• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Decision Analysis: 4th and 1 at FSU 6, Down 11, 4 minutes Remaining

PhDeac said:
So why do you advocate going for two down 14?
Click to expand...

Let's just assume to make it simple you're going to get both touchdowns without the other team scoring and you're 50% to get to 2 point and 100% for the XP. Then lets assume you have a 50% chance to win in OT.

If you go for 2 the first time and make it, you just have to go for 1 for the win so 50% win in regulation.

If you go for 2 the first time and miss, you go for 2 the 2nd time and make it to tie so 25% OT. Then half those times you also win.

You miss the 2 both times and lose in regulation 25% of the time.

Those combined odds are obviously better than a guaranteed OT and 50/50 odds.

The difference is the fact that you need 2 scores anyway, and the first 2 point attempt dictates your future action.
 
Last edited:
But why risk the tragedy of being down 8?
 
PhDeac said:
But why risk the tragedy of being down 8?
Click to expand...

Because being down by 6 is double as good as being down by 7.

And you still have that little sliver of win probability the times you are down by 8 to tip the scales.
 
This is actually somewhat ironic but true. Imagine a coach of a big underdog team is down by 14 with two minutes left:

They score a TD, kick the extra point to go down 7. They recover the onside kick. They go down and score a TD as time expires. The coach then decides to go for 2 to win the game, and misses.

I think this action would be handled okay by fans and media. Big underdog, going for the win now instead of playing for overtime. However, I think if the coach went for the 2 point conversion on the first one (clearly superior) heads would explode.
 
FckVwls said:
This is actually somewhat ironic but true. Imagine a coach of a big underdog team is down by 14 with two minutes left:

They score a TD, kick the extra point to go down 7. They recover the onside kick. They go down and score a TD as time expires. The coach then decides to go for 2 to win the game, and misses.

I think this action would be handled okay by fans and media. Big underdog, going for the win now instead of playing for overtime. However, I think if the coach went for the 2 point conversion on the first one (clearly superior) heads would explode.
Click to expand...

You are correct that if you have decided that you were going to go for 2 should you tie the game and you are down 14, that you should go for 2 on the 1st TD because it gives you the option to go for 2 on the 2nd TD if you aren't successful.
 
Yes if rolling a dice or spinning a wheel you win 5 times out of 8 going for the 2 point conversion both times rather than kicking the extra point.

Your assumption is that you'll get both touchdowns without the other teams scoring and again if you know that would happen then you would win 5 times out of 8.

The problem is the likelihood of the other team not scoring is somewhat dependent on what happens on your first drive.

So in a real football game you would never make that assumption.

If you get 8 points on the first drive the other team knows a standard 7 will beat them on the next drive rather than just tie them if you got 7 on the first drive. So they won't play conservative figuring overtime at worst. They open up the playbook and are more likely to score at least a field goal to beat you.

It's completely in your interest on the first drive to get 7 not 8 because you have no chance of winning if you don't get the ball back down 8 or less after that drive. So you kick the ball and are then down either 7 or 8 if you miss.

Again if instead you score 8 on that first drive you improve the odds dramatically of not getting the ball back within 7 or 8.

So while it's a 50/50 chance of making any 2 point conversion it won't matter if you are attempting the 2nd 2 point conversion down 9 points or more.

Another thing is that if you score 8 first and then somehow hold them and get the ball back their defense plays differently with the 6 point lead rather than the 7 point lead. Their defense is more aggressive rather than the traditional prevent defense because they know a touchdown beats them. So they're more likely to keep you out of the end zone than if it was a 7 point game.

I know that you threw out the assumptions and stated that based on those assumptions why don't coaches go for 7 the first time so my only point is they don't go for the two because they don't make those same assumptions.
 
Since stats are being tossed about his about the stat that 90%+ of coaches would have done exactly what Clawson did in that circumstance - NFL, College for sure HS and Pop Warner being the outliers. There were five issues associated with going for it and then setting up for the FG later with any of them ending the game. Getting a first down, getting a TD, being successful with the 2pt conversion, stopping FSU, and getting into FG range. Any of the first three not happening would end the game before getting to the last two.

Taking the FG first reversed the order - stop FSU, get a TD (where first downs are now almost a moot point) and making the 2 pt conversion. Allows you to stay in the game longer.

