***** an espn instant classic production *****

[JustinTyem]

It had it "ALL",both teams had ups,downs and everything between ............ in a HOSTILE THIN "AIR", SMOKEY ENVIROMENT, .............. ***** AN ESPN INSTANT CLASSIC ***** and it you don't see it,ur an IDIOT......... Whether Our team ,or their team that won that game.......... it was and is "EPIC"

[stevdock]

We had friends in Arizona with no ties to either teams who were saying how awesome that game was yesterday. If you have no ties, awesome game. If your a Montana fan, huge win in school history. If you are us, yeah it was a great game it just stings a bit.

[westnodak93bison]

The game was poor defense on both sides and plenty of bad coaching decisions. This was not a good game of football.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bisonaudit]

The game was poor defense on both sides and plenty of bad coaching decisions. This was not a good game of football.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

They ran a trick play before half time and kicked a dumb field goal in the 4th quarter while we failed to understand that the clock was our friend. Other than that I didn't see a lot of bad coaching decisions.

[westnodak93bison]

They ran a trick play before half time and kicked a dumb field goal in the 4th quarter while we failed to understand that the clock was our friend. Other than that I didn't see a lot of bad coaching decisions.
Jet sweep to a true freshman during a critical point in the game is stupid.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[A1pigskin]

Grizz has a lot to work on as well.

[Mr Meaty]

Grizz has a lot to work on as well.

They do. For the coaches play calling and going for it on 4th and 4 from your own 40??? You better win Stitt or you will be gone sooner than later. He has tipped his hand to the rest of the teams they play. Don't be shocked if it does not workout since the cat is out of the bag. DII is way different from FCS.

[bisonaudit]

They do. For the coaches play calling and going for it on 4th and 4 from your own 40??? You better win Stitt or you will be gone sooner than later. He has tipped his hand to the rest of the teams they play. Don't be shocked if it does not workout since the cat is out of the bag. DII is way different from FCS.

Did he tip his hand or did he throw one at the bull?

I'm curious to see what he actually does for the rest of the season. They punted a couple of times in the second half in spots where his first half decisions would have led you to think they'd have gone for it. Result, we kept our base defense on the field, didn't set up a return or sell out pressuring the punter. The mere threat of going for it on 4th down dividends. They may not fake a punt all year, but teams are already defending them like they're going to try one every week.

"I wouldn't dig in if I was you. Next one might be at your head. I don't know where it's gonna go. Swear to God."

[A1pigskin]

They do. For the coaches play calling and going for it on 4th and 4 from your own 40??? You better win Stitt or you will be gone sooner than later. He has tipped his hand to the rest of the teams they play. Don't be shocked if it does not workout since the cat is out of the bag. DII is way different from FCS.

This would be a field goal for Keller.

[TransAmBison]

They ran a trick play before half time and kicked a dumb field goal in the 4th quarter while we failed to understand that the clock was our friend. Other than that I didn't see a lot of bad coaching decisions.I can't believe you said the field goal decision was dumb...it worked for them...and proved his genius. He kicked the field goal with confidence that his defense would get them the ball back...something we have done with success before. That call showed they were not panicking.

[bisonaudit]

I can't believe you said the field goal decision was dumb...it worked for them...and proved his genius. He kicked the field goal with confidence that his defense would get them the ball back...something we have done with success before. That call showed they were not panicking.

I try not to judge decisions based on things that you can only know after the fact. Just because they won the game doesn't make kicking that field goal the right decision and it certainly doesn't prove anyone's genius.

The more I hear the chatter about 'confidence' and 'panick' and 'choke' and 'clutch' and yada, yada, yada, the less I like it. And I'm not talking about today or the last week or the last year, I'm talking about a slow evolution over a long time about how I think about athletics. Why do we act like these guys are so fragile or have such a surface understanding of how their sport works? They know better than any of us how the game works, what you can control and what you can't, and they're some of the most resilient people, physically and mentally, that you're ever going to meet. If your players are going to fold on you because you tried one field goal here or didn't try one there, then you aren't going to win very many football games, anyway.

[TransAmBison]

I try not to judge decisions based on things that you can only know after the fact. Just because they won the game doesn't make kicking that field goal the right decision:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sometimes you have some really good insight...even if I don't agree with it. Right here, right now...that isn't one of those times. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[A1pigskin]

I can't believe you said the field goal decision was dumb...it worked for them...and proved his genius. He kicked the field goal with confidence that his defense would get them the ball back...something we have done with success before. That call showed they were not panicking.

The Grizz D was holding the Bison O. So Stitt must have been confident with the decision. I wonder if Stitt is a statistical guru. Does it seem he runs on a formula?

[TransAmBison]

The Grizz D was holding the Bison O. So Stitt must have been confident with the decision. I wonder if Stitt is a statistical guru. Does it seem he runs on a formula?The ESPN guys stated several times he goes by his gut. Sure seemed like was wilder at the beginning of the game, and slowly got more conservative as the game went on.

[td577]

They do. For the coaches play calling and going for it on 4th and 4 from your own 40??? You better win Stitt or you will be gone sooner than later. He has tipped his hand to the rest of the teams they play. Don't be shocked if it does not workout since the cat is out of the bag. DII is way different from FCS.

