this method.

I agree to an extent; I would like to see all 4th and less than 3's in the opponents territory attempt to be converted, my theory is if you play your previous 3 plays with that mindset you end up only needing 2.5 yds per play. instead of the usual 3.333 repeating. That's a nearly full yard less. Inside your own territory gets slightly dicey especially if you have an offense that is only there to control the game and not a offensive firepower like Oregon's and hope is that they would be able to score occasionally.

The argument against would be the momentum you are trying to keep can be stuffed if you don't have the offense that can go back out there and convert a few first downs the next series to get that momentum back. This probably can happen to Oregon if they run into a highly touted defense would it fair as well? Those where the offense greatly outweighs the other teams defense as in the example of course they're not going to have a panic attack over a stop in the first quarter.

I think Bohl attempts 4 down conversions on short yardage situations fairly often maybe not as many as he should in my opinion. I was surprised he wasn't going to attempt going for it at the end of the game last week because it was either make SDSU go 90+ yards or get a TD or perhaps even a 1st down. It would have been a huge gamble though as we had about 3-4 yards to first down?

[oldmantutters]

I saw an article like this a few years back and agreed with it then like I do now... to an extent. On 4th and 1 I think you have to go for it every time as long as you are past your 35, I feel that the 35 is kind of the imaginary line for sure-thing field goal and more of a gamble. I think that if you can't convert a 4th and 1, you don't deserve to win the game. All of this, of course, is null and void with a defense like the Bison have. I have confidence that punting the ball away is going to give NDSU a field postion advantage in about 3 plays (stellar defense + amazing special teams).

[NDSUdonny]

That was a good read. I have heard of this method before. I remember a high school coach that won a state championship talking about it on First Take, and he was much more extreme with it than Chip Kelly. I don't think this would be as much of a hit in the NFL as the writer seems to think. The NFL is a pretty stubborn league and change would take significant time. It would be fun to see how Chip could do in the NFL with his methods, though. It would be much harder for him to "light up" the scoreboard in the NFL where the talent from team to team is much more even, and at Oregon he flat-out just has better athletes than pretty much anybody in the country.

[CaBisonFan]

Rocky Hager used a part of this philosophy. He didn't recruit kickers or punters...I believe. Went for it on many 4th downs. Went for 2 after a lot of touchdowns. I'd say he was a pioneer to a certain extent...but I'm not sure about that. Big difference is that Oregon makes a play and they can't wait to get set for the next play. The players have bought into the 'no fear' attitude. They play relaxed.

Oregon wasn't loaded with athletes when Kelly arrived. There were just enough to make his plan work. Now...their talent level is incredible. They make USC look ancient...and backwards.

Kelly's teams will light up the NFL too.

[BadlandsBison]

That was a good read. I have heard of this method before. I remember a high school coach that won a state championship talking about it on First Take, and he was much more extreme with it than Chip Kelly. I don't think this would be as much of a hit in the NFL as the writer seems to think. The NFL is a pretty stubborn league and change would take significant time. It would be fun to see how Chip could do in the NFL with his methods, though. It would be much harder for him to "light up" the scoreboard in the NFL where the talent from team to team is much more even, and at Oregon he flat-out just has better athletes than pretty much anybody in the country.

The NFL is a throw-the-ball league, and frankly Chip Kelly won't revolutionize the passing game. His team would be fun to watch but ultimately I can't see the aggressive style taking the NFL by storm.

[AjaxTheMighty]

The NFL is a throw-the-ball league, and frankly Chip Kelly won't revolutionize the passing game. His team would be fun to watch but ultimately I can't see the aggressive style taking the NFL by storm.

And computers too. I don't see them catching on either. :irslow:

[bisonaudit]

I saw an article like this a few years back and agreed with it then like I do now... to an extent. On 4th and 1 I think you have to go for it every time as long as you are past your 35, I feel that the 35 is kind of the imaginary line for sure-thing field goal and more of a gamble. I think that if you can't convert a 4th and 1, you don't deserve to win the game. All of this, of course, is null and void with a defense like the Bison have. I have confidence that punting the ball away is going to give NDSU a field postion advantage in about 3 plays (stellar defense + amazing special teams).

