|01/14/2019 - 3:36pm||Can someone explain why this…||
Can someone explain why this would be a good hire? His coaching history looks limited, having only really coached at Navy for 5 years and ASU for one. In his one year of recruiting, 247 has him ranked 457th. I know he played, but I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that he's a top coach and/or recruiter.
(Actual question, not complaining about him)
|01/14/2019 - 3:06pm||I guess Kenpom and Torvik…||
I guess Kenpom and Torvik haven't seen us play...
|01/09/2019 - 4:28pm||Comparing to 2017 is not…||
Comparing to 2017 is not going to give an accurate depiction as we were down to our 3rd string QB half the year.
In 2016, Michigan was:
So, what has improved aside from bringing in a competent quarterback? The defense is going to take a step back next year and this offense is going to have to win some games for us. There isn't a clear thing that we can improve significantly on next year to take another step forward other than offensive philosophy/playcalling.
|01/09/2019 - 12:40pm||I had the thought before the…||
I had the thought before the game, but the game acted as proof of this line of thinking. Everyone is so used to bend-don't-break defense that they forget what it looks like when you don't play that way. Before OSU, Don Brown's defense had allowed a max of 24 points. That should be enough for a competent offense to win.
There are going to be games where a weakness is found in his scheme and we are going to have to outscore our opponent. It happened against PSU last year. It happened against OSU and, to a lesser extent, Florida this year. The thing is that a bad offense is going to exacerbate the defensive issue, giving the defense no rest, time to make adjustments, and more drives/plays on the field. Our offense working in the Florida and PSU games at least makes those games competitive by adding points to our score and probably removing 10 points off of theirs.
Clemson's pick six to start the scoring in the game was on a trap coverage straight out of Don Brown's playbook. How long did it take Brent Venables to build this defense to what it is? 7 seasons. He's allowed 30+ points in at least one game in every season and 40+ points in at least one game in 4 of those seasons. Bama has allowed 40+ points in at least one game in 5 of the last 6 seasons. The takeaway is that we have an elite defensive coordinator who has the same troubles stopping modern offenses as any other elite defensive coordinator.
Everyone knows that we have a lot of work to do on the offensive side of the ball. If no changes are made there by the time that spring practice starts, then people can get worried.
Let's compare Michigan to Georgia for a second. Michigan lost to S&P+ #5 and #7 on the road and #13 at a neutral location. Georgia lost to #12 on the road and #1 and #30 at a neutral site. Their best wins are #13 and #17 at home. Our best wins are #14 and #21 at home. The main difference is that they got to play their toughest opponent in the conference championship game instead of the de facto division championship game.
It sucks to keep losing to OSU. It sucks to keep losing bowl games. It sucks to never make it to the conference championship game. But, Michigan still had a good season. Our defense is not the problem. If we want to make the jump it's the offense that needs to start being as aggressive as our defense because both the OSU and championship games show that an elite offense can still - and may be necessary - to beat an elite defense.
|01/07/2019 - 10:34am||FWIW, it's "quash", not …||
FWIW, it's "quash", not "squash". It's a legal term, so I don't think too many people know it. Also, dropping the "s" somehow makes it so much more fun to say.
|12/12/2018 - 12:56pm||You joke about NDSU, but…||
You joke about NDSU, but they have won 6 of the last 7 FCS championships and are currently in the semifinals for another. I'm betting that has something to do with having a decent QB.
|12/12/2018 - 12:45pm||Murray was drafted as an…||
Murray was drafted as an outfielder
|12/10/2018 - 3:05pm||Or if he changes his number…||
Or if he changes his number and someone else plays RT.
|12/06/2018 - 7:28pm||As far as scheduling, as…||
As far as scheduling, as long as they can go to 4 divisions, I think it solves more problems than it creates. Play the 3 teams in your division, 4 teams in another division (rotating), and one rival in the other two divisions for 9 games total. You'd see 6 teams every year and rotate the other 3 out every 1-2 years, which means you'd still be going 4 years without playing certain teams or you wouldn't get the home and home with those 9 teams. The "problem" would be what to do for the conference championship game after. Either you'd need to go with a 4-team playoff from each division, take best two, or take the highest ranked team in either set of two divisions that played a round robin.
|12/03/2018 - 8:36am||Don't seed the first round…||
Don't seed the first round. Conference tie ins to bowls first.
