Game theory: will the thinking on this ever change?

Submitted by snarling wolverine on
MSU has first and goal at the three with 1:54 left. If you're on defense, the percentages have to be against you getting a stop in that situation, when the other team s going to use all four downs. Will the conventional wisdom ever change on this? Asking a team to voluntarily let a team score and take the lead isn't simple; this is a sport with a mentality of competing hard every play. But your odds of winning have to be better if you give yourself nearly two minutes with the ball, down only by a field goal.

I know one team in the Super Bowl conceded the TD, and ended up not scoring. I haven't seen too many other teams do it. Will it become a more common practice in the future?
MGoBoard

Frank Chuck

December 6th, 2015 at 12:42 AM ^

Belichick seems to be one of the exceedingly few coaches that takes these calculated risks.

I remember a game early in Brady's career where Belichick intentionally took a safety to get better field position. It was at Denver and the Patriots went on to beat the Broncos.

Joined: 05/01/2015

MGoPoints: 15841

Reader71

December 6th, 2015 at 4:57 AM ^

He also went for it on fourth-and-1 from his own 20 against the Colts one year. Pass went incomplete and of course Manning throws a touchdown a few plays later. Patriots lose. Still the single worst in-game decision I have ever seen, at any level of football. He already had a few Super Bowl rings and so he wasn't fired and you never really hear this play even discussed. But if just about any other coach did something so stupid, his career would have been cut short.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

901 P

December 6th, 2015 at 8:15 AM ^

Way too lazy to look it up this morning, but wasn't that the play where it was a completion but the receiver bobbled it, thus negating the forward progress and resulting in a spot just short of the first down? Doesn't necessarily change your point, but does add an interesting element to the discussion (and I recall that it made it one of those plays that everyone discussed at the time).

Joined: 01/12/2015

MGoPoints: 9973

Blue2000

December 6th, 2015 at 8:38 AM ^

That decision didn't strike me as being bad, despite the fact that it was clearly unconventional.  Peyton Manning was shredding their defense that game and Belicheck knew they wouldn't be able to to stop the Colts if Manning got the ball back.  It's easy to criticize the decision because it didn't work, but if he honestly believed that the best/only way to stop Manning was to not give him the ball, the decision is defensible.    

Joined: 01/06/2009

MGoPoints: 7901

Reader71

December 6th, 2015 at 11:17 AM ^

That isn't the issue though. It's not about scoring more points if it is done near the end of the game with a lead. A more accurate metric would be win probability or some such which takes into account field position, time left, margin of lead. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 8.

Joined: 08/30/2009

MGoPoints: 22968

Brendan71388

December 6th, 2015 at 12:43 AM ^

Hard to say because as you said, football is so competitive and full of egos it's hard to imagine a coach making the call for his defense to get out of the way and allow a score. The D has to have a mindset that they can get the stop that's needed.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/28/2014

MGoPoints: 1994

jsquigg

December 6th, 2015 at 12:43 AM ^

I think Ferentz weighed the odds of Beathard leading a scoring drive and his defense toughing one out and chose defense.  When you have Tom Brady or a better offense, that changes the odds, but if you're asking if coaches will ever stop sucking at game theory the answer is no, for now, and depending on the coach.

Joined: 09/06/2009

MGoPoints: 9621

snarling wolverine

December 6th, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^

Two key differences: 1. At the end of the game, you're going to use all four downs, not just three. On Iowa's previous possession they picked up eight yards on one set of downs and then punted. On this possession, they'd be going for it in that situation. 2. The defense very likely is going to play soft coverage in the secondary, not wanting to give up the TD that loses the game.

