Thoughts on Biels decision

[hawkfan2679]

You are 100% right that there was a blown call. However, the decision should be analyzed as of the time it was made, not based on what happens (or should have happened) afterwards. As of the time it was made it was the wrong call--the odds just don't support the decision.

The timeout was called after the 2nd down play, which left MSU with a 3rd and 8. It was ON the 3rd down play where the LT should have been whistled for an obvious false start. 1.5 seconds seems like a bit of a stretch, but I rewound my DVR and watched it in slow motion...there were 3-4 "ticks" of my slow motion between the point when the LT moved and when the center's hand began to snap the ball. Particularly costly too, because that LT cut off the backside pursuit on the shovel pass...

Got off track there...Bielema was making his decision (which I'm on record in a couple different threads as liking) based on 3rd and 8 from the MSU 36 yard line. 3rd and 13 could have had MSU rethinking their decision...if they are 3rd and 13, do they throw it, risking an incompletion that stops the clock (and forces them to punt from 5 yards deeper)? Do they go conservative and play for OT and force Bielema to burn the final timeout?

Alas, it doesn't matter because the call wasn't made. It definitely wasn't the perfect scenario...theoretically the call is much easier to make if MSU is back on their own 20. It's much more cut and dried given that field position...I think that MSU's actual field position grayed the area considerably. What I liked about the call is that it is still 3rd and 8 and you are forcing Michigan State to make a play...plus you are sending a message to your team that you think you can get a stop, get the ball back, and try to drive for the winning score. Even if you don't take the ball down the field for a potential game winning FG, I think the "between the ears" impact counts for something.

 

[SpiderRico]

I think you're playing with fire when you are depending on special teams in the last 30 seconds or so of a tie game to make the difference. So that's why I think Biels was wrong in his decision.

If there was enough time to allow your juggernaut of an offense to move down the field into field goal range, then you definitely call those timeouts.

But with 30 seconds left and your only chance to really do anything is to depend on a punt block, a muffed punt or a good return.....your chances are very slim. Play for the overtime and take your chances there.

 

[MikeyJoe]

Trying to drive 50+ yards in under 1:30 is very risky also. If the other team has TO, you risk going 3 and out (like Michigan St. nearly did) and giving the other team a chance to move the ball 30 yards for the win after the punt. So if your odds are 30-40% of driving 50+ yds for a FG, then isn't it better to look at your 50/50 odds in OT?

No. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You don't compare the odds of success vs 50%, you compare the odds of success relative to the odds of failure vs 50%.

In other words, you don't just win or lose. You might go to OT anyway. In your example, your successful drive might only happen 30% of the time, but that doesn't mean that the opponent gets the ball back and scores themselves 70%. Or in this case, you might only get the ball back and score 30% of the time, ut that doesn't mean the offense is going to score 70% of the time if you take the timeout.

That's why I say more likely to win vs lose, not more likely than not to have a successful drive. For example, if you think you'll only get it 10% of the time, but turn the ball over and lose 9% of the time it's still worth it to go for it.

We had this discussion on various message boards after the Ohio State 2009 game. In defense of not trying for the game winning FG, I saw some people point out that Iowa didn't have good kickers that year. So what? They don't automatically award your opponent the victory if you miss a FG.

 

[ThunderHawk]

Would like to everybody's thoughts on Bielema's end of game strategy on Saturday night against MSU. They came back from 14 down to tie the game with about 1:30 left and he decides to be super aggressive and try and get the ball back by calling timeouts on defense.

It ends up working against him as MSU advances the ball past midfield and completes the Hail Mary at the end. If it would have been Iowa, KF would have let MSU run the clock out and gone to OT with all the momentum they just created.

What strategy do you like more?

Idiot move. Cousins had been punking them pretty good, there was no reason to think he couldn't get them into FG position. Once Fat Badger called that first timeout, MSU was pretty much forced to go for it since they didn't want to just sit on the ball and give it back to Wisconsin which had just scored twice on them.