Assuming chalk, you get in the next round:
|11/30/2018 - 10:11am||They probably are overrating…||
They probably are overrating preseason expectations. However, SOR is based on BPI, so we wouldn't be as high in that if BPI ranked the other teams where they belong. This early in the season, BPI isn't every going to be very accurate, but SOR can be, so maybe that's what they are going for.
|11/29/2018 - 2:51pm||So, you want an objective…||
So, you want an objective standard, but then you call them a "major" conference, which doesn't have an objective definition. My point is that to be objective, you need to either include all of them, or use an objective cutoff as a floor. A team with 2 losses probably shouldn't be in the playoff without a conference championship. A team with 3 losses probably shouldn't be in the playoff at all. A team with 4+ losses absolutely should not be in the playoff. If a conference has an objectively down year, they should not be automatically included. If a conference has an objectively good year, they should be included. I think we agree on an objective standard for who belongs in, but I think we disagree on what objective means.
And to your point about the committee approach, that's just a matter of process. Resume rankings exist and do track relatively closely to what the committee picks, but if one of these were used instead, it would satisfy your want for an objective selection process. This is what I'm proposing would be used to determine the cutoff for auto-bids and at-large picks.
|11/29/2018 - 10:29am||Auto-bids for any particular…||
Auto-bids for any particular conference are bad. The Pac 12 is bad this year. In either case, they are sending a 3-loss conference champion. If Utah wins, there would be a case to be made that UCF and the winner of Boise/Fresno would both be more deserving of an auto-bid, but only one would get in with your proposal because of the Pac 12's perceived superiority to these other schools.
The same thing happened with the Big East before conference realignment. In 2010, 8-4 UConn won the Big East and were auto-bid into the BCS. This year, because of the conference championship games and unbalanced divisions, we'd be an upset away from a 4-loss Northwestern or 5-loss Pitt getting auto-bids, which would be horrible.
If you go with auto-bids, it needs to include all schools, but also have a limit like either top 6 ranked champions or any ranked in the top X. If you really want to be inclusive, then make that top 25. If you want to focus on quality, then make that top 12-16. Right now, you'd end up with pretty much the P5 conference champions (unless you're more restrictive and we get those upsets) and UCF. If Utah wins and the limit was top 12, then they might not make it in, and rightfully so, which opens up a spot for a team like Michigan to make the playoff instead.
|11/28/2018 - 5:17pm||John Paul did build the…||
John Paul did build the program from a club sport and is a huge reason that they were able to move up to D1.
However, he had 6 years to recruit and build pretty much anything. His only winning season was his last. He did manage to beat Penn, but then went 0-5 in B1G play again. In fact, in B1G play, he was 1-14 overall. I think he got cut a little slack because he got the program to where it was, but without showing any improvement at all, I think that his firing was pretty warranted. Honestly, I'd love to have seen him stay on in an administrative role like Associate AD of Lacrosse, but I'm not sure he would have gone for that.
|11/28/2018 - 4:26pm||Georgia beats Alabama in a…||
Has the added bonus of having 1-loss OSU, 1-loss Oklahoma, and undefeated UCF get left out of the CFP, leading to a 6- or 8-team playoff in 2020.
|11/27/2018 - 5:01pm||In his last 5 games, Rudock…||
In his last 5 games, Rudock threw for at least 250 yards and averaged over 300 with 14 TDs and 2 INTs. Patterson has the ability to play his way into the first round with this offense.
|11/27/2018 - 12:24pm||Yea, I figured there wasn't…||
Yea, I figured there wasn't a way that OSU could be that much faster than every receiver that Watson had ever covered. The scheme being at fault and putting him at a disadvantage makes much more sense, especially when you know he's not fast enough to catch up.
|11/27/2018 - 12:04pm||https://breakdownsports…|
|11/26/2018 - 2:06pm||via GIPHY|
|11/16/2018 - 5:36pm||He settled his payout from…||
He settled his payout from LSU and it cost him $5 million. So, my guess is that he's making that back in the first year at Kansas.
|11/16/2018 - 10:02am||Thanks.
