• 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!

2pm on the C-Dub vs. Syracuse

The offense did enough to win yesterday, the defense just couldn't stop them enough. It seemed like they ran for a million yards after contact. We were just grabbing runners with our arms instead of hitting them.
 
scooter84 said:
The offense did enough to win yesterday, the defense just couldn't stop them enough. It seemed like they ran for a million yards after contact. We were just grabbing runners with our arms instead of hitting them.
Click to expand...
Yep. The decision to go for 2 has overshadowed how awful the defense was yesterday. Everyone Syracuse trotted out at QB was effective against the non-existent defense. Tight ends, running backs, injured QBs...they all looked good. Could be a clue as to how Griffis looked so awesome against our defense in practice.
 
our defense was a relative bright spot for most of the season but in retrospect a lot of that may have just been from getting lucky with injuries.

i think brendon harris was the only guy in the rotation who we lost any time mid-season.

yesterday without carson, jones, bryant or williams is probably more indicative of where a team will be at the end of the year injury-wise and we saw the result.
 
Buttermaker said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

i think it is fair to say that all of the evidence based on historical win probabilities tells you to go for 2. there are tons of in-game factors that aren’t captured in the aggregate data, but i think it’s certainly something data-aware coaches will start doing more of.

i think going for 2 when a TD cuts a deficit to 8 is starting to happen more now as well (which is even more overwhelmingly supported by the data)
 
IAppreciateIt said:
i think it is fair to say that all of the evidence based on historical win probabilities tells you to go for 2. there are tons of in-game factors that aren’t captured in the aggregate data, but i think it’s certainly something data-aware coaches will start doing more of.

i think going for 2 when a TD cuts a deficit to 8 is starting to happen more now as well (which is even more overwhelmingly supported by the data)
Click to expand...

Geez. I've coached before, but not paid millions of $$$.

With 7 mins to play you kick the damn PAT to be 3 pts down.

And you know what? Wake had a bunny 20 yd FG to tie the game late, but Clawson admitted postgame that he didn't want to play OT and preferred just giving up and losing in regulation. :(

It was a bonehead move and even had Stan and Lary in the booth questioning it.
 
it’s one of those things that change over time as more analytics get considered.

going for it on 4th down used to be considered an emergency maneuver to almost never consider. in basketball, teams used to take 2-pointers with their foot on the line constantly and not care. baseball teams used to sac bunt in the first inning.

people went bananas the first time i recall a coach going for 2 when down 8, now i think we are in the middle where a segment of fans go nuts regardless (some, like me, would say you should always go for 2 in that situation. others just want the XP). i believe that will continue to shift over time and soon just about every coach will go for 2 after a lead is cut down to 8.

the evidence isn’t as overwhelming with this particular situation (TD to cut the lead to 4) but i’m sure it will become more common.
 
We didn't really discuss how very well Kern played, especially referencing his running ability.
 
I was yelling out loud with my wife looking at me like a lunatic (certainly the case given the moment) about why it was stupid to go for two because if you just kick the PAT you're only down 3 - a FG to tie and force OT if you can stop them on the next drive or you get a TD for the go ahead. It's not rocket science - damn these supposed "metrics" I keep reading about.... He didn't want to win - he didn't want to coach anymore this year. It's clearly evident in his continuous post game comments and the whining about NIL this and that.
 
The first thought I had when Clawson decided to go for 2 was that he wanted no part of overtime. The second thought I had was his decision showed a lack of confidence in his team.

This was a tough year for Dave Clawson. He showed some warts and they were noticeable. A bounce back year in 2024 is strongly recommended.
 
morrison2951 said:
Geez. I've coached before, but not paid millions of $$$.

With 7 mins to play you kick the damn PAT to be 3 pts down.

And you know what? Wake had a bunny 20 yd FG to tie the game late, but Clawson admitted postgame that he didn't want to play OT and preferred just giving up and losing in regulation. :(

It was a bonehead move and even had Stan and Lary in the booth questioning it.
Click to expand...
People overrate going to overtime. the goal is to give you the best chance to win.
 
ChrisL68 said:
fivethirtyeight.com

When To Go For 2, For Real

“I can’t help but ask, one day many years later, when you find your previous awareness, cognition and choices are all wrong, will you keep going along the wrong…
fivethirtyeight.com fivethirtyeight.com

The win xpectancy is actually higher going for 2 there then kicking the extra point.
Click to expand...
Worth noting that this article applies NFL rules, including kicking the longer PAT, as well as the possibility that an NFL game can still end in a tie, and uses an average NFL 2-point conversion success rate of 48%.

I would argue that the odds of WF winning in OT are at least as high as the odds of WF successfully converting a 2-point conversion.

Also, it’s ridiculous to suggest that Clawson didn’t want to win.
 
Meh I didn’t have confidence in the team either. I didn’t mind going for the win if that’s what he thought our best shot was. Not sure I think it was but there are plenty of things I’m more disappointed with about this season.
 
oldschooldeac said:
Yep. The decision to go for 2 has overshadowed how awful the defense was yesterday. Everyone Syracuse trotted out at QB was effective against the non-existent defense. Tight ends, running backs, injured QBs...they all looked good. Could be a clue as to how Griffis looked so awesome against our defense in practice.
Click to expand...

winner-winner-winner.gif
 
ChrisL68 said:
People overrate going to overtime. the goal is to give you the best chance to win.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.

I wonder what the win probability looks like down 4-6 vs down 3 in late game situations. I don’t have stats but I do have #vibes that being down 3 gives you a bit of a false security blanket because OT is too palatable and once you get inside the 30 you are limiting yourself to 3 downs instead of 4. Win probability is probably still a bit higher down 3 than 4 but it’s clearly way higher down 2 than 3 which makes up for the difference.
 
I just think given the situation where we were down the whole game, we just made it harder on us by not kicking the PAT. If we had kicked the PAT or had gotten the 2pts, we still needed a field goal either way. Yes, maybe the field goal would've won it for us if we gotten the 2, however Syracuse would've had enough time to get into FG range to tie or win themselves. Not getting the 2pts forced us to get a touchdown which is harder, although our FG kicking is a mess, but it would've been a real chip shot. If we had gotten the TD, Syracuse still could've tied with a FG, so in my mind not getting the almost sure point and missing the 2pts made things harder on ourselves and still didn't take OT off the table.
 
Assuming 1st and 10 from the 50 with 2 minutes to go and a pick 'em spread:
Down 4- 40.76%
Down 3- 39.18%
Down 2- 45.89%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top