That is the way he has always coached and said he is bringing the same style to Montana. The fact that he punted those couple of times in similar situations is actually more surprising because he says he doesn't punt in 4th and short past his own 40.
4th and 4 Montana 45 - incomplete pass (ensuing Bison drive was 3 and out)
4th and 1 Montana 43 - incomplete pass (ensuing Bison drive was TD)
4th and 2 Montana 43 - Punt (NDSU didn't know what he was doing and then Montana had the illegal formation)
4th and 1 Montana 42 - Rush 2 yards converted 1st down (Gustafson threw INT a couple of plays later to DeLuca)
4th and 4 Montana 38 - Punt (He says he only goes for after the 40, so this one is within his parameters)
4th and 10 NDSU 44 - 31 yard pass on last drive (this one was most damaging conversion and there was no question he was going to go for it)

4 out of 5 times they went for it when they crossed their own 40 on 4th down. Only one was a no brainer. They converted 2 of them. That is two drives extended with converting first downs even though one ended with an INT the other with a TD. They gave up a TD after going for it once, so the short field helped the Bison. I am guessing he has figured out statistically it pays off in the long run.

[runtheoption]

That is the way he has always coached and said he is bringing the same style to Montana. The fact that he punted those couple of times in similar situations is actually more surprising because he says he doesn't punt in 4th and short past his own 40.
4th and 4 Montana 45 - incomplete pass (ensuing Bison drive was 3 and out)
4th and 1 Montana 43 - incomplete pass (ensuing Bison drive was TD)
4th and 2 Montana 43 - Punt (NDSU didn't know what he was doing and then Montana had the illegal formation)
4th and 1 Montana 42 - Rush 2 yards converted 1st down (Gustafson threw INT a couple of plays later to DeLuca)
4th and 4 Montana 38 - Punt (He says he only goes for after the 40, so this one is within his parameters)
4th and 10 NDSU 44 - 31 yard pass on last drive (this one was most damaging conversion and there was no question he was going to go for it)

4 out of 5 times they went for it when they crossed their own 40 on 4th down. Only one was a no brainer. They converted 2 of them. That is two drives extended with converting first downs even though one ended with an INT the other with a TD. They gave up a TD after going for it once, so the short field helped the Bison. I am guessing he has figured out statistically it pays off in the long run.This is what bisonaudit and a few others have been talking about for a few years on here. The statistical data is out there to support Stitt's method.

[mnriverbison]

He does not go by his gut. He plays the numbers, something that presently passes as radical in the football world and even upsets some of the more old school people but like in almost everything else his way will out eventually.

[moosbah]

He does not go by his gut. He plays the numbers, something that presently passes as radical in the football world and even upsets some of the more old school people but like in almost everything else his way will out eventually.

He's essentially a sabermatrician.

[bisonaudit]

The ESPN guys stated several times he goes by his gut. Sure seemed like was wilder at the beginning of the game, and slowly got more conservative as the game went on.

I'd question how much gut is involved. I think he understands that making the right decisions doesn't always get you the result you want, but over the long-haul you'll win more than you otherwise would have.

If LeCompte is taking the FG tries you all had better just used to a lot of 4th down attempts from the maroon zone. Maybe that'll be enough to convince the staff that going for it on 4th is very often the right call even when you do have more deep FG accuracy than at present. And the offensive coordinator will adjust is 3rd down call sheet for that part of the field accordingly.

[TransAmBison]

I'd question how much gut is involved. I think he understands that making the right decisions doesn't always get you the result you want, but over the long-haul you'll win more than you otherwise would have.I agree...which is why I stated what the ESPN guys said...I did not say it was what I thought. My thinking is he goes by his gut...according to some predetermined set of parameters.

[mnriverbison]

He's essentially a sabermatrician.

Exactly. That field isn't nearly as good at analyzing individuals as it is in baseball (due to sample size and lack of a control mainly) but the data out there on play-calling and in particular decisions about possession or kick/go is very compelling and flies in the face of conventional wisdom in many cases.

[mnriverbison]

I'd question how much gut is involved. I think he understands that making the right decisions doesn't always get you the result you want, but over the long-haul you'll win more than you otherwise would have.

Bingo. As a Twins fan I can tell you it has been painful to watch my team ignore and often openly mock the new data that has so much to teach them if they'd listen.

[bisonaudit]

Bingo. As a Twins fan I can tell you it has been painful to watch my team ignore and often openly mock the new data that has so much to teach them if they'd listen.

It gets worse when your NL team is the Washington Nationals, too.

[2011BisonAlumni]

Exactly. That field isn't nearly as good at analyzing individuals as it is in baseball (due to sample size and lack of a control mainly) but the data out there on play-calling and in particular decisions about possession or kick/go is very compelling and flies in the face of conventional wisdom in many cases.

How many national championships has Stitt won with his decision making?

His decisions yesterday should have cost his team the game. They won the game by winning one on one match ups on the outside and NDSU failing to run the ball.

[bisonaudit]

How many national championships has Stitt won with his decision making?

His decisions yesterday should have cost his team the game. They won the game by winning one on one match ups on the outside and NDSU failing to run the ball.

As many as all of these guys combined.

http://www.sportingnews.com/list/4637228-top-25-active-coaches-without-a-championship-maddon-harbaugh-reid-miller-chip-kelly

[NDSUBowler]

How many national championships has Stitt won with his decision making?