The 35 yard line is a 52 yard field goal. I don't care who your kicker is that's a bigger gamble with less reward than going for it on 4th and short.

I don't get the punting for field position argument, unless you're pinned 70 or 80 yards from the end zone. Convert on 4th down and you have possession, which is far more valuable, and field position.

The math geniuses in that story have a web site. Pigskinrevolution.com. It's been a few years since I've visited it so I don't know if they've kept it current or not. Football outsiders is another place that advocates this approach.

[BisonTeacher]

Rocky Hager used a part of this philosophy. He didn't recruit kickers or punters...I believe. Went for it on many 4th downs. Went for 2 after a lot of touchdowns. I'd say he was a pioneer to a certain extent...but I'm not sure about that.

one of the things we were taught as freshman was...."We don't kick field goals at North Dakota State."

[Hammerhead]

I've always wondered why more teams don't go for it on 4th and short, especially if they have a fairly mobile QB who can roll out or just put his head down for a QB sneak.
I heard there was a team that ran a fake punt last year that led to a touchdown in some big game down in Texas.

As for Chip Kelly tearing up the NFL, do you think his hurry-up offense would work with the smaller NFL rosters which make it harder to bring in fresh legs once in a while?

[NorthernBison]

The 35 yard line is a 52 yard field goal. I don't care who your kicker is that's a bigger gamble with less reward than going for it on 4th and short.

I don't get the punting for field position argument, unless you're pinned 70 or 80 yards from the end zone. Convert on 4th down and you have possession, which is far more valuable, and field position.

The math geniuses in that story have a web site. Pigskinrevolution.com. It's been a few years since I've visited it so I don't know if they've kept it current or not. Football outsiders is another place that advocates this approach.

You just brought back the memory of EWU when we punted to the 10 and the defense gave up a 90 yard drive to force OT.

And yeah, a 52 yard FG at this level is FAR from a sure thing.

[westnodak93bison]

Chip is just leveraging the strength of his team. Bison leverage defense. Nothing earth shattering about that imho. Chip doesnt need to worry about field position or time of possession when they can put up 50 on nearly everyone. I bet he would change his tune playing a real defense like AL or LSU.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[CivilBison96]

You just brought back the memory of EWU when we punted to the 10 and the defense gave up a 90 yard drive to force OT.

And yeah, a 52 yard FG at this level is FAR from a sure thing.


His point brought the same to my mind, still shake my head every time thinking of the 3rd down play......... run the same reverse pivot down the line QB run that EWU had stuffed 3 times prior and had he given the ball to Sigers it would have been a easy 1st down (ball game over) and he may have scored (dagger).

[bisonaudit]

You just brought back the memory of EWU when we punted to the 10 and the defense gave up a 90 yard drive to force OT.

And yeah, a 52 yard FG at this level is FAR from a sure thing.

A 52 yard field goal is far from a sure thing at every level.

[bisonaudit]

Chip is just leveraging the strength of his team. Bison leverage defense. Nothing earth shattering about that imho. Chip doesnt need to worry about field position or time of possession when they can put up 50 on nearly everyone. I bet he would change his tune playing a real defense like AL or LSU.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I think the idea that NDSU leverages defense, and therefore it's OK to punt more and/or settle for more FGs, is backward. If your defense is better you should take more risk on offense because if you do fail to convert on 4th down, where ever you happen to be on the field, your superior defense is less likely to surrender points than an average defense would be from the same location.

[Hammerhead]

It was roughly a coin flip last season in the NFL.

The rise in precision from 50 yards and greater has been especially dramatic:

1960s: 13.1 percent
1970s: 21.6 percent
1980s: 35.6 percent
1990s: 47.8 percent
2000s: 53.0 percent
2011: 55.9 percent

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500290_162-7048276.html



A 52 yard field goal is far from a sure thing at every level.

