This data is incomplete so there is no way to form a proper equation.
HN TV: KF on FG Down 8, Recruiting Policy
- Thread starter RobHowe
- Start date
This data is incomplete so there is no way to form a proper equation.
I'm saying my opinion, apparently a lot of people agree with it since so many have been questioning the decision to kick the FG instead
Take a basic math class and they will teach you. I tried with really basic, easy to understand stuff and it didn't work. I feel like every time I look at a post of yours you will finally say "oh I get it now". You're either not even trying to understand or you're trying to hard. It's really simple.
And a lot of people are calculating incomplete data just like you did. "The odds of tying the game when we had 4th and 5 was better than the odds of winning the game if we kick the field goal". That doesn't help decide what gives you the chance to win the game, which is all that matters.
Going to OT gives us a better chance to win than kicking a FG, having to stop them then drive the length of the field to score a TD in my opinion
Joshbrown
Well-Known Member
And there you go again using partial data to try to prove a theory. I agree I would rather go to overtime than make a field goal, get a stop, and score a touchdown. But that doesn't matter because now you are leaving out the part where we have to get to overtime.
NikeHawk21 is smart. He is helping add data to the equation to come up with a better answer. You are taking important data out. You can't do that.
Now I know how my chemistry teacher felt trying to teach me stuff that seemed so easy to him.
And I've said over and over I think we have a better chance of winning by trying to go to OT then having to make a field goal, get a stop and score a TD
theboat
Well-Known Member
you can come up with all the data in the world, I don't think it is relevant in this case because you are asking a team to do something they haven't done all day. It would be different if there was some life on offense, but aside from the uptempo series at the end of the half which Iowa couldn't go back to because it was effective, this was the only sign of life. Now, I guess you could say that maybe the coach thought they had figured things out finally and would be able to move the ball again, but I highly doubt that.
I said before, it is so crazy to me that Ferentz's coaching philosophy is designed to keep games close, regardless of the level of opponent, so that games typically come down to a few plays. And yet he seems scared to death to take a chance when those plays are presented to him.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I absolutely think we should have gone for it on 4th and 5. I think this because this is the "conservative" play really. Try to take one shot and score one time to tie the game, and then rely on your D. Instead KF opted for the more risky play for the win. Get the 3 points there, stop them and then get the TD for the win. Yeah it is risky, but it is playing to win, and not playing to tie and relying on the D.
I hope everyone understands that they are disagree with KF playing to win instead of tie (FG then TD for the win)........Just something to think about.
I hope everyone understands that they are disagree with KF playing to win instead of tie (FG then TD for the win)........Just something to think about.
theboat
Well-Known Member
He was not playing to win. He was playing to not lose yet. That is in line with what he always does.
If it were a "play to win" coach, they would have gone for it and still expected to make the stop and win it on the next possession. (Kinda like what ND St did to Iowa)
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
You say tomato, I say tomato. But more importantly, do I still seem angry Boat?
theboat
Well-Known Member
He was intending to play conservative, not to lose like always. But he accidentally played the more aggressive way.
I disagree based on the first 55 minutes of the game and the risk/reward percentages. The hawks had not gotten close to scoring a TD really so how are you going to get two scores in 5 minutes via a FG and then a TD. They should have been in four down mode when it was third and 5 where you can run it up the middle at the their backup nose tackle and get some yards maybe a first down but leaves you probably in 4th and short.
4th and short brings in all kinds of trick plays and counter plays that can work against a defense. or even a qb sneak, whatever, they had some momentum and the defense was not getting 3 and outs. If you dont get the first down you leave Wisky inside their 20 yard line still down only 8 with about 5 minutes to go.
Risk was better than the reward of kicking a fg and still being 5 points down.
No matter what, the team was going to have to do something they haven't been able to do the whole game.
Both options gave us a 10% shot at best. Slim chance to get the first down.
Very slum chance to get in the endzone.
OK chance to get the 2 pt conversation. 50/50 chance at best to stop their last drive. 50/50 chance at best to win in ot.
Vs.
Good chance to make a field goal.
Decent chance to stop them.
Slim chance to score using 4 downs instead of 3.
I agree that they should have run the ball on 3rd with the intent of going for it on 4th and 2ish.
This is closer to how the problem is solved. Also, add in the chance that they score the FG, instead of stopping them, which happened in the game. Bottom line if we make that easy FG instead of missing, the Fant TD (overturned) would have been to tie the game (with a 2pt conversion). I think probability wise the two decisions are probably close but to lazy to calculate. Both weren't good.
Last edited:
