• 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

Sounds good in theory, but a) you've got to incorporate a lot of variables, to the extent that even your references to your preparations may be too much to deal with mid-game, and b) you need to maintain some room for flexibility and adaptation. For example, if your cheat sheet says kick but you've seen a weakness or tendency you can exploit if you go for it, you need to be prepared to go off-book.
 
I think the time thing is a little overrated. We were going slow the entire drive. Then all of a sudden we get 4th and 1 at the 5 or 6 and Clawson is really worried about the clock and wants to kick a FG because if we get the first down (but not TD) the clock will kill us?

4 min left with all 3 timeouts at the FSU 5 should be enough time to get in the endzone and get the ball back.
 
The important point is not that the chance of winning doubles, it is that it increases by 2%. 2% is negligible and well within the margin of error of your assumptions. So, at best, the chance of winning in the two scenarios is indistinguishable.

One thing that wasn't really figured is the chance that the game is over then and there - if we kick the field goal it is almost certain that we are still in the game - have a chance. If we go for it and don't get it the game, for all intents and purposes, is over. So if we went for it there we have like a 50% chance of losing the game right then.

You take the points that are right there for the taking, points you need anyway, and live to play another play.

In some ways it is a LOWF attitude to want to go for it - assuming we have to pull out all the stops at every turn to have a chance.
 
Last edited:
VaDeac said:
Sounds good in theory, but a) you've got to incorporate a lot of variables, to the extent that even your references to your preparations may be too much to deal with mid-game, and b) you need to maintain some room for flexibility and adaptation. For example, if your cheat sheet says kick but you've seen a weakness or tendency you can exploit if you go for it, you need to be prepared to go off-book.
Click to expand...

Yep. Clawson gets paid a lot of money to make those decisions in 20-30 seconds.
 
^Don't really see the benefit of hypothetically extending the game if it lowers your overall chance of winning.
 
FckVwls said:
I think the time thing is a little overrated. We were going slow the entire drive. Then all of a sudden we get 4th and 1 at the 5 or 6 and Clawson is really worried about the clock and wants to kick a FG because if we get the first down (but not TD) the clock will kill us?

4 min left with all 3 timeouts at the FSU 5 should be enough time to get in the endzone and get the ball back.
Click to expand...

So you're going with your gut instead of using the actual numbers (not assumptions) on this issue? :confused:
 
We ran only a single play, the field goal, when were at 4th and 1 at the six. After that single play we had only 3:34 left. Stopped FSU on a 3 and out and they punted. We had only 1:42 left with the ball on our own 37. That didn't turn out to be enough time to score a touchdown. Running more plays to get into the endzone instead of kicking the field goal would leave with us with even less time. Those are the actual numbers I was speaking of.
 
obviously going for it would increase the chances of winning this specific game. the op's framework is sound and I don't think theres a way to think critically and come up with a defensible way kicking it would increase the chances of winning.

I think there's some debate whether the moral victory from kicking it and getting close and "extending the game" is worth more than the increased chance of winning the game, which was slim either way. we sure feel better about this game the way it went than if we lost by 11.

in the end though, I think the best way for programs like us to succeed is to take advantage of inefficiencies with 'the book,' such as strategically taking risks like going for it on 4th down, going for 2, etc.
 
I think the fg is always the right call. I don't want to turn the game into a situation where if they make one play, they win. Kicking the fg keeps the heat on. As Grobe used to say, you might make a play on defense that wins the game.

It's sorta like you are the sole defender on a 2 on 1 fast break....you wanna make the guy with ball pass because it involves a pass, a catch and a score, rather than just a score
 
You way overestimate our chances of both getting the first down and scoring a touchdown on that play. 15%? You basically created the stats to win your argument. FG was the right play, because 95% of the time it means we are still in the fight. When you are the underdog, and you are behind the key is to stay in the game, because mistakes happen when favorites start to feel the pressure. Not sure how you measure that statistically, but nerves are certainly real, and players perform more poorly when they are nervous.