[westnodak93bison]

I think the idea that NDSU leverages defense, and therefore it's OK to punt more and/or settle for more FGs, is backward. If your defense is better you should take more risk on offense because if you do fail to convert on 4th down, where ever you happen to be on the field, your superior defense is less likely to surrender points than an average defense would be from the same location.

Not so fast! Our strong D must be used to set up field position for our less than potent offense. Also, don't forget our D has been good at forcing turnovers.

[Bison"FANatic"]

His point brought the same to my mind, still shake my head every time thinking of the 3rd down play......... run the same reverse pivot down the line QB run that EWU had stuffed 3 times prior and had he given the ball to Sigers it would have been a easy 1st down (ball game over) and he may have scored (dagger).

I ........ am havvviiiiinggg Flassssssshhhhhhbaccckssssss..........eyes bliiiiiinnnnnkiiinggg............heeeeaadddd woooooobbbblinnnng uncontrolabbbbbllllyyyyyyy...........arrrrrmmmmmss s shakkkinggggggg.............mmmmmmuuusssttttt finnnndddd spottttttttt to cuuuurrllll upppp iin feeeeetttttaaaaallllllllll poooossssssiitiioon. Memories bad,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, need therepist now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ssseeeennnnddd billl to Bisonville.

[CAS4127]

I ........ am havvviiiiinggg Flassssssshhhhhhbaccckssssss..........eyes bliiiiiinnnnnkiiinggg............heeeeaadddd woooooobbbblinnnng uncontrolabbbbbllllyyyyyyy...........arrrrrmmmmmss s shakkkinggggggg.............mmmmmmuuusssttttt finnnndddd spottttttttt to cuuuurrllll upppp iin feeeeetttttaaaaallllllllll poooossssssiitiioon. Memories bad,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, need therepist now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ssseeeennnnddd billl to Bisonville.

:rofl::rofl: No shaaat!! I don't think I said anything or talked to anyone for several hours after that game, and (in before the slams) that is saying a lot for me and I doubt anyone cared!!

Otherwise, I agree with Baudit's position relative to NDSU going for it more of 4-downs. As my friend SDBison said several times during the SDSU game after seeing the playcall on 3rd down-->"Vigen is setting up the punt"!!:rofl:

[IzzyFlexion]

I've always wondered why more teams don't go for it on 4th and short, especially if they have a fairly mobile QB who can roll out or just put his head down for a QB sneak.
I heard there was a team that ran a fake punt last year that led to a touchdown in some big game down in Texas.

As for Chip Kelly tearing up the NFL, do you think his hurry-up offense would work with the smaller NFL rosters which make it harder to bring in fresh legs once in a while?

Here is LeCompte's High School bio from gobison.com

http://www.gobison.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=11845&SPID=695&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=2400&ATCLID=205402429&Q_SEASON=2012

HIGH SCHOOL: 2011 graduate of Barrington High School ... A Daily Herald All-Area selection for Barrington High School and head coach Joe Sanchez ... First-team all-Mid-Suburban West pick ... Barrington advanced to the 8A playoffs and finished 7-2 ... Handled the punting and kicking duties, along with playing cornerback and wide receiver ... Went 5-for-7 on field goals (Long 43 yards) and punted for a 36-yard average ... Forty-five of his 55 kickoffs (81 percent) were touchback ... Set single-game school average records for punting (51.0) and kickoffs (56.9) and interceptions (3) ... Earned Illinois high school Defensive Player of the Week honors during week three after recording three interceptions, a fumble recovery and five tackles ... Pitcher and centerfielder on Barrington’s 2010 IHSA baseball playoff team ... Also played basketball

Damn nice HS athletic resume. Wouldn't doubt if we see another post season fake punt.