I used an analogy…
I used an analogy above comparing scheduling to a routine in gymnastics or figure skating. Another one that was rolling around in my head while I was creating my own resume metric was the idea of showing your work in math. Alabama might be the best team in the country, but scheduling and beating other top teams is showing your work. If Alabama played UCF's schedule I don't think that Alabama would deserve to be in the CFP either, regarless of if they beat each of those teams 100-0. So, to me, "deserving" is a measurable showing how well you tested your team with your schedule and how you fared against it.
|11/15/2018 - 8:41pm||I think that 16 is too many…||
I think that 16 is too many. The reason that college football is so fun is that it every game is seemingly life or death for playoff hopes. Yes, this perpetuates this issue that you're illustrating, but a 2 or 3 loss team making the playoffs just means that a loss means nothing. The more teams that you add to the playoff, the less claim that the last team in is going to have to being the best team in the country. It's like when the 18-0 Patriots lost to the Giants. Everyone knows that the Patriots were the better team (and more deserving), but had the giants been 17-1 going into the game, the winner of that game might have actually been thought of as the better team. More games outside the playoff with a limited number of playoff games reduces variance and leads to better claim for the champion.
I'm partial to an 8-team playoff with auto-bids to conference champions in the top 12 or 15 and fillers with the remaining best teams getting in. This year, that would mean Bama/Georgia, Clemson, ND, Michigan/OSU, Oklahoma/WVU, WSU, UCF, and probably a team that lost in a conference championship game (current top 6, 8, 11). Last year it would have been Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia, OSU, USC, UCF, Bama, and Wisconsin (top 6, 8, 12).
I am actually hoping for Georgia, Oklahoma or WVU, Michigan, WSU, ND, Clemson, and UCF to win out so that as many deserving teams get left out of the playoff as possible, which would probably lead to an immediate increase in the size of the playoff.
All of this is kind of beside the point, though.
|11/15/2018 - 7:11pm||Resume S&P+ is kind of a…||
Resume S&P+ is kind of a weird metric that is hard to define what it is telling you. It's not telling you strength of schedule, so you can't use it to say that Notre Dame's schedule is not solid. It is, however, using strength of schedule and margin of victory. If anything, it's saying that 13 teams would theoretically have a better margin of victory against their schedule. I have a few problems with this approach.
The first is that it doesn't seem to take into account wins and losses, e.g. a 21-point win and 7-point loss is not the same as two 7-point wins against the same two teams.
The second is that the difference between a 1-point win and a 7-point win is much greater than the difference between a 7-point win and 14-point win, which is also much greater than the difference between a 14-point win and 21-point win. He caps wins at 50 points, but he need to do something like the log or sqrt of the score to prevent teams that run up the score from pushing teams like win games by close-to-comfortable margins down too far.
The third is that there doesn't seem to be a distinction made between which team those points came against. So, a 7-point win against a top 5 team should mean more than a 7-point win over a top 25 team.
ND's second best win is Stanford, who is currently 25th in S&P+, and their third best is USC at 36. We have wins over 13, 17, and 32, although OSU is 8.
You are right that had Michigan played Arkansas, we likely wouldn't be having any conversation about this right now assuming that we won the rest of our games. I look at the schedule like the routine in gymnastics or figure skating. Each move/game adds potential to your score, but if you falter because you made it too difficult, then you get deducted points. Faltering once on an otherwise extremely difficult routine/schedule can still allow you to win, but a competitor that nails theirs with slightly less difficulty is still likely to pass you. Had we beat ND, but lost to OSU and gone 12-1 still, we might still be in. Had we beat Arkansas, but lost to OSU and gone 12-1, we are probably tied with Washington State.
If Michigan gets shut out of the playoff, the reason will be that the playoff is not sized properly. Brian has done a post in the past about the proper size of the playoff and decided 6 would be best most years. The fact that there is a good chance at multiple 12-1 P5 teams and a 13-0 G5 team are shut out of the playoff is a problem.
|11/15/2018 - 5:11pm||Again, I'm not trying to say…||
Again, I'm not trying to say that there isn't bias, just that if you want to point out the bias it helps to use the proper tools. That's why I included that last bit.
Syracuse is in a weird position because they and LSU are the only 2-loss P5 teams and, while they don't have any wins over very good teams, their two losses are on the road to the two teams probably playing the the ACC championship game. I don't really have a problem with them where they are at because it will be sorted out when the play ND and BC over the next two weeks. Assuming that Syracuse loses to ND and BC beats FSU, one of Syracuse and BC will be ranked in the 20-25 range, which is fine. That's not going to make a difference for Clemson if they lose a game to Duke, South Carolina, or Pittsburgh.