Kicking the field goal kept the pressure on Florida State, and kept us in the game with all of our timeouts. I wouldn't have argued against either call to be honest. I think it was a complete coin flip. I personally like the FG, and not because it is settling. I think it was the wise move given the young makeup of our team, and given the situation and the opponent.

I Think your %'s are way off, and pretty much any argument can be made when you have the ability to make up your own percentages and manipulate the final results. Give me a 95% of staying alive with all my timeouts and let me see what can happen if I can get the ball back, down one score to the school that has played in the national championship game the past two seasons. I am not going to argue against going for it, but I think it is a pretty silly position to argue against the field goal. It was a coin flip.

Long term it is better for this team to have that chance to go down and score. Long term it is better to be able to build on this performance by pitching the down one score to the back to back BCS title contenders. It helps in current personnel, it helps in recruiting, it helps in player confidence. We were a long shot to win that game at that point. The difference in %'s is miniscule, and the long term benefit of being in that game to the last second is monumental.

You kick the field goal. Bravo to Clawson. We are improving, and he seems to be a very competent, hard working, and inspiring coach.
 
Wrangor said:
You way overestimate our chances of both getting the first down and scoring a touchdown on that play. 15%? You basically created the stats to win your argument. FG was the right play, because 95% of the time it means we are still in the fight. When you are the underdog, and you are behind the key is to stay in the game, because mistakes happen when favorites start to feel the pressure. Not sure how you measure that statistically, but nerves are certainly real, and players perform more poorly when they are nervous.

Kicking the field goal kept the pressure on Florida State, and kept us in the game with all of our timeouts. I wouldn't have argued against either call to be honest. I think it was a complete coin flip. I personally like the FG, and not because it is settling. I think it was the wise move given the young makeup of our team, and given the situation and the opponent.

I Think your %'s are way off, and pretty much any argument can be made when you have the ability to make up your own percentages and manipulate the final results. Give me a 95% of staying alive with all my timeouts and let me see what can happen if I can get the ball back, down one score to the school that has played in the national championship game the past two seasons. I am not going to argue against going for it, but I think it is a pretty silly position to argue against the field goal. It was a coin flip.

Long term it is better for this team to have that chance to go down and score. Long term it is better to be able to build on this performance by pitching the down one score to the back to back BCS title contenders. It helps in current personnel, it helps in recruiting, it helps in player confidence. We were a long shot to win that game at that point. The difference in %'s is miniscule, and the long term benefit of being in that game to the last second is monumental.

You kick the field goal. Bravo to Clawson. We are improving, and he seems to be a very competent, hard working, and inspiring coach.
Click to expand...

Then come up with some numbers that favors kicking a FG. I beg you.

It's impossible without being completely ridiculous.
 
He could make up some like you did. That's his point.
 
Like for example: Move the 4th and 1 conversion rate to 50/50. Move the TD rate on the 4th down play to 10%. Move the TD rate on next down set after first down success to only 60%. And move the 2 point conversion success rate to 40%

Note that is only scoring a Touchdown 34% of the time on the drive facing 4th and 1 at the 5. It's way too low, but we can roll with it to prove a point.

It still isn't close: 2.8% win percentage going for TD. 1.8% win percentage kicking FG.
 
there's no way kicking the fg increases our win probability, but every single coach in america makes a decision a game that isn't optimal from a purely win probability standpoint (usualy involving a 4th down decision). in truth there isn't much leverage in the context of the situation.
 
'09 BC game, to win we had 1st and goal from the 1 yd line and we screwed that up. Clawson's plan worked up until the last 21 seconds.
 
from a purely win probability standpoint, we should go for that 4th and 1 in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters as well.
 
You should because you're not going to lose the game if you don't get it and you don't have a specific magic number to reach.
 
I actually think Clawson would go for 4th and 1 from the 5 in a normal game flow situation in 1st / 2nd /3rd Q. He's not bad.

Also, coaches in general have gotten so much more aggressive in the last five years. Every Saturday you see offensive coaches trying 4th and 1s from own 30 etc. That used to be rare and noteworthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top