Because 7 points is way better than 3. I'm still mad he didn't go for it on the missed field goal drive. I'm like a lot of other people on here and like to use hindsight to judge whether something was a good idea or not. Hey Kirk, news flash for ya. If you're gunna miss the field goal anyway, you just as well have went for it on 4th ya idiot.
Sunrise Reality Check
- Thread starter hwks1
- Start date
Because 7 points is way better than 3. I'm still mad he didn't go for it on the missed field goal drive. I'm like a lot of other people on here and like to use hindsight to judge whether something was a good idea or not. Hey Kirk, news flash for ya. If you're gunna miss the field goal anyway, you just as well have went for it on 4th ya idiot.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Well played PC.
Billso
Well-Known Member
I believe it's a mistake (and one that I've made also) to think of this season in terms of "Kirk has played down to the opposition and got lucky". What has happened thus far is that we've won three close games against teams with very similar levels of talent and two big wins over teams with markedly lower levels of talent. I have no stats to back this up, but I'm sure it's a safe bet that most teams play close games against similarly-talented teams most of the time. If we accept that as a given, then what has transpired so far this season isn't unusual whatsoever. What is different between New Kirk and Old Kirk, in a nutshell, is that he has learned how to win the close games.
Ohio State reality - slipped by Northern Illinois and Indiana
MSU reality - slipped by Purdue and Oregon
TCU reality - slipped by Minny and Texas Tech
And so on, and so on....
Chasing points in the first half is never ok in my book and no coach (outside of OR) will last long using this strategy. Never go for two or pass on makeable field goals in the first half. Don't chase in the 3rd quarter for that matter. There is no good reason to not tie the game early on, Especially as you point out, when points are at a premium.
Come on with never. 4th and inches from the goal line and you're a fool to attempt a field goal. What you're saying is so off base for playing the percentages. He did both in that game. He went for it on 4th and he kicked the field goal. Both netted zero points. I think you greatly over estimate how much 3 points helps you. Either that or greatly underestimate how much better 7 points is than 3.
We discussed the 4th and 2 decision a bit in another thread, but I will copy and paste for those who missed it.
The MiniTabBlog has run data from Big Ten games over the past few years to find 4th down success rate and average points by starting field position. According to their data, the "average" team has 58.1% probability of converting on 4th and 2. The probability is only 50% on 4th and goal from the 2 due to the compressed field. So if we take a conservative estimate, the average team has a 50% chance of converting 4th and 2 from the 8. Teams that have 1st and goal score an average of 6.2 points per possession. The grouping of their data does not differentiate between 1st and goal at the 9 and 1st and goal at the 1, so the 6.2 pts is probably a bit conservative considering Iowa would have had at least 1st and goal from the 6 if they converted. Thus, by going for it on 4th, the average teams conservative projected points = 0.5 * 6.2 pts = 3.1 pts.
According to BCF Toys, FBS Field Goal Success between the 7-10 yard line was about 85%. Thus, by kicking the FG the projected points = 0.85 * 3pts = 2.55 pts.
So, going for it on 4th and 2 will, should, on average, yield (3.1 pts - 2.55 pts) = 0.55 pts more than kicking the FG.
Projected point models can obviously be tricky because neither you nor your opponent are necessarily "average," and there are situational considerations. If all you need is a FG to win at the end of the game, you will kick the FG even if the projected points from going for it are higher. However, early in a game all teams should be thinking of maximizing their point probability, making the decision to go on 4th and 2 from the 8 pretty reasonable. Many more teams have been coming around to this realization over the past few years (not just Oregon). The Patriots in the NFL were one of the leaders in this regard, so it is no surprise that Iowa is factoring this into their decision-making since they have a former Patriot's coach on staff.
The MiniTabBlog has run data from Big Ten games over the past few years to find 4th down success rate and average points by starting field position. According to their data, the "average" team has 58.1% probability of converting on 4th and 2. The probability is only 50% on 4th and goal from the 2 due to the compressed field. So if we take a conservative estimate, the average team has a 50% chance of converting 4th and 2 from the 8. Teams that have 1st and goal score an average of 6.2 points per possession. The grouping of their data does not differentiate between 1st and goal at the 9 and 1st and goal at the 1, so the 6.2 pts is probably a bit conservative considering Iowa would have had at least 1st and goal from the 6 if they converted. Thus, by going for it on 4th, the average teams conservative projected points = 0.5 * 6.2 pts = 3.1 pts.
