Thoughts on Biels decision

[CP87]

Think about this though, taking into account the stat you quoted about the coin flip. This is what I'm talking about with the coin flip being determinative. If the coin flip is the most determinative - to the tune of an 8% advantage - the "odds" of winning in overtime come down to the coin flip, which is the 50-50 proposition. In other words, you list out a bunch of factors which you say come into play before the coin flip - but then if the coin flip is the most determinative factor, do the odds before it mean anything?

Basically, all that other stuff you listed out sounds nice and rational, and makes a certain amount of sense. I'd wager that's the sort of thing most coaches are thinking about when they make the "play for OT" decision. But they just don't matter all that much.

That is a good point. Since in the college game the coin-flip makes a pretty small difference, I would guess that other factors may be more important when making the decision. In the NFL it is certainly more influenced by chance, which may influence decision making.

Ultimately I think a lot of coaches use the mindset of "which decision will get me raked over the coals less," or "which decision will prolong the loss for the greatest duration of time." I don't like this approach, but it is easy to criticize when you are not the one getting raked over the coals when aggressive decisions go wrong.

An aggressive mind-set with a great risk-benefit analysis is the best of all worlds (see Bill Belichick). However, there are not a lot of Belichick's out there.

 

[MikeyJoe]

Good article on BHGP about this:

Statistical In-Ferentz, Week 8: On the Horns of a Bielema - Black Heart Gold Pants

The first timeout was probably the right decision, the second timeout after the 12 yard completion was probably a mistake.

 

[DTF]

I agree. I even think Iowa was Team B at the end of regulation vs. Iowa State. The defense had not stopped ISU in eons, I did not have much confidence in them stopping ISU in OT. This is why I also though they should have gone for the 4th-and-short in OT.

I too agree. Plus you're almost guaranteed that ISU isn't going to go for a tie (unless you score a TD and the PAT). That's the whole benefit of playing defense to start OT, you know what it will take to get the 'W'. Based on that 4th and 1, you basically knew what ISU would plan on doing: 1) Iowa FG, ISU goes for the TD; 2) Iowa comes up short, ISU kicks the FG (if they don't stroll in for the TD on accident). Based on the way the defense played the entire second half and OT, why ASSUME ISU could be stopped? Anyone playing little brother in a rivalry game will do whatever it takes to win, not tie. To me, the only conceivable way to guarantee (for the most part) that ISU wouldn't win was with a TD, not a FG.

Wisconsin got on a serious roll offensively at the end of the game. If you stop MSU, you have to pull off your own heroics in the little amount of time you have left in regulation. Let MSU run out the clock and try to continue your newly found offensive prowess.