Joined: 12/14/2011

MGoPoints: 98328

L'Carpetron Do…

December 6th, 2015 at 4:47 PM ^

Good point.  I actually thought Kirk should've taken a TO earlier in the drive when State's running game was really starting to roll.  It would've given them a chance to rest, re-group and figure out how to stop them.  It would've been more of a basektball style timeout that coaches use to stop big runs and try to seize momentum. (I think Michigan should;ve done this during that monster 7 minute drive Ohio State had in the 3rd quarter when they really put the game away). Maybe they could've figured something out to stop the run or dial up a blitz, something that would force State into a pass on the ensuing play.  Then, if they still cant be stopped, then let them score. 

I watched this game with a handful of Hawkeyes and thought it was kind of a toss-up and was hoping for a stop, because the defense was so tough the whole game.  but you have to give your offense a chance.  I would always err on the side of having the ball last. 

Joined: 03/15/2010

MGoPoints: 8551

ThirdVanGundy

December 6th, 2015 at 12:44 AM ^

Had them stopped on third down they just couldn't tackle. If they didn't do their best Joe Bolden impression on that play it would have been 4th and goal at the one for the win. To me, Beatherd isn't a good enough QB to have that much trust in. They just got burned because they couldn't do one simple thing, tackle. Credit to Scott though, it was a hard run.

Joined: 10/25/2014

MGoPoints: 3114

M-Dog

December 6th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^

Still, MSU had 4 shots to essentially make a 2-point conversion once they got their 1st down at the 2 yard line with about a minute left.  At that point, the odds against you getting a stop are way against you.  

Better to let them score and play the shorter odds of getting into field goal range.

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257398

Olaf

December 6th, 2015 at 2:14 AM ^

THIS. FUCKING THIS. Ferentz didn't call a very good game tonight. Still maintain Iowa would have 3 losses if they were in the East. There is a lunatic on scout wishing Mary Sue Coleman would have hired Ferentz a couple years ago.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/22/2015

MGoPoints: 5120

gustave ferbert

December 6th, 2015 at 6:09 AM ^

"calling a game."  His approach is so vanilla.  4th and 1, rarely will you see him go for it.  I'm sure he was privately thankful that the one fourth down had a penalty so that he just had to kick a field goal. 

Waiting till the second half to try and exploit the secondary cost them.

Joined: 06/21/2011

MGoPoints: 46362

LKLIII

December 6th, 2015 at 12:45 AM ^

I think it depends on circumstances. How good is the offense of the team currently playing defense? In Iowa's case, how good is their kicker? How many time outs would the team have to drive down the field? I could see the strategy being employed more than it is now, but the Devils in the details.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/06/2013

MGoPoints: 8927

Mgodiscgolfer

December 6th, 2015 at 12:57 AM ^

made a 57 yarder earlier this year. But Iowa suddenly could not hold on to the ball and as a result they chased the ball on the ground for 10 of their 22 seconds left. Its an MSU thing when the game is in the balance it just tips their way. Why?

I have no idea....

Joined: 01/13/2011

MGoPoints: 5322

RJMAC

December 6th, 2015 at 1:17 AM ^

MSU puts themselves in position to win close games like this because they can run the ball. They ran the ball something like 16 times in there 22 play drive and bled most of the clock. They gave Iowa little time left to do anything on offense. MSU knows how to run the ball. Something right now Michigan can only dream of doing. Maybe next year they find a running back and their offensive line improves, because the way MSU runs the ball is the way Michigan should be doing it.

Joined: 09/23/2014

MGoPoints: 777

Wolfman

December 6th, 2015 at 1:59 AM ^

and winning close games is every bit as habit forming. When Bo was coach and we were w/in 10 at half I knew we'd almost always win. Of course it was rare for us to be down by that much. However, the game was much different then, but these two teams would have played right into our hands. They were the same types we defended then. No one in fb made better half time adjustments than M, under Bo. And no one I've seen recently wins more games on their final drives, regardless of the competition than the Spartans. When credit is deserved, it should be given. Although they ran it perfectly during that drive, even the pass that was overruled was spot on. The one he dropped in between two defenders was absolutely perfect and brought back memories of watching Lienhart throw into cereal box openings the entire RB 2004. Great drive.