According to BCF Toys, FBS Field Goal Success between the 7-10 yard line was about 85%. Thus, by kicking the FG the projected points = 0.85 * 3pts = 2.55 pts.
So, going for it on 4th and 2 will, should, on average, yield (3.1 pts - 2.55 pts) = 0.55 pts more than kicking the FG.
Projected point models can obviously be tricky because neither you nor your opponent are necessarily "average," and there are situational considerations. If all you need is a FG to win at the end of the game, you will kick the FG even if the projected points from going for it are higher. However, early in a game all teams should be thinking of maximizing their point probability, making the decision to go on 4th and 2 from the 8 pretty reasonable. Many more teams have been coming around to this realization over the past few years (not just Oregon). The Patriots in the NFL were one of the leaders in this regard, so it is no surprise that Iowa is factoring this into their decision-making since they have a former Patriot's coach on staff.
Last edited:
Personally, I like the fact that we are mixing it up and going for it sometimes. It's positive not to be locked into tendencies and I think it puts everyone in a good frame of mind. I also think it's better to do it in the 1st half since you are setting an optimistic/positive tone for the game. Oregon is a great example.
It is "nearly" never in my mind. MAYBE 4th and inches on the goal line but even then I'd be more inclined to kick the FG, especially in a 3-0 game when we're on the road. PC87 statistics show exactly why you don't go for it in this instance. This is not a "hindsight 20/20" issue either because I was upset w/ the call from the jump and got to spend the rest of the afternoon hoping our 4 point lead would stand knowing full well we gave away an almost certain 3 points. I TD from WI and we lose when we could have been in a position for this scenario to result in a tie. There just isn't any reason to chase that early unless you're in the very unique situation which requires some "style points" like the leading teams often are in while trying to impress the pollsters for playoff contention. This scenario has yet to ever be of any concern of IA's though....YET!
What I like seeing is there haven't been many bone headed mistakes. Receivers and CJ have been on same page pretty much. O line is getting a push and for whatever reason be it their play or Canzeris play the running game has been much improved. Receivers haven't been dropping balls left and right. I guess to sum it up you could say they are playing very fundamentally sound WELL COACHED FOOTBALL. And if they keep doing that they'll not only be in games but winning them like they have so far. Football is all about situations. Be it time and score and down and distance and how the coaches call the game and players execute is what it's all about.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Yup, and although I'd have to go back and look, I thought the '04 team won several close games - Minny, Purdue, etc. That's especially true for the '09 team. 2009 was one of KF's better teams, yet didn't blow many people out. As you pointed out, there have been years where that's worked against us.
Do I think this is a GREAT Iowa team? No. But I think they are solid, and to this point, they have been good enough to win the close ones against respectable competition. In my mind, the fact that Iowa has won some tight ones this year pretty much just fits our typical MO under KF. Low scoring, defensive-oriented games. We've seen this before. We won't see many 49-45 games. More like 23-17, etc.
There is clearly a big disconnect between what projected-point models say you should do, and what conventional wisdom says you should do (see this as one dramatic example). Neither camp is all right or all wrong, there is a lot of nuance to the discussion.
So the projected point model I details says the average offense against the average defense should go for it on 4th and 2 from the 8 as opposed to kicking the FG. The probability says this decision will on average yield 0.5 more points. If this scenario comes up 100 times, you would score about 50 more points going for it every time than kicking it every time (310 pts vs. 255 pts). However, it does not come up 100 times in a game, but rather just once or twice. Do you really trust your probabilities, or go with your gut? Also, tweak the percentages a little bit and things change. Using NFL data, 1 and goal from the 6 yields about 5.5 pts per possession (not 6.2). So that makes the break-even point 46%. That is, probability states that you should go for it if you feel your chance of getting it is greater than 46%. With a beat-up O against a nationally ranked D, you could certainly make the case that your chance falls below that level. So gut-feeling, coaching intuition, etc. need to factor into the decision making.