[westnodak93bison]

Here is LeCompte's High School bio from gobison.com

http://www.gobison.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=11845&SPID=695&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=2400&ATCLID=205402429&Q_SEASON=2012

HIGH SCHOOL: 2011 graduate of Barrington High School ... A Daily Herald All-Area selection for Barrington High School and head coach Joe Sanchez ... First-team all-Mid-Suburban West pick ... Barrington advanced to the 8A playoffs and finished 7-2 ... Handled the punting and kicking duties, along with playing cornerback and wide receiver ... Went 5-for-7 on field goals (Long 43 yards) and punted for a 36-yard average ... Forty-five of his 55 kickoffs (81 percent) were touchback ... Set single-game school average records for punting (51.0) and kickoffs (56.9) and interceptions (3) ... Earned Illinois high school Defensive Player of the Week honors during week three after recording three interceptions, a fumble recovery and five tackles ... Pitcher and centerfielder on Barrington’s 2010 IHSA baseball playoff team ... Also played basketball

Damn nice HS athletic resume. Wouldn't doubt if we see another post season fake punt.

Damn it! You let the play out of Bohl's hip pocket. You aren't much good at keeping secrets are you?

[bisonaudit]

Not so fast! Our strong D must be used to set up field position for our less than potent offense. Also, don't forget our D has been good at forcing turnovers.

Again w/ the field position. What about possession? Why voluntarily surrender possession of the ball when you don't have to? Punting from inside the 50 is hardly ever the correct thing to do. You hand the ball to the other team in exchange for 20 or 25 yards of field position... that's a bad trade w/ an average defense and a worse trade with a superior one. Don't surrender the ball, make them take it from you. Show some faith in that great Bison defense.

Also, our defense will continue to be good at forcing turnovers whether we go for it on 4th and short or not.

[Bison"FANatic"]

Again w/ the field position. What about possession? Why voluntarily surrender possession of the ball when you don't have to? Punting from inside the 50 is hardly ever the correct thing to do. You hand the ball to the other team in exchange for 20 or 25 yards of field position... that's a bad trade w/ an average defense and a worse trade with a superior one. Don't surrender the ball, make them take it from you. Show some faith in that great Bison defense.

Also, our defense will continue to be good at forcing turnovers whether we go for it on 4th and short or not.

Your assuming our D would be as successful against a team going 50 yards as they would be against a team going 80 or 90. I have heard Bohl say many times at Teammakers that the percentages of the opposing offense being successful fall dramatically when they have to go the full length of the field vs giving them a short field thus why he likes to play the field position game.

[bisonaudit]

Your assuming our D would be as successful against a team going 50 yards as they would be against a team going 80 or 90. I have heard Bohl say many times at Teammakers that the percentages of the opposing offense being successful fall dramatically when they have to go the full length of the field vs giving them a short field thus why he likes to play the field position game.

The relationship between field position and points scored/allowed is linear with the exception of pinning them inside the five or possessing the ball inside the 10.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/12/expected-point-values.html

Even with the best punter pinning inside the five, compared to attempting to convert a 4th and short from mid-field or better is a poor bet, you're going to give up way to many touchbacks.

Bohl is simply incorrect in his assessment of this situation. But then again, just about every head coach at every level is making exactly the same mistake.

I'm not assuming that our D would be just as successful defending from the 50 as they would be from the 20. They'll give up more points. What your analysis has failed to consider is the additional points that our offense will score by converting on 4th and short. You can't just look at the down side, you've got to consider the upside as well.

[bri-dog]

You can't just look at the down side, you've got to consider the upside as well.

This IS Bisonville, you know...

[BisonAccountant44]

Your assuming our D would be as successful against a team going 50 yards as they would be against a team going 80 or 90. I have heard Bohl say many times at Teammakers that the percentages of the opposing offense being successful fall dramatically when they have to go the full length of the field vs giving them a short field thus why he likes to play the field position game.

So what you're saying is that instead of playing to win the game, we should play to not lose. Got it. ;)

[CAS4127]

The relationship between field position and points scored/allowed is linear with the exception of pinning them inside the five or possessing the ball inside the 10.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/12/expected-point-values.html

Even with the best punter pinning inside the five, compared to attempting to convert a 4th and short from mid-field or better is a poor bet, you're going to give up way to many touchbacks.