The one that I have a problem with is Mississippi State as their best two wins are likely to finish the season at 7-5.
|11/15/2018 - 3:52pm||Because of this, the railing…||
This is what I'm getting at without trying to say it because the committee could be corrupt, biased, and incompetent still. If Michigan moves down in the rankings for a 1-loss SEC or ACC team in the coming weeks, then I could see arguments of bias still potentially being valid. Until then, the CFP rankings match pretty well with calculated results and there isn't much to justify a conspiracy theory at this point.
|11/15/2018 - 3:27pm||I used a specific case, that…||
I used a specific case, that everyone here is familiar with, as an example and you are inferring more than I intended it to mean. I agree it's possible for Michigan to play a significantly more impressive schedule in a general sense, but I don't think they've done it this season if Notre Dame wins out. I don't think that SOR or most other rankings will show that either.
I explained my thoughts on Resume S&P+ and its flaws and uses.
And, the fact is that, without looking at head-to-head, Notre Dame beat a top 5 team, according to most predictors, and Michigan has not. That weighs significantly on resume rankings and will buoy their schedule over ours. It's possible, if Michigan State, Wisconsin, PSU, etc. win out that our strength of schedule improves and pushes us past them, but the same can be said about their schedule.
|11/14/2018 - 1:21pm||That's really not true. Big…||
That's really not true. Big Ten had 8 conference games until 2016. ACC just went to 9 games this year. The Big 12 went to 9 games after going to 10 teams and a round robin. They were at 8 games when they had 12 teams. The Pac 12 is the only major conference that went to 9 games when the 12th game was added.
|11/14/2018 - 12:48pm||2006 is up there. Winning…||
2006 is up there. Winning that game could have led Henne, Hart, and Long to leave early as well as Carr retiring. We get a promotion from within instead of RR, Mallett sticks around, etc.
|11/14/2018 - 12:44pm||This is what I want so badly…||
This is what I want so badly. Michigan vs. Washington State in the Rose Bowl, Bama/Georgia in the Sugar/Peach, Oklahoma/WVU in the Fiesta/Cotton, Clemson in the Orange. Throw in ND, UCF, and a second SEC team and you have some seriously fun matchups along with a system that gives everyone a shot.
|11/13/2018 - 4:02pm||There isn't a predictor that…||
There isn't a predictor that I'm aware of that doesn't have Michigan favored by 5+ on a neutral field. Even in the game we played, given the box score, S&P+ would have given us a 60% chance to win that game, i.e. if we played 10 games at their field, we'd be expected to win 6 of them. We just happened to catch one of the 4 where they beat us.
|11/11/2018 - 2:09pm||It's possible, but they…||
It's possible, but they almost lost their chance at the division and conference yesterday before MSU decided to give the game away. If they had anything, they would have used it. They can always install it this week, though.
|11/11/2018 - 12:12pm||The next two weeks, Georgia…||
The next two weeks, Georgia plays UMass and Georgia Tech, roughly equivalent to Rutgers and Indiana. We play OSU, which is a better game than Auburn. If we win out, scheduling won't be the reason we get passed. S&P+ doesn't really care who you play, but how you play against them. It doesn't look at scores, but instead yards, efficiency in scoring positions, etc. If we lose ground, it's because we didn't play as well as we were expected to.
|11/09/2018 - 1:04pm||Bama, Clemson, ND, Michigan…||
That's probably the minimum.
|11/09/2018 - 11:03am||Thanks. I tinkered around a…||
Thanks. I tinkered around a lot to get to this. I wanted to come up with a simple algorithm that is still mathematically sound. I had certain goals and this is the only way that really fit all of the goals. While I don't know that it's necessarily the best way to rank teams for the playoff, this becomes a pretty close proxy for what the committee is trying to do and lets me spot check for bias.
As for the mathematically sound part, I found some cool features of this method. For example, the top 24 teams currently have a positive score. Bill C complains a lot about 25 being an arbitrary cutoff and it changing every week. He's right about the latter, which is something that I tried to solve with this method, but top 20-25 seems like a natural cutoff. If 130 teams were ranked on a bell curve, 20 would be at least 1 standard deviation above average. I've also noticed that the top 14 have a score of at least 1 and the top 5 have a score of at least 4. Bama is the only team that has a chance to reach a score of 9 by the end of the season. So, there are these natural tiers built into it.
