What did we learn?....Northwestern

[Mavric]

 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 hour ago, brophog said:

 

Exactly. I gave you two scenarios above, one in which NW made the decision and one in which Nebraska had the same decision, but obviously as the second team. In the first I say it's a bad decision, but in the second I say there's a solid argument that it's a good decision. The reward in the second example is simply much greater than the first. In the second example Nebraska can win the game right there, but in the first example NW can't.

 

The risks are also not equal, even if in both cases failure means a sizable chance at losing the game. In the first example, if NW kicked a FG and then Nebraska responded with a FG then it goes to another OT where NW is the favorite because of second team advantage. In the second example, though, obviously Nebraska is tying to go into another OT where they are now the underdog due to first team disadvantage.

 

 

 

But here's the thing...if NW kicks a FG, Nebraska is already trying for a TD to win it. They are not kicking an early down FG to tie it because there is no advantage. The only condition that's changed, and hence the only reward, is Nebraska is forced to go for it if and only if they have a 4th down on that drive. 

 

That is the difference in these two cases, where we presume the odds of making that 1/2 yard vs a chip shot FG are roughly the same for both teams. In the first case your reward is forcing a 4th down that may never even occur and in the second case you simply win the game. Big difference, IMO.

The risks are completely different so you have to recognize the probability of making the 4th and goal play. Realistically, it’s a play that is converted at least 80% of the time so it’s not a huge risk. If you are only looking at the negative aspect of it, you are ignoring the probabilty of getting that 1/2 yard and the reward from gaining that 1/2 yard. 

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The risks are completely different so you have to recognize the probability of making the 4th and goal play. Realistically, it’s a play that is converted at least 80% of the time so it’s not a huge risk. If you are only looking at the negative aspect of it, you are ignoring the probabilty of getting that 1/2 yard and the reward from gaining that 1/2 yard. 

If 80% is accurate, then there's nearly a 20% you lose the game because of that gamble. You are ignoring the risk that's there.

[teachercd]

I mean...it turns out that it wasn't a risk.  

[brophog]

 

15 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

If you are only looking at the negative aspect of it, you are ignoring the probabilty of getting that 1/2 yard and the reward from gaining that 1/2 yard. 

 

I don't see how that's a fair statement. We specifically looked at the risks and rewards of the decision both in the case of a first and second team making such a decision. I'm not sure what's being ignored.

 

 

[4skers89]

Just now, brophog said:

 

 

I don't see how that's a fair statement. We specifically looked at the risks and rewards of the decision both in the case of a first and second team making such a decision. I'm not sure what's being ignored.

 

 

One thing being ignored is our ability to stop a team from running 1/2 yard for a TD.  Changes the risk considerably.

Edited November 6, 2017 by 4skers89

[brophog]

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

If 80% is accurate, then there's nearly a 20% you lose the game because of that gamble. You are ignoring the risk that's there.

 

4th down situations are hard to get good data on because of sample size issues, which is why data models substitute 3rd down data a lot of the time. Based on data I've seen over the years, 80% is probably close to the ceiling for a QB sneak of this distance, but it's also relatively accurate enough for our discussions.

 

The bigger point isn't the exact chance of it occurring, it's what it gains you if you succeed. That's why the two scenarios above are listed. In general, coaches don't go for it enough on 4th down in general play, but overtime is very conditional because it has a sudden death element.

[brophog]

3 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

One thing being ignored is our ability to stop a team from running 1/2 yard for a TD.  Changes the risk considerably.

 

The variance between teams on a play like that is very small, to the point the linesman spotting it will create more variance than the actual teams will. It's so negligible, you can see I assume for both cases the teams to be relatively equal in this regard. 

 

I don't see a case to be made that Nebraska is significantly more or less likely than an average team at stopping that play, particularly given they had just done so. Feel free to make the case, though.

 

 

[Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents]

I've liked Pat Fitzgerald now for several seasons, especially the way I see him interacting positively with his players on the sideline.  There seems to be an energy component to his coaching.

 

With regard to going for the TD in overtime, it was what maybe 12-15 inches at most?  The WIldcats had won their previous two games in overtime.  Here was a chance, on the road, to do it again.  By going for it Fitzgerald was showing confidence in his players.  It was an attempt to win the game, not simply kick a field goal in hopes of extending the game.  There's a difference.

And his players responded to his positive mindset about the situation.

 

And, yes, I would be saying the same thing if we held them.  I liked the move that much. 

[Judoka]

7 hours ago, Saunders said:

 

 

That’s almost impossible to believe.

 

I learned there are some stats I don't need to see....

[skers83]

4 hours ago, Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents said:

I learned that NU fans have no reason to rush the field, as Iowa fans did after beating Ohio State, unless it's to volunteer to help Riley pack following our season finale against the Hawkeyes. 

LOL. But I would think Riley and most of his so called coaches are already packing and looking for their next stop. I mean they have to know its over..or could they be that clueless?

[brophog]

22 minutes ago, Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents said:

  By going for it Fitzgerald was showing confidence in his players.  It was an attempt to win the game, not simply kick a field goal in hopes of extending the game.  There's a difference.

 

 

No, as was correctly pointed out earlier, it's just the opposite. By taking the risk and not kicking the FG, you're telling your players you don't think they can keep Nebraska from scoring the TD, which is how Nebraska wins the game in this scenario. As has been pointed out, Fitzgerald can't attempt to win the game with any course of action here. Every decision is by definition extending the game, with Nebraska merely needing a FG as the least difficult and needing a TD and 2 point conversion being the most difficult. He can only set that bar, which is why the second team has such an advantage.

 

Personally, I don't think the confidence argument matters two bits either way. You don't put your helmet on running out there thinking about what the coach might think of you based on such decisions.

[Knothole Seats @ 50 Cents]

2 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

No, as was correctly pointed out earlier, it's just the opposite. By taking the risk and not kicking the FG, you're telling your players you don't think they can keep Nebraska from scoring the TD, which is how Nebraska wins the game in this scenario. As has been pointed out, Fitzgerald can't attempt to win the game with any course of action here. Every decision is by definition extending the game, with Nebraska merely needing a FG as the least difficult and needing a TD and 2 point conversion being the most difficult. He can only set that bar, which is why the second team has such an advantage.

 

Personally, I don't think the confidence argument matters two bits either way. You don't put your helmet on running out there thinking about what the coach might think of you based on such decisions.

I guess you and I look at the mental side of athletics differently.  It happens.  

[URSS]

On 11/4/2017 at 6:40 PM, Roll Skers said:

Could we say it will be

 

No Win November? 

I think the Minnesota game is a toss up.  Otherwise, bad news for us.

[Roll Skers]

4 minutes ago, URSS said:

I think the Minnesota game is a toss up.  Otherwise, bad news for us.

The Penn State game is setting up perfectly for us to win that one actually.... Not saying we will though