His decisions yesterday should have cost his team the game. They won the game by winning one on one match ups on the outside and NDSU failing to run the ball.
Lol...ridiculous logic.

[ZHerd]

How many national championships has Stitt won with his decision making?

His decisions yesterday should have cost his team the game. They won the game by winning one on one match ups on the outside and NDSU failing to run the ball.

I'd be incredibly impressed if a first year coach with one game under his belt already won national championships. Sounds like a sci-fi novel in the making. I'm assuming you aren't refering to his stint at csom because that would just be silly

[2011BisonAlumni]

I'd be incredibly impressed if a first year coach with one game under his belt already won national championships. Sounds like a sci-fi novel in the making. I'm assuming you aren't refering to his stint at csom because that would just be silly

I meant to say his entire coaching career. Yes, I get that he was at Mines.

Look, the guy is a good coach. Not trying to discount that. All I am saying is that I am going to wait to say he is changing the game of football.

[ZHerd]

I meant to say his entire coaching career. Yes, I get that he was at Mines.

Look, the guy is a good coach. Not trying to discount that. All I am saying is that I am going to wait to say he is changing the game of football.

Ya it will be interesting to see what they do in the playoffs

[Bisonator98]

I can't believe you said the field goal decision was dumb...it worked for them...and proved his genius. He kicked the field goal with confidence that his defense would get them the ball back...something we have done with success before. That call showed they were not panicking.

Tell me would it still have been a genius call if they miss the FG? How about if we got a first down and ran out the clock for a 35-31 win? It's easy to call a decision genius after it works.

[TransAmBison]

Tell me would it still have been a genius call if they miss the FG? How about if we got a first down and ran out the clock for a 35-31 win? It's easy to call a decision genius after it works.Here's the thing...your line of thinking produces "ifs" and his produced a win.

[bisonaudit]

Here's the thing...your line of thinking produces "ifs" and his produced a win.

Days like these are almost enough to make me feel sympathy for Phil Hellmuth. Almost.

[NDSUBowler]

Here's the thing...your line of thinking produces "ifs" and his produced a win.

That doesn't make it the right call in a vacuum, only the right call in retrospect.

[NDSUBowler]

Days like these are almost enough to make me feel sympathy for Phil Hellmuth. Almost.
LOL I almost just mentioned him in the last post myself.

Oddly enough, I was at Canterbury Saturday night and he was there playing an event (Poker Night in America).

/randomstory

[TransAmBison]

That doesn't make it the right call in a vacuum, only the right call in retrospect.:rofl: You are cracking me up...in a vaccum, be it a Dyson, Kirby, or whatever, the sucking might have made the kick go wide right. I mean, who tries a field goal with that type of wind? Am I right?

Oh, were we being serious? Were condescending remarks being made by some people here? Oh forgive me...I must be stupid to think I coach made the right call when it worked in his favor.

[ZHerd]

:rofl: You are cracking me up...in a vaccum, be it a Dyson, Kirby, or whatever, the sucking might have made the kick go wide right. I mean, who tries a field goal with that type of wind? Am I right?

Oh, were we being serious? Were condescending remarks being made by some people here? Oh forgive me...I must be stupid to think I coach made the right call when it worked in his favor.

No he meant in outer space :biggrin:

[1998braves64]

He's essentially a sabermatrician.

Even with those there is a "gray" area where you have to decide which way you want to go. I think for most part the locations he chose were not extremely radical. I think he did catch many off guard though when he did punt it when they were just past midfield where the stats say to go for it. He was well beyond where he'd attempted to go for it previously so it's not always decided by pure stats, although I'm sure he relies on that a bit no doubt. The previous attempt was probably their largest screw up they had on 4th down attempt, don't remember the specifics exactly, but he didn't look happy with how they executed it so that may have played a factor in his "gut" call the next time around.

[td577]

Even with those there is a "gray" area where you have to decide which way you want to go. I think for most part the locations he chose were not extremely radical. I think he did catch many off guard though when he did punt it when they were just past midfield where the stats say to go for it. He was well beyond where he'd attempted to go for it previously so it's not always decided by pure stats, although I'm sure he relies on that a bit no doubt. The previous attempt was probably their largest screw up they had on 4th down attempt, don't remember the specifics exactly, but he didn't look happy with how they executed it so that may have played a factor in his "gut" call the next time around.

He only punted once after passing their own 40 and still not opponent territory.

4th and 4 Montana 45 - incomplete pass.
4th and 1 Montana 43 - incomplete pass.
4th and 2 Montana 43 - Punt <-- this is the one that was an outlier to his philosophy and the one you are talking about.
4th and 1 Montana 42 - Rush 2 yards converted 1st down.
I think his gut tells him when not to do it, not when to do it. Otherwise, he going with the plan to always go for it on 4th and short past their own 40.

[bisonaudit]

:rofl: You are cracking me up...in a vaccum, be it a Dyson, Kirby, or whatever, the sucking might have made the kick go wide right. I mean, who tries a field goal with that type of wind? Am I right?

Oh, were we being serious? Were condescending remarks being made by some people here? Oh forgive me...I must be stupid to think I coach made the right call when it worked in his favor.


You're not stupid to think that. People make these kinds of mistakes all of the time. It's called "outcome bias".