Bohl is simply incorrect in his assessment of this situation. But then again, just about every head coach at every level is making exactly the same mistake.

I'm not assuming that our D would be just as successful defending from the 50 as they would be from the 20. They'll give up more points. What your analysis has failed to consider is the additional points that our offense will score by converting on 4th and short. You can't just look at the down side, you've got to consider the upside as well.

Does "the math" factor in the number of plays that would, on average, need to be run by the offense in order to score from a certain field position. It strikes me the longer the O has to drive, the more plays it will likely have to run and, with that, the chances of mistakes and or turnovers increases.

Or am I just way off base?!

[BadlandsBison]

And computers too. I don't see them catching on either. :irslow:

Hmm, can't tell if funny. But I can definitely see cyborg players catching on in the nfl!

[Answer Guy]

Does "the math" factor in the number of plays that would, on average, need to be run by the offense in order to score from a certain field position. It strikes me the longer the O has to drive, the more plays it will likely have to run and, with that, the chances of mistakes and or turnovers increases.

Or am I just way off base?!

You bring up a "math" theory and then don't say something stupid?



What's next, PL and 4M being civil to each other?

[bisonaudit]

Does "the math" factor in the number of plays that would, on average, need to be run by the offense in order to score from a certain field position. It strikes me the longer the O has to drive, the more plays it will likely have to run and, with that, the chances of mistakes and or turnovers increases.

Or am I just way off base?!

That should be in there because the numbers are derived from actual performances and that is what actually tends to happen. With a ball hawking defense (say Chicago) I believe that the numbers would suggest that the slope of the line may change somewhat but most of the time it only impacts the magnitude of the difference between the choices not which choice is superior.

http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/neural_networking_the_nfl.php

"...It can change it, but a lot of times, it doesn’t necessarily overturn the fact that play A was better than play B. Between two clones, it might be that play A was 3% better than play B. When I now put in the custom features of both teams, it might be that play A is still better than play B, but now it's only 2.4% better. All the coach really cares about is choosing the right play."

That's from the ZEUS/pigskinrevolution guys. They used to have periodic analysis of game decisions on their site and they'd talk about how they'd stress test the decisions to see how good or bad the offenses or defenses would have to be in order to change the result. Unfortunately it looks like they've locked all that stuff down and you can't get to it now. Maybe they're actually getting some traction in the market? Some of it still may be in the NYT's 5th down blog, they had a partnership with them for a while but my free articles for the month are up.

[CAS4127]

You bring up a "math" theory and then don't say something stupid?



What's next, PL and 4M being civil to each other?

Actually, yes!! -->http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?28968-Autostarts-Car(tailgate)-audio-and-home-theater-services


That should be in there because the numbers are derived from actual performances and that is what actually tends to happen. With a ball hawking defense (say Chicago) I believe that the numbers would suggest that the slope of the line may change somewhat but most of the time it only impacts the magnitude of the difference between the choices not which choice is superior.

http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/neural_networking_the_nfl.php

"...It can change it, but a lot of times, it doesn’t necessarily overturn the fact that play A was better than play B. Between two clones, it might be that play A was 3% better than play B. When I now put in the custom features of both teams, it might be that play A is still better than play B, but now it's only 2.4% better. All the coach really cares about is choosing the right play."

Interesting, thanks!!!

[AjaxTheMighty]

Hmm, can't tell if funny. But I can definitely see cyborg players catching on in the nfl!

