Onside Kick vs Penn St.?

J

JRD90

Well-Known Member
Sorry if already asked in another post, but didn't see it.

Why didn't Iowa go for an onside kick after cutting the lead to 5? I mean the only way they win is to get the ball back, so with 2+ minutes left you at least try to get an onside, right?

Worst case if the onside isn't recovered, Penn State starts the drive on the 50 vs the 25 (after the touchback). And since the defense didn't get a 3 and out, Penn State ran out the clock on Iowa anyway.
 
JRD90 said:
Sorry if already asked in another post, but didn't see it.

Why didn't Iowa go for an onside kick after cutting the lead to 5? I mean the only way they win is to get the ball back, so with 2+ minutes left you at least try to get an onside, right?

Worst case if the onside isn't recovered, Penn State starts the drive on the 50 vs the 25 (after the touchback). And since the defense didn't get a 3 and out, Penn State ran out the clock on Iowa anyway.
Click to expand...
They were praying for a quick change of possession.

Statistcally, the chance of a 3 and out is greater than a successful recovery of an onside kick. They almost never work. To be honest, I'd bet the frequency of a turnover due to a fumble or interception is better than an onside kick recovery.

On side kicks are about (but not quite) as dumb as fouling at the end of a basketball game.
 
Fryowa said:
They were praying for a quick change of possession.

Statistcally, the chance of a 3 and out is greater than a successful recovery of an onside kick. They almost never work. To be honest, I'd bet the frequency of a turnover due to a fumble or interception is better than an onside kick recovery.

On side kicks are about (but not quite) as dumb as fouling at the end of a basketball game.
Click to expand...

I would add a "surprise" onside kick done at an obscure time is better than one expected for sure. Those actually work sometimes.
 
Fryowa said:
They were praying for a quick change of possession.

Statistcally, the chance of a 3 and out is greater than a successful recovery of an onside kick. They almost never work. To be honest, I'd bet the frequency of a turnover due to a fumble or interception is better than an onside kick recovery.

On side kicks are about (but not quite) as dumb as fouling at the end of a basketball game.
Click to expand...

Probability of 3 and out > onside kick recovery > doing anything with the ball in the event we actually recovered.

Did I do the math right?
 
JRD90 said:
Sorry if already asked in another post, but didn't see it.

Why didn't Iowa go for an onside kick after cutting the lead to 5? I mean the only way they win is to get the ball back, so with 2+ minutes left you at least try to get an onside, right?

Worst case if the onside isn't recovered, Penn State starts the drive on the 50 vs the 25 (after the touchback). And since the defense didn't get a 3 and out, Penn State ran out the clock on Iowa anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should have. If we fail, still need a 3 and out, either way. In other words, even if it’s only a 15-20% chance, it’s still an additional chance. If we then hold them to a 3 and out we still get the ball back, albeit with worse field position. I think there would have been about 2 minutes left after the 3 and out either way so plenty of time (if we had a 2 minute offense but different topic).
 
I think they did the right thing by kicking it deep. If Penn St would have recovered, they would not have that far to drive for field goal, forcing Iowa to need a touchdown and a 2 point conversion. The defense just could not get it done In the end, but the defense was not the reason we lost the game overall.
 
Last edited:
hwk23 said:
Yes, we should have. If we fail, still need a 3 and out, either way. In other words, even if it’s only a 15-20% chance, it’s still an additional chance. If we then hold them to a 3 and out we still get the ball back, albeit with worse field position. I think there would have been about 2 minutes left after the 3 and out either way so plenty of time.
Click to expand...
I'd put the chance of an onside recovery at close to zero.

Since we're grasping at straws for all of these scenarios, if we got a 3&O with them starting at the 25 we'd have a chance of (somewhat) manageable field position for a last second field goal. If they can pooch punt from the 50 and pin us inside the 5 or 10 there's zero hope.
 
Last edited:
From wikipedia

An onside kick is considered successful if the kicking team regains the ball. Between 2001 and 2010, surprise onside kicks were successful 60% of the time, while expected onside kicks were successful less than 20% of the time.
 
Chance of winning with Onside kick
20% chance Iowa recovers
Iowa then has 50% chance in 2.5 minutes and 3 timeouts to go 55 yards to score winning TD.

80% chance PSU recovers. Then Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 20% chance to drive 80 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with onside kick
0.2 X 0.5. + 0.8 × 0.75 × 0.2 = 22%

With normal kickoff
Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 25% chance to drive 70 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with normal kickoff.
0.75 x .25 = 19%

Iowa should have went for the onside kick. 22% chance of winning vs 19% for normal kickoff.
 
guffus said:
Chance of winning with Onside kick
20% chance Iowa recovers
Iowa then has 50% chance in 2.5 minutes and 3 timeouts to go 55 yards to score winning TD.