A lot of the time, it's quite useful, which if why our brains like it. As in "I ate the berry and I didn't get sick. It's probably safe to eat them again." Or the opposite. But maybe, you didn't get sick from the berry, instead, Link sneezed on you and gave you the flu and now you're passing on a valuable food source because you reached to the wrong conclusion based on the outcome.

[TransAmBison]

You're not stupid to think that. People make these kinds of mistakes all of the time. It's called "outcome bias".

A lot of the time, it's quite useful, which if why our brains like it. As in "I ate the berry and I didn't get sick. It's probably safe to eat them again." Or the opposite. But maybe, you didn't get sick from the berry, instead, Link sneezed on you and gave you the flu and now you're passing on a valuable food source because you reached to the wrong conclusion based on the outcome.This is pure gold.

[mnriverbison]

I meant to say his entire coaching career. Yes, I get that he was at Mines.

Look, the guy is a good coach. Not trying to discount that. All I am saying is that I am going to wait to say he is changing the game of football.

That's totally fair and nobody thinks he (or anyone) alone are "changing football", but the data is already in. The old conventional wisdom, while good at keeping the media from questioning the coach, does not always give the team the best chance to win as advertised. The minority of coaches who have the credentials (BB in the NFL for example) of the "f it I don't care if they hate me" attitude enough to do the statistically correct (albeit unpopular) thing are doing better than their peers. It's only a matter of time before, like always, convention catches up with reason.

None of this has anything to do with what happened the one time I was watching, it has to do with the aggregation results over time. You know, the odds.

[NDSUBowler]

This is pure gold.

I can't tell if you're just saying this to troll of if you're actually laughing at him/I/others who think this way.

Audit's analogy is pretty spot on.

I don't understand the need for all the smarmy posts you are making rather than attempting to explain why we are wrong, thus opening up dialogue that will hopefully change one side's mind.

[TransAmBison]

I can't tell if you're just saying this to troll of if you're actually laughing at him/I/others who think this way.

Audit's analogy is pretty spot on.

I don't understand the need for all the smarmy posts you are making rather than attempting to explain why we are wrong, thus opening up dialogue that will hopefully change one side's mind.There are a few on here that talk down to posters on here...and sometimes they are in the right. It is funny when those posters are wrong and just can't admit it. I'm enjoying it immensely and just hope the posts keep coming.

[NDSUBowler]

There are a few on here that talk down to posters on here...and sometimes they are in the right. It is funny when those posters are wrong and just can't admit it. I'm enjoying it immensely and just hope the posts keep coming.

What has been said that is wrong? You keep saying that but you haven't taken the time to explain why. If that is referenced to Audit (and myself since I agree with him), I'd like the chance to understand what makes us wrong.

[TransAmBison]

What has been said that is wrong? You keep saying that but you haven't taken the time to explain why. If that is referenced to Audit (and myself since I agree with him), I'd like the chance to understand what makes us wrong.

Okay...so Montana is down by 7 and they have a 4th down. They have failed to convert...they need a touchdown and they need two scores to go ahead (touchdown and something else...2 pt conversion, etc). If they fail the 4th down conversion (which they had already that game a couple times I believe), they would still need the two scores. If they get the field goal (which was probable) they only need a touchdown to win. If they miss it, they still need the touchdown. The Bison were not playing their best offense at that time and he correctly guessed that they would have enough time to complete another drive.

What I find funny is that some on here act like he made a mistake. For absolutely obvious reasons he did not. It played out exactly like he wanted it to. He made an educated call and it worked out. Then a comment gets made about in a vacuum, etc...and then audit gives his comment:


You're not stupid to think that. People make these kinds of mistakes all of the time. It's called "outcome bias".

Yeah, I'm the one who made the mistake.

[Bisonator98]

Okay...so Montana is down by 7 and they have a 4th down. They have failed to convert...they need a touchdown and they need two scores to go ahead (touchdown and something else...2 pt conversion, etc). If they fail the 4th down conversion (which they had already that game a couple times I believe), they would still need the two scores. If they get the field goal (which was probable) they only need a touchdown to win. If they miss it, they still need the touchdown. The Bison were not playing their best offense at that time and he correctly guessed that they would have enough time to complete another drive.

What I find funny is that some on here act like he made a mistake. For absolutely obvious reasons he did not. It played out exactly like he wanted it to. He made an educated call and it worked out. Then a comment gets made about in a vacuum, etc...and then audit gives his comment:



Yeah, I'm the one who made the mistake.

The fact is it worked out this time. Doesn't mean it will the next. And it doesn't mean he is a genius. But hey keep thinking it does.

[NDSUBowler]

Okay...so Montana is down by 7 and they have a 4th down. They have failed to convert...they need a touchdown and they need two scores to go ahead (touchdown and something else...2 pt conversion, etc). If they fail the 4th down conversion (which they had already that game a couple times I believe), they would still need the two scores. If they get the field goal (which was probable) they only need a touchdown to win. If they miss it, they still need the touchdown. The Bison were not playing their best offense at that time and he correctly guessed that they would have enough time to complete another drive.