Just being dumb, not necessarily funny. It seems that the NFL goes in cycles. Now it is a pass first league. But it wasn't always that way. Remember the years when the Ravens and Bucs won the superbowl? Every team wanted to find that kick butt defense to win. Because as the author said, it is a copy cat league, i.e. wildcat. The one thing that coaches continue to do is ignore good math. That is a fact. Opinions on the subject are varied, but to dismiss this coaching philosophy completely is ignorant. Going for it on 4th down from inside the opponents 40 has it's merits. Probably even near midfield. If you fail to convert or punt either way you give up the ball. It's much harder to score when you don't have the ball. I think Bison Audit has it right (I agree with him for a change); if the defense is so good, why are defensive teams like the Bison and Alabama scared to try to convert the 4th? All in the name of field position? Bad math, that's what it boils down to. I'm a math teacher, so I love good math!!!

[NorthernBison]

Just being dumb, not necessarily funny. It seems that the NFL goes in cycles. Now it is a pass first league. But it wasn't always that way. Remember the years when the Ravens and Bucs won the superbowl? Every team wanted to find that kick butt defense to win. Because as the author said, it is a copy cat league, i.e. wildcat. The one thing that coaches continue to do is ignore good math. That is a fact. Opinions on the subject are varied, but to dismiss this coaching philosophy completely is ignorant. Going for it on 4th down from inside the opponents 40 has it's merits. Probably even near midfield. If you fail to convert or punt either way you give up the ball. It's much harder to score when you don't have the ball. I think Bison Audit has it right (I agree with him for a change); if the defense is so good, why are defensive teams like the Bison and Alabama scared to try to convert the 4th? All in the name of field position? Bad math, that's what it boils down to. I'm a math teacher, so I love good math!!!

The decisions coaches make are less about the math that is being discussed and more about perception. Coaches get paid for doing the "safe" thing and fired for taking chances that result in lost games.

What do you think the discussion would be if a coach decides to try convert a 4th and 1 on the opponent's 40, fails, and the opponent scores points on the following possession? Especially if the game ends up as a close loss. That decision will be blown all out of proportion and coaches know that.

Our defense is exceptional at not giving up points. Against better offensive teams, we have tended to give up some yards between the 20's. I think Coach Bohl is well aware of the fact that longer fields give our defense more opportunity to turn the ball over or flat out stop the opponent short of scoring range. He's placing more weight on that than the upside of retaining possession and possibly scoring more ourselves.

I don't think he is going to suddenly change his philosophy.

[bisonaudit]

The decisions coaches make are less about the math that is being discussed and more about perception. Coaches get paid for doing the "safe" thing and fired for taking chances that result in lost games.

What do you think the discussion would be if a coach decides to try convert a 4th and 1 on the opponent's 40, fails, and the opponent scores points on the following possession? Especially if the game ends up as a close loss. That decision will be blown all out of proportion and coaches know that.

Our defense is exceptional at not giving up points. Against better offensive teams, we have tended to give up some yards between the 20's. I think Coach Bohl is well aware of the fact that longer fields give our defense more opportunity to turn the ball over or flat out stop the opponent short of scoring range. He's placing more weight on that than the upside of retaining possession and possibly scoring more ourselves.

I don't think he is going to suddenly change his philosophy.

I agree with all of this.

[jeffs]

This thread reminds me of a story i saw on HBO real sports. Pulaski Academy H.S. in Arkansas punts the football 1 time a season. Furthermore, they do an on-side kick every kickoff. Every 4th down they go for it. They've won 2 state championships in the last 7 years. Their 4th down conversion rate is over 50%.

[BadlandsBison]

Just being dumb, not necessarily funny. It seems that the NFL goes in cycles. Now it is a pass first league. But it wasn't always that way. Remember the years when the Ravens and Bucs won the superbowl? Every team wanted to find that kick butt defense to win. Because as the author said, it is a copy cat league, i.e. wildcat. The one thing that coaches continue to do is ignore good math. That is a fact. Opinions on the subject are varied, but to dismiss this coaching philosophy completely is ignorant. Going for it on 4th down from inside the opponents 40 has it's merits. Probably even near midfield. If you fail to convert or punt either way you give up the ball. It's much harder to score when you don't have the ball. I think Bison Audit has it right (I agree with him for a change); if the defense is so good, why are defensive teams like the Bison and Alabama scared to try to convert the 4th? All in the name of field position? Bad math, that's what it boils down to. I'm a math teacher, so I love good math!!!