 

[SeattleHawkeye]

Not smart. His reasoning was he thought they had a good chance of returning the punt for a td or blocking the punt and returning it. Seriously, what are the odds of that happening? The last timeout on 3rd and 8 with 30 seconds left was insane. Let it go and go to OT.

The interesting thing is that they should have blocked a punt and almost returned a punt for a TD, both late in the 4th quarter. It's my guess Bielema let those cloud his judgment. Initially I agreed w/ calling the 2nd TO, recalling the prior punt they should have blocked. During the TO I realized if they didn't block it there wouldn't be enough time to get into FG range, and thought he made the wrong decision, as there was just too little to gain.

In general that was a very strange last drive. A couple times MSU came close to having to punt and giving it back to UW. And Cousins fumbled, almost turning it over, losing quite a few yards. It was very interesting thinking MSU should definitely go for it...then that they should probably play for OT...then go for it again. Very interesting scenario w/ the TO's, also.

 

[CP87]

People always need to keep in mind when talking about playing for OT - overtime isn't safe either. You only have a 50% chance to win the game when going to OT, and then the single biggest factor once you get there is who wins the coin flip.

So decisions like this aren't just about the risk of losing or giving up a FG or Hail Mary or whatever - as long as Bielema thought the chance of getting the ball back was better than MSU scoring (even if it was 51% vs 49%) he made the right decision.

Incorrect. Just because it is a dichotomous situation with two possible outcomes, this does not mean that each outcome is equally likely. The sun may explode tomorrow. Or it may not. This does not mean that there is a 50% chance that the sun explodes tomorrow.

But as other posters have said, it is not about your odds of success in regulation vs. your odds of success in OT. It is about the odds of something good happening following that second TO vs. the odds of something bad happening after that second TO. I would put the odds of something good happening at less than 10%. The odds of something bad happening were much greater. The game-winning play was highly unlikely, but MSU had plenty of opportunity to move into FG range before they were forced to attempt the hail mary.

 

[MikeyJoe]

Incorrect. Just because it is a dichotomous situation with two possible outcomes, this does not mean that each outcome is equally likely. The sun may explode tomorrow. Or it may not. This does not mean that there is a 50% chance that the sun explodes tomorrow.

Obviously. LOL at that analogy. Winning in OT is a 50% proposition before the coin flip. Do you think that one team has a better shot to win in OT than the other prior to the coin flip?

But as other posters have said, it is not about your odds of success in regulation vs. your odds of success in OT. It is about the odds of something good happening following that second TO vs. the odds of something bad happening after that second TO. I would put the odds of something good happening at less than 10%. The odds of something bad happening were much greater. The game-winning play was highly unlikely, but MSU had plenty of opportunity to move into FG range before they were forced to attempt the hail mary.

I'm not sure you understand my point if you think you're disagreeing with me.

 

[CP87]

The second part of my post was not in disagreement to anything you said, but rather in support of the point that you and several others had made before. But as I said, I think the odds of something good happening after the second time out were much worse than the odds of something good happening, which would make the decision a poor one. I should have made that more clear.

The odds of winning OT is NOT a 50% proposition prior to the coin-flip. The odds are significantly better for the team with the better overall offense and defense. Just because 2 teams are tied on the score-board at the end of regulation does not mean they are even teams.

As an example, say two teams are tied at 21 at the end of regulation. Team A has moved the ball up and down the field at will, but has lost 3 fumbles and has been terrible in the punt game. Team B's defense has given up 500 yards, and their offense has been stagnant. However, they returned a punt for a TD and scored on a blocked punt.

Team A has a much better than 50% chance to win in OT. They have proven that they are superior on offense and defense. Team B is only in the game because of their punt units, which are completely eliminated in OT, and the fact that they have recovered 3 fumbles (most statisticians agree that recovering fumbles is a chance event that is not related to skill).

Team A should be much less likely to take risks at the end of regulation because they have a better than 50% chance of winning in OT. Team B may decide to go ahead and do what Bielema did (take the shot at blocking a punt) because they know deep down that Team A will ram it down their throats in OT.

At the end of regulation there is always a Team A and a Team B. The difference is not always this striking, but there is usually one team that is better and a second team that has hung around due to luck. I feel like in this game Wisconsin was Team A, although they weren't lightyears ahead of MSU by any means.