What I find funny is that some on here act like he made a mistake. For absolutely obvious reasons he did not. It played out exactly like he wanted it to. He made an educated call and it worked out. Then a comment gets made about in a vacuum, etc...and then audit gives his comment:



Yeah, I'm the one who made the mistake.
You can make the debate on whether the FG call was right or not. I believe it is slightly tilted towards being incorrect as a whole but it is definitely debatable. The bolded is the point that I'd like to argue.

When myself/Audit/others say something like "even though it worked it may not have been correct" we are speaking about in a vacuum, as in: If they were to do this situation infinite times, which would allow them to win the most of those infinite scenarios? Perhaps kicking the FG results in them winning 16% of the games but going for it (and perhaps going for 2) would result in them winning 20% of the games.

That would technically make kicking the FG the wrong call, even though it worked out. As, every call you do should be done to maximize your team's chance of winning. You can still do the 'wrong' thing and emerge victorious because you still have a % chance that it works out.

But this is what him and I mean when we make comments like 'just because they won doesn't mean it was the right decision' as we base correctness off what gives the best chance at an optimal outcome.

Your comment of

I can't believe you said the field goal decision was dumb...it worked for them...and proved his genius.
is the perfect example of the outcome bias that Audit was talking about. It didn't prove anything other than the team ended up overcoming and winning despite being 16% favorite to win, versus overcoming and winning despite being 20% favorite *NOTE: All math is made up just for the purpose of the example*


It's like if I asked you if you wanted to flip coins for money. If it is heads you give me $100, if its tails I give you $200. But we only do ONE flip. You always agree to do this right? Now we flip the coin and it ends up heads and you have to give me $100. Does this now mean you made the wrong call agreeing to flip the coin? No, you absolutely did the right thing, it just didn't work out.



NOW...for the math part. As I said, I made up the 16% and 20% numbers and I would genuinely be curious to see what the actual win% would be if they kick the FG or if they attempt the 4th down. If the higher % ends up being the FG (which it very well could be), then that was the correct decision and I know Audit would agree with that too. But all parties should remove what happens AFTER the decision when evaluating if it was the right call to make at the time. All that matters is in the moment.

That is where our difference lies.

[mnriverbison]

The fact is it worked out this time. Doesn't mean it will the next. And it doesn't mean he is a genius. But hey keep thinking it does.

You're right. One example doesn't meat squat. But the data does. If you do it a million times his way vs the old way, you'll do better listening the numbers rather than listening to ghosts. There isn't really much to argue about, people (like football outsiders et al) have compiled the data and we don't need to wonder anymore.

[bisonaudit]

It was a 7 point game. They didn't need two scores when they kicked the field goal and they still need a touchdown after they made it. When all you need is a two-point conversion, that isn't needing two scores. It's one.

That field goal gained nothing. Three points are worthless there. They need to get in the end zone once, even if they fail, we get the ball on the 10. Then even if we do what we should have done, run it three times and punt, they're in a better spot to get in the end-zone the one time that they need to, than they were taking three and kicking off. If they score a touchdown and kick the PAT, then any score wins the game for them. But, here's what blows my mind. Stitt said after the game that if they'd have gotten a TD there instead of a field goal, he'd have gone for 2! You can't reconcile that thinking with settling for a field goal in that spot.

[TransAmBison]

You can make the debate on whether the FG call was right or not. I believe it is slightly tilted towards being incorrect as a whole but it is definitely debatable. The bolded is the point that I'd like to argue.

When myself/Audit/others say something like "even though it worked it may not have been correct" we are speaking about in a vacuum, as in: If they were to do this situation infinite times, which would allow them to win the most of those infinite scenarios? Perhaps kicking the FG results in them winning 16% of the games but going for it (and perhaps going for 2) would result in them winning 20% of the games.

That would technically make kicking the FG the wrong call, even though it worked out. As, every call you do should be done to maximize your team's chance of winning. You can still do the 'wrong' thing and emerge victorious because you still have a % chance that it works out.

But this is what him and I mean when we make comments like 'just because they won doesn't mean it was the right decision' as we base correctness off what gives the best chance at an optimal outcome.

Your comment of

is the perfect example of the outcome bias that Audit was talking about. It didn't prove anything other than the team ended up overcoming and winning despite being 16% favorite to win, versus overcoming and winning despite being 20% favorite *NOTE: All math is made up just for the purpose of the example*


It's like if I asked you if you wanted to flip coins for money. If it is heads you give me $100, if its tails I give you $200. But we only do ONE flip. You always agree to do this right? Now we flip the coin and it ends up heads and you have to give me $100. Does this now mean you made the wrong call agreeing to flip the coin? No, you absolutely did the right thing, it just didn't work out.



NOW...for the math part. As I said, I made up the 16% and 20% numbers and I would genuinely be curious to see what the actual win% would be if they kick the FG or if they attempt the 4th down. If the higher % ends up being the FG (which it very well could be), then that was the correct decision and I know Audit would agree with that too. But all parties should remove what happens AFTER the decision when evaluating if it was the right call to make at the time. All that matters is in the moment.

That is where our difference lies.The thing is you can't remove the outcome. It is not comparable to the coin flip because the flip is totally out of your control. The coach had the knowledge of how the teams were doing...and to compare it to the coin flip...he knew they had to score twice to win. The chances of making the field goal vs the chances of the two point conversion need to be taken into account...or tying and going into overtime.