I started working on it a week or two ago, after Joel Klatt started spouting off about it. I think I'll wait to see how this formula progresses through the season, but I might sub in some other rankings like FPI, Sagarin (especially his recency one), or a composite. In the offseason, I think I might try to build my own predictor, not with beating the spread in mind, but as my own ranking system based on game theory rather than arbitrary cutoffs, e.g. determining garbage based on the game itself rather than an arbitrary cutoff like 21 points.
|11/09/2018 - 10:37am||I think we are on the same…||
I think we are on the same page at a high level on all of this. A couple of things, though.
I don't take W/L record into account at all. A team losing to the top 4 teams in S&P+ and beating 5-9, giving them a 5-4 record, would have a ranking of 3rd. Similarly, a team beating a completely average team, like Northwestern, 9 times would be 6th. The way that I look at it is that we might know that a team is good, but building a resume is akin to showing your work in math in the sense that you shouldn't get full credit if you're not playing anyone. I don't think that Bama should be getting any more credit for UCF's schedule than what UCF is getting. If you're a better team, play better opponents and show it. I weight so that two top 5 teams playing has a lot of upside and little downside, e.g. if Michigan had beat ND, Michigan would be the #1 team in the country ahead of Bama right now and at the end of the season and ND would be 9th right now with a chance to climb a few spots depending on losses.
As for the ACC teams, they may not have played anyone, but neither have a lot of teams. Who do you move up ahead of Boston College, for example? MSU? I don't even have them ranked. Sure, they beat PSU, but they lost to ASU and Northwestern. Penn State? Maybe, but it would be on the backs of their wins against Appalachian State and Iowa. Texas beat Oklahoma, but lost to Maryland. Your best options are Fresno State and Buffalo, which you already said would be weighting W/L too heavily.
And I agree with you about Resume S&P+. I think that he created an alternate S&P+ that doesn't really seem like a good predictor or resume evaluation, at least compared to what the committee is trying to do. On the Resume-Predictor spectrum, it seems to be just a hair inside Predictor, which really doesn't give it much use.
|11/08/2018 - 5:47pm||After Joel Klatt pointed…||
After Joel Klatt pointed this out, I started looking into it and got super pissed off about it. I don't like how Resume S&P+ takes points into account (caps at 50, would prefer lower cap or a scale). I also don't trust ESPN because I feel they are likely biased and there isn't much insight into how they do things. So, I created my own ranking system based on S&P+ rankings and wins/losses without MOV, that I'm pretty happy with, to try to prove the bias.
The ACC all seem to be within 3 spots of the CFP by this method. Florida is still +9 and UCF is -5, but I can chalk that up as outliers.
So, to answer your question, I tried to prove that to be the case, but ended up showing that the CFP is ranking resumes pretty well if they aren't looking at MOV. Any debate about their accuracy should be based around using MOV in some way as that will move the list closer to best teams instead of best resumes.
|11/08/2018 - 5:18pm||I'd like to point out that…||
I'd like to point out that while CFP says they are looking for the best teams, they are actually looking at resumes. The statistical models used are all predictors, i.e. they ARE looking for the best teams, not resumes. Bill Connelly created Resume S&P+ and ESPN split FPI into FPI (predictor) and SOR (resume) because S&P+ and FPI shouldn't be compared to the rankings.
Now, they still don't line up perfectly, but Resume S&P+ has Syracuse at 29 and SOR has them at 27, for an average of +15 instead of +34. Kentucky is 22 and 7 for an average of +3.5. NC State is 37 and 15 for an average of +12. Boston College is 28 and 18, for an average of +6. I think that pretty well illustrates the point that this is comparing apples to oranges.