Yes, option one provides an opportunity to win in regulation (which coupled with the added opportunity of OT accounts for the increased win percentage) while option two guarantees the only way to win is in OT accounting for the reduced win percentage chance. However, it also provides more opportunity for the game to be over before getting a chance at a second score.
 
FckVwls said:
I don't think it really matters too much one way or the other on this one. I would favor going for the 2 pointer with 5 min left first because if you miss you know to kick an onside kick. But probably pretty marginal, doesn't matter much.

The one that everyone always talks about but coaches never do is when you are down 14 points and score with 1-2 min left you should go for 2 to cut it to 6. But no one ever does that, even though it is clearly correct.
Click to expand...

Hopefully everyone understands now that when you are down 14 points and score with 1-2 min left you should NOT got for 2 to cut it to 6. And everyone understands that no coaches ever goes for the two there because it is clearly NOT correct. If spinning a wheel or rolling a dice where the odds are exactly equal that the other team not stop you on the second drive regardless of your performance on the first then it makes sense to go for two. But coaches know that strategy changes odds significantly and that if they cut it to 6 they have much less likelihood of getting the ball back then if they cut it to 7 or 8.
 
No offense to wfu22fan but deaconbd might be the worst poster I've ever seen.
 
deaconbd said:
Hopefully everyone understands now that when you are down 14 points and score with 1-2 min left you should NOT got for 2 to cut it to 6. And everyone understands that no coaches ever goes for the two there because it is clearly NOT correct. If spinning a wheel or rolling a dice where the odds are exactly equal that the other team not stop you on the second drive regardless of your performance on the first then it makes sense to go for two. But coaches know that strategy changes odds significantly and that if they cut it to 6 they have much less likelihood of getting the ball back then if they cut it to 7 or 8.
Click to expand...
This line if reasoning is so dumb.
 
the more i think about this, and i admittedly have spent way too much time thinking of this, is that one of the downfalls of the model is that we all seem to be using national statistics. There is an element to flow of game...how your team is playing, etc. Those factors i think come in when you are talking about the difference between a 2% and 4% win probability.

Again... i don't think any math on this conclusively supports one way or another... too close to make a definitive statement on it.
 
if you're all right about deaconbd, dude is impressively subtle/disciplined
 
Wrangor said:
deaconbd is way overstating the impact that being down 3/5/8 would have on the likelihood of FSU getting a first down. I DO agree with him that the score plays a definite impact on the probability, but just not near the extent he is claiming. The large reason I think the probability of stopping FSU in a reasonable amount of time if we go for the first down and the subsequent touchdown is the time/timeout loss that would probably occur during that effort. If we lose one timeout in that process, or we experience one penalty or one sack, then the probabilities plummet (how about that alliteration?). There are multiple factors at play, and we aren't even scratching the surface. But as I agree with some of deaconbd's points I want to make sure I differentiate myself. There are multiple contributing factors to a reduced probability of stopping FSU in a reasonable amount of time. The most important factor in my opinion is the time issue, the lesser issue is what I would call the desperation factor. It certainly has some impact, but it is more of a minor impact.
Click to expand...

I want to make one more serious post in this thread in response to this:

I think you are trying to support Clawson by saying there could be a logical reason to kick a FG. However, to me your post is a significantly bigger slap in the face of the coaching staff than saying "they just missed this 4th down decision." Once we get into FSU territory, kicking a FG to go down by 8 is always going to be a bad result of that drive. No one has disputed that kicking a FG leaves only a 2%ish win probability.

You are making the case that we are forced into the FG because of the clock. Because scoring the TD would not leave enough time to get the ball back. However, we were taking our sweet time the whole drive. It was an over 6 minute drive. You are saying we effed up the time management so badly on the 6min+ FG drive that we needed to do something suboptimal (kick FG) to go by down 8 on 4th and 1 instead of going for the TD because of the clock didn't allow the better option (without time considered).

I personally don't agree with this assessment, as I think there is plenty of time and timeouts to go for the TD and still get the ball back. But it's basically what you are saying.
 
And notice how in Clawson's answer to Disco Dan he never mentioned the clock as a consideration for kicking the FG.

Thank God he didn't. It would have made him like a bufoon for making a 4th and 1 decision based on clock after taking our sweet time for 6+ minutes on the entire drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top