In a vacuum your model definitely has things to consider. But you also have to consider when the next play (4th down) is for just a few yards it is a lot harder getting those yards than when it is 1st and 10. Or, a pass play can be attempted and missed (see earlier outcome).

Is his decision right to do the majority of the time (say out of a 100 time)? Who knows...there are circumstances to consider...because football is not played in a Dyson.

Bottom line...he did not make the wrong decision...to continue to argue it is silly in my simple mind. But don't let that stop you. :)

[TransAmBison]

It was a 7 point game. They didn't need two scores when they kicked the field goal and they still need a touchdown after they made it. When all you need is a two-point conversion, that isn't needing two scores. It's one.

That field goal gained nothing. Three points are worthless there. They need to get in the end zone once, even if they fail, we get the ball on the 10. Then even if we do what we should have done, run it three times and punt, they're in a better spot to get in the end-zone the one time that they need to, than they were taking three and kicking off. If they score a touchdown and kick the PAT, then any score wins the game for them. But, here's what blows my mind. Stitt said after the game that if they'd have gotten a TD there instead of a field goal, he'd have gone for 2! You can't reconcile that thinking with settling for a field goal in that spot.In my mind a touchdown and extra point is a score...a touchdown and two point conversion is two scores. That field goal did gain something...if you can't see it there is just no point in discussing this further.

[TransAmBison]

The fact is it worked out this time. Doesn't mean it will the next. And it doesn't mean he is a genius. But hey keep thinking it does.I'll give you "genius" was not a great choice...but the fact remains that when it was needed to work out, it did.

[Bisonator98]

I'll give you "genius" was not a great choice...but the fact remains that when it was needed to work out, it did.

This time.:biggrin:

[NDSUBowler]

The thing is you can't remove the outcome. It is not comparable to the coin flip because the flip is totally out of your control. The coach had the knowledge of how the teams were doing...and to compare it to the coin flip...he knew they had to score twice to win. The chances of making the field goal vs the chances of the two point conversion need to be taken into account...or tying and going into overtime.

In a vacuum your model definitely has things to consider. But you also have to consider when the next play (4th down) is for just a few yards it is a lot harder getting those yards than when it is 1st and 10. Or, a pass play can be attempted and missed (see earlier outcome).

Is his decision right to do the majority of the time (say out of a 100 time)? Who knows...there are circumstances to consider...because football is not played in a Dyson.

Bottom line...he did not make the wrong decision...to continue to argue it is silly in my simple mind. But don't let that stop you. :)

The problem with all this line of logic is that when the decision was made, no outcome had been decided yet so you have nothing to go off of. A decision is 'correct' or 'incorrect' the second it is made when dealing with % chance of victory. It is not a sliding bar that gets more correct as better things happen or less correct as worse things happen.

That is the fundamental point I am trying to argue here.

To continue to argue isn't silly when that is such an important point I am trying to distinguish and makes all following arguments about what happens after 'null and void'.



Clearly, the coach thought in the moment their win% chance was higher kicking the fg than going for it. I disagree, as do others, and it is close either way. I'd be interested to see the true % but I do not have enough data on hand to run through probabilities on every play that could arise from both decisions.

[bisonaudit]

In my mind a touchdown and extra point is a score...a touchdown and two point conversion is two scores. That field goal did gain something...if you can't see it there is just no point in discussing this further.

A TD and a 2pt conversion are 1 score, but it doesn't really matter. If we'd have been up by 9 instead of 7 he still probably shouldn't have kicked the FG.

[TransAmBison]

A TD and a 2pt conversion are 1 score, but it doesn't really matter. If we'd have been up by 9 instead of 7 he still probably shouldn't have kicked the FG.Please explain this. That makes absolutely no sense. You need two scores. If you go for it, you have one chance. If you make the field goal, you have at least 4 more (assuming you get the ball back)...

[runtheoption]

This whole discussion shows the many contradictions of Stitt....he goes for it on 4th down almost everytime when past his 40 yard line when conventional wisdom says punt...it's 4th and goal from the 11 yard line with 2:47 left in the game, down by 7, and he kicks a 28 yard FG to go down by 4, when (apparently) conventional wisdom says to attempt to go for the TD instead of the FG.

In Stitt We Trust.

[CAS4127]

Math/odds/percentages don't work as well for football as they may for baseball. Just "too many moving parts".

It's more art than science/math in football setting.

[bisonaudit]

Please explain this. That makes absolutely no sense. You need two scores. If you go for it, you have one chance. If you make the field goal, you have at least 4 more (assuming you get the ball back)...

You need to score twice and one of them has to be a TD. You have to get the ball back either way. So the question becomes is it easier to get the TD from the 10 and (assuming you get the ball back) the FG from wherever? Or is it easier to take the FG from the 10 and (assuming you get the ball back) have to score a touchdown?

[CAS4127]

You need to score twice and one of them has to be a TD. You have to get the ball back either way. So the question becomes is it easier to get the TD from the 10 and (assuming you get the ball back) the FG from wherever? Or is it easier to take the FG from the 10 and (assuming you get the ball back) have to score a touchdown?

And it's much easier to score a touchdown when you have possession of the ball compared to when you don't.

Just sayin'! :)

[NDSUBowler]

And it's much easier to score a touchdown when you have possession of the ball compared to when you don't.