However, certain aspects of "conventional" wisdom simply do not hold water. Such as, "always take the points early in the game." Early in the game is when you should maximize point probability. You have no way of knowing what will happen later in the game, but you know that more points is better than fewer points. Thus, the option that yields the highest point probability is the best course of action. You lay out the scenario where Iowa attempted and made the FG instead of going for it, which would have resulted in Wisconsin trying to tie the game late instead of take the lead. But what if Wisconsin had scored multiple TDs during the course of the game, and kicking that FG still leaves Iowa down by 10 points with only 1 likely possession left. Then we could say, "See, we should have gone for the TD instead of kicking the FG." The point is, you never know how the rest of the game will unfold, so you maximize point probability.
Or, "always take the points on the road." Why? In general, home teams have an intrinsic advantage, and all else being equal, will be favored. It is usually advised that the favorite use a more conservative decision making strategy, while the underdog should rely upon higher-risk, higher-reward strategies. So why should a road team, the underdog, choose the conservative strategy instead of maximizing their point probability.
Not everyone is a believer, and that is fine. Run probabilities work great in baseball where you have 162 games, and over the course of a long season those probabilities will come out in your favor. Football is much trickier with only a dozen or so games, each one seeming like a life-or-death affair. Coach Ferentz certainly fell into the conventional wisdom camp up until a couple of years ago. But Belichek bought in a while back, he has clearly convinced the younger Ferentz, and some combination of factors has eventually convinced the elder Ferentz. I, for one, am enjoying it.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
This post might cause some stir. It's a side note for sure. IMO, KF is calling the game more like how the Iowa players want the game to be called. He's doing this because he realized how fragmented the team was last year and wants to make amends. IMO, he realizes he caused some of the fragmentation last year with his selection of Rudock as starter. He wanted a steady, error-free operator at QB. The players wanted a more gifted QB at QB.
Where's my proof, you ask? The players are playing hard for each other (winning causes that, I know). This attitude supposedly started before the first snap of the Illinois State game.
I'm not saying KF has totally given the reins to somebody else. It's evident, IMO, he's grabbing hold of the 'Iowa reins' real hard in other aspects of Iowa football. I'm saying he's let go of the reins in some aspects of Iowa football. IMO, KF could do the Iowa program a real solid if he were to let go of more reins on Iowa football.
This, IMO, is Ferentz 3.0.
Last edited:
If you would seriously kick the field goal on 4th and inches on the goal line then you are more conservative than old Kirk and there is no making you see the light. It is probably driving you nuts that we are risking returning punts now huh?
Very good post. This would change the mind of anyone who has any ability to grasp a new concept that they've never considered before.
No.
If, it is such a ludicrous notion, why do we not see this more often? I've seen ISU do this when they had zero kicking ability but this shouldn't be confused w/ them "wanting" to do this. OR is another example but they are most certainly an outlier.
Find me any significant number of coaches who opt to leave points on the field in the first half, it just isn't done (usually).
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
KF is a risk taker in some areas but is still ultra conservative in others. For example, he'll take that risk of 4th and 2 deep within Iowa's own territory, but he won't get a viable backup for Canzeri into a game. KF still has a real hard time trusting his players. It'll be a long process for him. He's at the crawling stage of learning to trust his own players.
BigD
Well-Known Member
iF??????
IF the lineman doesn't step on the QB's foot causing a fumble then their 350 lb running back lumbers in for the go ahead and likely winning score. 13-10.
Then the comments would have been geared to our hapless second half offense who couldn't do jack in the second half. Looked like Iowa offenses of years past in the second half. That's what the conversation would have been on these boards this week.
BigD
Well-Known Member
As one of the three stooges used to say.... "Oh a wise guy eh?" Couldn't agree more with your post. I love it that we are un-defeated at this point. I do realize there is plenty of room for improvement however and it will need to happen if we are going to continue to win Ugly or not.