80% chance PSU recovers. Then Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 20% chance to drive 80 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with onside kick
0.2 X 0.5. + 0.8 × 0.75 × 0.2 = 22%

With normal kickoff
Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 25% chance to drive 70 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with normal kickoff.
0.75 x .25 = 19%

Iowa should have went for the onside kick. 22% chance of winning vs 19% for normal kickoff.
Click to expand...
This is sarcasm, right?
 
guffus said:
Chance of winning with Onside kick
20% chance Iowa recovers
Iowa then has 50% chance in 2.5 minutes and 3 timeouts to go 55 yards to score winning TD.

80% chance PSU recovers. Then Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 20% chance to drive 80 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with onside kick
0.2 X 0.5. + 0.8 × 0.75 × 0.2 = 22%

With normal kickoff
Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 25% chance to drive 70 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with normal kickoff.
0.75 x .25 = 19%

Iowa should have went for the onside kick. 22% chance of winning vs 19% for normal kickoff.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the game last Saturday?
 
guffus said:
Chance of winning with Onside kick
20% chance Iowa recovers
Iowa then has 50% chance in 2.5 minutes and 3 timeouts to go 55 yards to score winning TD.

80% chance PSU recovers. Then Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 20% chance to drive 80 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with onside kick
0.2 X 0.5. + 0.8 × 0.75 × 0.2 = 22%

With normal kickoff
Iowa uses 3 timeouts and has 75% chance to stop PSU. Iowa then has 25% chance to drive 70 yards with no timeouts and score winning TD

Overall chance of winning with normal kickoff.
0.75 x .25 = 19%

Iowa should have went for the onside kick. 22% chance of winning vs 19% for normal kickoff.
Click to expand...


I said in another post that math is hard so I'm not going to touch most of this lol. However, based on what we've seen historically from our 2 minute offense I'd say the chance of Iowa moving the ball 55 yards with 3 TO's and 2.5 minutes to go for a game winner is probably closer to 5-155% if that.
 
Fryowa said:
I'd put the chance of an onside recovery at close to zero.

Since we're grasping at straws for all of these scenarios, if we got a 3&O with them starting at the 25 we'd have a chance of (somewhat) manageable field position for a last second field goal. If they can pooch punt from the 50 and pin us inside the 5 or 10 there's zero hope.
Click to expand...

We needed a TD not a field goal iirc the hawks were down 17-12.

But I agree that the NCAA and NFL have put plenty of rule changes in on kickoffs and onside kicks to make it much harder, very hard to recover. In the NFL the kicking team tacklers only get a one yard run as the kick is made so they cant get downfield as fast. And of course you cant overload one side of the ball with 10 players.

With an onside kick if you can get your kicker to pop one up high and short about 30 yards in an open area and the ball isnt caught on the fly and gets to bouncing around that might be the best way to recover a kickoff as a free ball.

Bobby Bowden and some others used to use that short pop fly kickoff into an open area.
 
What we needed is the dude from ISU banging into the Penn State dude trying to catch the punt!!!!!! He is the man!

Thank you Clones. The gift that will keep on giving throughout the holiday season.
 
Fryowa said:
They were praying for a quick change of possession.

On side kicks are about (but not quite) as dumb as fouling at the end of a basketball game.
Click to expand...
But without those last two minutes getting stretched into twenty, is basketball even worth watching? Gives Dolph more time to piss off Barta :D
 
Expected onside kicks are recovered 20% of the time.

3 and outs by the best teams happen 23% of the time.

So the 3 and out percentage was 3% more likely. They made the right call.

Now, when neither offense was making any headway (in both the Mich and Iowa games) you take more shots like the td we got against psu. 1 v 1 you have to trust that your wr will beat the corner at least 40% of the time. Your QB will complete a 30 + yarder 30% of the time. So, if you had 6 times inside the 40, you have to chuck it up at least 4 times in those types of games. A turnover on the 5 is as good as a punt. Be aggressive.
 
hwk23 said:
Yes, we should have. If we fail, still need a 3 and out, either way. In other words, even if it’s only a 15-20% chance, it’s still an additional chance. If we then hold them to a 3 and out we still get the ball back, albeit with worse field position. I think there would have been about 2 minutes left after the 3 and out either way so plenty of time (if we had a 2 minute offense but different topic).
Click to expand...

But if you dont get the immediate 3 and out the other team is basically already in fg position.
You kick it deep and try for the stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top