Just sayin'! :)
That's a point for the side of 'go for the TD now while they still have the ball' logic we have been trying to say :)

[EC8CH]

It's more art than science/math in football setting.

If that's so, then that last game was a Jackson Pollock masterpiece :biggrin:

[CAS4127]

That's a point for the side of 'go for the TD now while they still have the ball' logic we have been trying to say :)

I know.

I also know that I have seen pro gamblers throw pocket kings at a final table when the odds say they have a damn good chance that they have the best hand going in. Moving "parts"?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Stitt was +10 on 4th downs when he converted, compared to when he didnt and you guys got the ball back with good field position.

He has said on many occasions that if he goes for it on 4th down on our 40 and doesnt get it, our defense will make you go 3 and out or kick a FG then your defense is back on the field getting ready to face 90 plays a game. Over the 16 years at Mines he was +5 on 4th down conversion scoring drives as an average.

I like it and he will have to have 5 losing seasons in a row before I ever question his being aggressive and dictating to a defense.

[tjbison]

Stitt was +10 on 4th downs when he converted, compared to when he didnt and you guys got the ball back with good field position.

He has said on many occasions that if he goes for it on 4th down on our 40 and doesnt get it, our defense will make you go 3 and out or kick a FG then your defense is back on the field getting ready to face 90 plays a game. Over the 16 years at Mines he was +5 on 4th down conversion scoring drives as an average.

I like it and he will have to have 5 losing seasons in a row before I ever question his being aggressive and dictating to a defense.

I want a playoff rematch, some seasoning of our team and we win that game, stick to playing bison FB and we win that game

we got fancy, and didn't manage the second half worth a shit and it cost us.

no knock to montana they wanted it more and got it, even the final play of the game our d was out of position

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I want a playoff rematch, some seasoning of our team and we win that game, stick to playing bison FB and we win that game

we got fancy, and didn't manage the second half worth a shit and it cost us.

no knock to montana they wanted it more and got it, even the final play of the game our d was out of position

I agree, when Bison were up 7 with 6 minutes left at midfield I thought it was over. I figured you guys do what you do, run the ball take time off and at the very least kick a FG to go up 10 and win like you always do. For some reason you chose to throw incomplete passes and stop the clock for us.

No doubt in my mind who the better team is and has been. We got lucky

[tjbison]

I agree, when Bison were up 7 with 6 minutes left at midfield I thought it was over. I figured you guys do what you do, run the ball take time off and at the very least kick a FG to go up 10 and win like you always do. For some reason you chose to throw incomplete passes and stop the clock for us.

No doubt in my mind who the better team is and has been. We got lucky

any given Saturday......

[Gully]

I'm with audit on this one. He didn't make the best decision, he just got lucky on this particular outcome. That doesn't make it a good decision. A good decision would be one that would work out more often than not. You should judge a decision based on the information available when the decision was made.

What really puzzles me is his apparent inconsistency. I could understand if you had the old school mentality of taking points and playing field position (a strategy that more and more are challenging, BTW), but when you openly advocate a different way of thinking in which you go for it on more fourth downs I don't understand why you suddenly reverse course and play it safe late in the game. The only explanation is based on "feel" or "guessing".

I'll still argue that if you could somehow simulate 1,000 games with this scenario, you would win more games by going for the TD than you would be kicking the field goal and playing defense. Perhaps 20% of the time you would win by kicking and playing defense (I'm making that up of course). Does that mean he made a better decision? No, in my example he chose the path where he would win one game out of five. Wouldn't it be smarter to choose the path where you would win four games out of five? You can argue with my made up numbers but I don't think you can argue the logic.

[td577]

I'm with audit on this one. He didn't make the best decision, he just got lucky on this particular outcome. That doesn't make it a good decision. A good decision would be one that would work out more often than not. You should judge a decision based on the information available when the decision was made.

What really puzzles me is his apparent inconsistency. I could understand if you had the old school mentality of taking points and playing field position (a strategy that more and more are challenging, BTW), but when you openly advocate a different way of thinking in which you go for it on more fourth downs I don't understand why you suddenly reverse course and play it safe late in the game. The only explanation is based on "feel" or "guessing".

I'll still argue that if you could somehow simulate 1,000 games with this scenario, you would win more games by going for the TD than you would be kicking the field goal and playing defense. Perhaps 20% of the time you would win by kicking and playing defense (I'm making that up of course). Does that mean he made a better decision? No, in my example he chose the path where he would win one game out of five. Wouldn't it be smarter to choose the path where you would win four games out of five? You can argue with my made up numbers but I don't think you can argue the logic.

No matter the result of that play and especially if you fail, you still have to stop the Bison offense but now you have them on the 10 instead of whatever field position on ensuing KO. Perkins was returning the ball well all game. 3 points does nothing but earn you a spot on some computer models.

[NDSUBowler]

I know.

I also know that I have seen pro gamblers throw pocket kings at a final table when the odds say they have a damn good chance that they have the best hand going in. Moving "parts"?
The moving parts factor into percentages too but ultimately it boils down to the correct percentage play.

They arent folding kings even though they know they are likely ahead, I can assure you of that. If they DO, then they are not good players. Simple as that.

I have folded kings once before (and was right). A friend of mine folded KK twice on same day at the main event a few years back and was right both times (guy had AA each time).