I hear ya, I can appreciate a new view on football .

And for the record I don't care about the 4th down stuff haha. I just wanted to comment on Kelly going to the nfl, which sounds like will happen. IF he is comfortable with his replacement. I'm sure oregynbison will clarify :)

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Hammerhead]

Speaking of math...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GVA115I1I8Y/TMGTPsbyLTI/AAAAAAAABG0/WwIsKeXVGo0/s1600/Math-jokes.jpg

[bisonaudit]

This thread reminds me of a story i saw on HBO real sports. Pulaski Academy H.S. in Arkansas punts the football 1 time a season. Furthermore, they do an on-side kick every kickoff. Every 4th down they go for it. They've won 2 state championships in the last 7 years. Their 4th down conversion rate is over 50%.

ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback, Gregg Easterbrook, is also a proponent not kicking on 4th down and he's been following the exploits of Pulaski Academy in his column every week this season.

[AjaxTheMighty]

The decisions coaches make are less about the math that is being discussed and more about perception. Coaches get paid for doing the "safe" thing and fired for taking chances that result in lost games.

What do you think the discussion would be if a coach decides to try convert a 4th and 1 on the opponent's 40, fails, and the opponent scores points on the following possession? Especially if the game ends up as a close loss. That decision will be blown all out of proportion and coaches know that.

I really agree with your post Northern. You are spot on. I am just raising the question. For the sake of continuing the argument: since 99% of all coaches do the "safe" thing and still get fired. What then? You could argue that they (all the fired coaches every year) should have tried the math/statistical approach. I mean, they got fired right? Like I said, you are

Our defense is exceptional at not giving up points. Against better offensive teams, we have tended to give up some yards between the 20's. I think Coach Bohl is well aware of the fact that longer fields give our defense more opportunity to turn the ball over or flat out stop the opponent short of scoring range. He's placing more weight on that than the upside of retaining possession and possibly scoring more ourselves.

I don't think he is going to suddenly change his philosophy.

I really do agree with your post Northern. You are spot on. I am just raising the question. For the sake of continuing the argument: since 99% of all coaches do the "safe" thing and still get fired. What then? You could argue that they (all the fired coaches every year) should have tried the math/statistical approach. I mean, they got fired right? Let's take your scenario above and tweek it. I'm sure there are coaches that have been put on the hot seat or fired for going for it on 4th. It's always going to be one of those slippery slope deals with coaches trying to keep their jobs. Food for thought: if a team scores a TD after a punt, is that better? Isn't that how it usually happens? But you are correct. Coaches are not going to change their philosophy. And we know that Bohl will not at this stage.

[bisonaudit]

I really do agree with your post Northern. You are spot on. I am just raising the question. For the sake of continuing the argument: since 99% of all coaches do the "safe" thing and still get fired. What then? You could argue that they (all the fired coaches every year) should have tried the math/statistical approach. I mean, they got fired right? Let's take your scenario above and tweek it. I'm sure there are coaches that have been put on the hot seat or fired for going for it on 4th. It's always going to be one of those slippery slope deals with coaches trying to keep their jobs. Food for thought: if a team scores a TD after a punt, is that better? Isn't that how it usually happens? But you are correct. Coaches are not going to change their philosophy. And we know that Bohl will not at this stage.

There is the whole copycat league concept though. And look at baseball. It was the same deal there before Billy Beane decided that he didn't have anything to loose and now, no so many years later, there's been a complete front office revolution across almost the entire league. I think that's what makes having this discussion worth while. A change is likely to occur at some point. Just not fast enough for some of us, but probably much too fast for others.

[gotts]

ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback, Gregg Easterbrook, is also a proponent not kicking on 4th down and he's been following the exploits of Pulaski Academy in his column every week this season.

Gregg Easterbrook is a steaming pile, but I will say I am a proponent of not kicking on 4th down.