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 8259

cheesheadwolverine

December 6th, 2015 at 12:46 AM ^

Surely the chances of getting in FG range in two minutes significantly exceed the chances of stopping a team from getting 2 years in four plays.  But hey, Kirk punted on fourth and an inch from midfield so . . . 

IIRC (and I was ~8 at the time) but wasn't it the Packers who let the Broncos score in SB XXXII?

Joined: 10/25/2008

MGoPoints: 7502

OldMaize16

December 6th, 2015 at 12:50 AM ^

The math was a little easier in the Super Bowl because all the Giants needed to do was kick a field goal for the win. It's different where if you keep them out you win the game, but I think as time passes and more kids who played Madden growing up become coaches we'll see more allowed touchdowns at the goal line

Joined: 06/19/2015

MGoPoints: 1431

bklein09

December 6th, 2015 at 12:52 AM ^

I think letting them score was definitely the right call. Ferentz called all his timeouts with the intention of leaving his offense time if Msu scored. If you're going to do that, you basically have to let them score once they get to first and goal. Otherwise you spent your timeouts for nothing, which is basically what he did.

Iowa would have had nearly two minutes to get into field goal range, and Sparty would be in prevent. It's not hard to imagine Iowa getting a couple 20 yard passes down the field to get in range. I'm guessing the win %
calculators will show that Iowa made a huge gaffe.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/24/2009

MGoPoints: 7119

HollywoodHokeHogan

December 6th, 2015 at 1:11 AM ^

Ferentz is a fucking idiot.  You're calling the timeouts banking on stopping them from getting the first down at the 3 yard line.  Once they make that, you have to let them score.  The odds of a 4 play defensive stand from that close are very, very, slim.  The odds of getting within fg range with 2 minutes with college timing rules are much higher, even with a shit QB.  Their kicker has made some from 55+ yards, so you only need get to about the 40 yard line.  Assuming you start from your 20, that's only 40 yards to cover, while the defense is going to be cautious to avoid giving up a touchdown. 

Joined: 02/12/2011

MGoPoints: 20444

Bocheezu

December 6th, 2015 at 1:32 AM ^

he took the time outs when MSU was still outside the 10, like he was setting up to let them in the endzone.  When they got the first down at the 3, after they ran the ball the entire length of the field, I thought for sure he'd let them in.  But nope, now it's time to make a last stand right here and MSU bleeds the clock to 27 seconds before scoring on 3rd down.  Now you need a miracle to win because you have no time outs.    

The other end of a screw up in this situation happened last week with ND, where they had 1st and goal from the 2 and punched it in on 1st down with 30 seconds to go.  Stanford has time outs and charges right down the field and kicks the winning FG (with benefit of a 15-yard facemask).  Everyone says "you expect your defense to be able to stop them."  Well, obviously you shouldn't expect them to get a stop because they didn't.  The team on offense has so much more control in that situation.

I would definitely call 30 seconds (with timeouts) the lower limit for reasonablly being able to take a kickoff and score a FG.  A lot had to go right for Stanford to win that game.  1 minute is much more reasonable.  In Iowa's case, Ferentz took the time outs at a decent time, preserving minutes on the clock, but once they have first and goal at the 3, and certainly when they have 2nd and goal at the 1 with ~1 minute to go, you have to let them in the endzone so you have any real chance to get down the field and kick a FG.

Coaches need a "1 minute rule" and design the time outs around it, but they just don't.

Joined: 02/22/2009

MGoPoints: 2154

RJMAC

December 6th, 2015 at 1:29 AM ^

I'm usually a proponent of letting the team score if the other team can bleed the clock down and kick a short field goal for the win with little or no time left. You would think Iowa should have made one defensive stop in that TWENTY TWO PLAY DRIVE.

Joined: 09/23/2014

MGoPoints: 777