I dont want to derail this thread anymore but I do love talking about the fluidity of math in poker situations if you want to continue that in the gambling thread! I love my poker talk...

[MNLonghorn10]

Stitt is the asshole at the bar who'll jump in and be the anchor at a blackjack table, sit on a soft 18 vs a dealer 10, dealer busts, we all think this guys a moron...then somehow we come out ahead and everyones happy. even though his dumb play should cost us a few dollars.

[CAS4127]

The moving parts factor into percentages too but ultimately it boils down to the correct percentage play.

They arent folding kings even though they know they are likely ahead, I can assure you of that. If they DO, then they are not good players. Simple as that.

I have folded kings once before (and was right). A friend of mine folded KK twice on same day at the main event a few years back and was right both times (guy had AA each time).

I dont want to derail this thread anymore but I do love talking about the fluidity of math in poker situations if you want to continue that in the gambling thread! I love my poker talk...

I know just enough about math fluidity in poker to piss Phil Helmuth off.

Percentages in football don't take into account whether the moving parts are injured, bigger or faster in game-specific setting. That's where the "art" comes in. Kinda like being right in folding KK when you don't know for sure whether someone is holding AA. In a vacuum, KK should be played. Odds say you should play KK, but you're read says no and carries the day. And I'm talking just card odds, not stack size, pot size v. roi, etc.

Here, CW and our offense were injured, which increased significantly the chance MT gets ball back.

[bisonaudit]

I know just enough about math fluidity in poker to piss Phil Helmuth off.

Percentages in football don't take into account whether the moving parts are injured, bigger or faster in game-specific setting. That's where the "art" comes in. Kinda like being right in folding KK when you don't know for sure whether someone is holding AA. In a vacuum, KK should be played. Odds say you should play KK, but you're read says no and carries the day. And I'm talking just card odds, not stack size, pot size v. roi, etc.

Here, CW and our offense were injured, which increased significantly the chance MT gets ball back.

If they put it in the endzone they don't necessarily need the ball back, if they don't they're in the same place as taking the FG except with better field position and more seconds.

[CAS4127]

If they put it in the endzone they don't necessarily need the ball back, if they don't they're in the same place as taking the FG except with better field position and more seconds.

Not following latter part of post.


Sent from my iPhone.

[CAS4127]

Not following latter part of post.

And I'm more defending my position that there is more art than science/math in football setting. Not defending Stitt's section specifically.

Sent from my iPhone.




Sent from my iPhone.

[bisonaudit]

Not following latter part of post.


Sent from my iPhone.

Clock runs on FG and kickoff. We start on 30ish if they take the FG. If they go for the endzone and don't score we get the ball on the 10.

[CAS4127]

Clock runs on FG and kickoff. We start on 30ish if they take the FG. If they go for the endzone and don't score we get the ball on the 10.

Somewhere you jumped a point on me. No biggie--just checked and we still lost.


Sent from my iPhone.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

Getting back to the "instant classic" part, I would rather not watch this game again. Classic or not.

[CAS4127]

Getting back to the "instant classic" part, I would rather not watch this game again. Classic or not.

I feel the same. Didn't even wanna read articles on it ... and then there was the box score with MT passing yards. Good God!!


Sent from my iPhone.

[td577]

I feel the same. Didn't even wanna read articles on it ... and then there was the box score with MT passing yards. Good God!!


Sent from my iPhone.

They ran 92 plays. Sure we sucked at time management which would have reduced that number, but something was bound to stick out with 92 plays run. They did only rush for 30 yards in the second half off 13 carries. If o was them, I wouldn't have bothered running and gotten more plays in.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[CAS4127]

They ran 92 plays. Sure we sucked at time management which would have reduced that number, but something was bound to stick out with 92 plays run. They did only rush for 30 yards in the second half off 13 carries. If o was them, I wouldn't have bothered running and gotten more plays in.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

They ran just enough to make us honor it, unlike us blitzing Deluca enough for their QB to respect fake blitz on their last drive.

Not arguing, just spewing random thoughts on shit-show game, the results of which bum me out.


Sent from my iPhone.

[ClarkWGrizwald]

At the game, I thought the decision to kick the FG was a curious call, but not necessarily a "wrong" decision. After the game, his logic became more to clear to me. He stated he didn't want to play for OT, that had they scored a TD there, he was going for two. I think he reasoned that the likelihood of scoring and 4th and 11 and then converting the two point conversion was less than kicking what is essentially a near automatic FG, getting the stop and scoring a TD.

But basically the decision can be argued either way. But I would have taken the points and trusted my defense as well.

[bisonaudit]

At the game, I thought the decision to kick the FG was a curious call, but not necessarily a "wrong" decision. After the game, his logic became more to clear to me. He stated he didn't want to play for OT, that had they scored a TD there, he was going for two. I think he reasoned that the likelihood of scoring and 4th and 11 and then converting the two point conversion was less than kicking what is essentially a near automatic FG, getting the stop and scoring a TD.

But basically the decision can be argued either way. But I would have taken the points and trusted my defense as well.

That's poor reasoning on his part. He'll go for 2 because he doesn't want to extend the game to a coin flip, but he takes a FG to extend the game another 3 min in which he's a massive underdog?