I know that Resume S&P+ is using the scores of the games, but I don't know if SOR is or if they are capping them differently. I don't believe the committee is using MOV, so that could be the remaining difference here.
|11/08/2018 - 4:30pm||They'll get the "s" back…||
They'll get the "s" back when they earn it.
|11/07/2018 - 2:48pm||FWIW, ESPN split FPI into…||
FWIW, ESPN split FPI into FPI (best team) and SOR (Strength of Record, best resume). FPI has them ranked 12th and SOR has them ranked 6th.
|11/07/2018 - 2:21pm||We're arbitrarily ranking…||
We're arbitrarily ranking teams and using an arbitrary cutoff to decide what is a good vs. bad team. We are only looking at two of four categories: wins vs. good teams and losses vs. bad teams. The other two are wins vs. bad teams and losses vs. good teams, which are basically expected outcomes by a borderline top 25 team. If unranked team A beats unranked team B, we are ignoring that game for team A's record in this analysis, but including it in team B's record. While the Big Ten has more unexpected wins and unexpected losses, the other conferences just consolidated expected wins and losses. None of this really makes sense as a useful piece of analysis, which is what I was trying to point out.
|11/07/2018 - 1:39pm||No it's not. Bill Connelly…||
No it's not. Bill Connelly has his resume S&P+ - which I don't think is perfect, but is at least objective - and has LSU (7) ahead of OSU (10), WVU (13), and ND (18). Comparing them with S&P+ rankings:
LSU has beaten a lot of good teams. They lost to a team against whom every team in the country would be expected to lose. WVU hasn't played anyone relevant. OSU escaped PSU and got pounded by Purdue. The only reason that ND is even in the conversation is because they beat us. The rest of their schedule is hot garbage.
Your assertion that 2-loss teams shouldn't be ahead of 1-loss teams would only lead to teams scheduling the easiest possible schedules to avoid the risk of a second loss. If you don't take into account strength of schedule, you might as well get rid of rankings and just look at teams with the best records, which would put UCF at 4th.
|11/06/2018 - 4:46pm||Oh yea, there he is...Turt…||
Oh yea, there he is...Turt Kaylor.
|11/06/2018 - 4:42pm||Ok, and let's look at losses…||
Ok, and let's look at losses to teams not in the top 25.
So, the Big Ten has twice as many bad losses as the next worst conference, the ACC, which is hovering in that 5-6 range that seems to be normal. The only SEC team to have a bad loss OOC is Arkansas.
|11/06/2018 - 3:55pm||I don't play, but it looks…||
I don't play, but it looks like Fortnite.
|11/06/2018 - 2:02pm||WTF is he talking about?
WTF is he talking about?
Michigan is basically a replica of 2017's NC team in terms of style and advanced stats.
|11/06/2018 - 1:15pm||Rookie contracts are…||
Rookie contracts are basically set now and last 4 years with a 5th year option. Moving from the second or third round into the first is a huge deal as it sets the floor of your earning potential much higher.
|11/06/2018 - 10:33am||He will likely want a…||
He will likely want a coordinator title in the future and we might have to give it to him. OSU promoted him to OC and promptly fired him for his playcalling, which is how we were eventually able to land him. Maybe the co-OC title along with the pay increase will be enough. He's old enough that he can't realistically be looking to climb the ladder much more.
|11/06/2018 - 10:29am||Re: The Pick 6 stat:
Re: The Pick 6 stat:
We have 6 passing TDs allowed this season.
So, not only is the starting secondary more likely to score a TD than allow one, but they also haven't had a game where they've allowed more passing TDs than pick sixes.
|11/05/2018 - 5:37pm||I mean, the last two years,…||
I mean, the last two years, we had John O'Korn as our QB - last year's on the road - and we still won.
|11/05/2018 - 4:15pm||"If live-ball fouls by both…||
"If live-ball fouls by both teams are reported to the referee, the fouls offset and the down is repeated (A.R. 10-1-4-I and VII). Any player who commits a foul that mandates disqualification must leave the game.
1. When there is a change of team possession during a down, and the team last gaining possession had not fouled before last gaining possession, it may refuse offsetting fouls and thereby retain possession after completion of the penalty for its foul (A.R. 10-1-4-II-VII).
2. When all Team B fouls that occur before possession changes are governed by postscrimmage kick rules, Team B may refuse offsetting fouls and accept postscrimmage kick enforcement."
So, exception 2 allows the receiving team to decline a penalty on the kicking team before the kick as long as there was not an offsetting penalty by the receiving team before the kick. This is so that they can choose to retain the ball seeing as they didn't commit a foul until after receiving the ball. They can also choose to accept the penalty if they don't like the spot or turned the ball over and want a rekick.