 

[theboat]

Incorrect. Just because it is a dichotomous situation with two possible outcomes, this does not mean that each outcome is equally likely. The sun may explode tomorrow. Or it may not. This does not mean that there is a 50% chance that the sun explodes tomorrow.
.

I wanna party with you.

 

[PJHawk]

MikeyJoe please don't respond to CP87 in this thread anymore as you are way out of your league

 

[EMik21]

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone asked this, did Bielema think that Sparty's offense was better than his? Sparty had two special teams plays that led to scores, so it's not like Wisky's defense was giving up a lot of points. I think you play for OT and make them outscore your superior offense, especially since his Defense hasn't had to make a lot of key plays for them yet this year.

 

[Hawkcrush]

Well I will take believing enough in your team to give them a chance to win. Not so hard to look back and see how playing for O.T. can get you beat. Your offense is moving the ball at will, yes give your team a chance. I love K.F. but the opposite mentallity has hurt us in the past. So either way when it doesn't work your screwed. Whats more concerning to me is our clock management at times. It has cost us in the past and looks like it could happen again.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

Everyone is talking about Beilema's aggressive "play to win" approach. But I found DiAntonio's approach, at least initially on that last drive, as aggressive. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Sparty throw the ball on 1st and 2nd down to start that drive? From almost the same field position and time left on the clock and same number of time-outs that KF had back in 2009 at Columbus? Big game sometimes calls for a big, bold approach.

Of course BB helped DiAntonio in this instance. What BB did was not aggressive. Just plain stupid. The odds were not in his favor.

 

[MikeyJoe]

The second part of my post was not in disagreement to anything you said, but rather in support of the point that you and several others had made before. But as I said, I think the odds of something good happening after the second time out were much worse than the odds of something good happening, which would make the decision a poor one. I should have made that more clear.

The odds of winning OT is NOT a 50% proposition prior to the coin-flip. The odds are significantly better for the team with the better overall offense and defense. Just because 2 teams are tied on the score-board at the end of regulation does not mean they are even teams.

As an example, say two teams are tied at 21 at the end of regulation. Team A has moved the ball up and down the field at will, but has lost 3 fumbles and has been terrible in the punt game. Team B's defense has given up 500 yards, and their offense has been stagnant. However, they returned a punt for a TD and scored on a blocked punt.

Team A has a much better than 50% chance to win in OT. They have proven that they are superior on offense and defense. Team B is only in the game because of their punt units, which are completely eliminated in OT, and the fact that they have recovered 3 fumbles (most statisticians agree that recovering fumbles is a chance event that is not related to skill).

Team A should be much less likely to take risks at the end of regulation because they have a better than 50% chance of winning in OT. Team B may decide to go ahead and do what Bielema did (take the shot at blocking a punt) because they know deep down that Team A will ram it down their throats in OT.

At the end of regulation there is always a Team A and a Team B. The difference is not always this striking, but there is usually one team that is better and a second team that has hung around due to luck. I feel like in this game Wisconsin was Team A, although they weren't lightyears ahead of MSU by any means.

That's actually incorrect, specifically because the overtime period in college football is so little like the regular game. You get the ball on the 25 yard line.

This isn't opinion this is based on actual studies of overtime results. Nothing before the OT period is as determinative as the coin flip.

 

[HaydenHawk56]

"The second part of my post was not in disagreement to anything you said, but rather in support of the point that you and several others had made before. But as I said, I think the odds of something good happening after the second time out were much worse than the odds of something good happening, which would make the decision a poor one. I should have made that more clear.

The odds of winning OT is NOT a 50% proposition prior to the coin-flip. The odds are significantly better for the team with the better overall offense and defense. Just because 2 teams are tied on the score-board at the end of regulation does not mean they are even teams.

As an example, say two teams are tied at 21 at the end of regulation. Team A has moved the ball up and down the field at will, but has lost 3 fumbles and has been terrible in the punt game. Team B's defense has given up 500 yards, and their offense has been stagnant. However, they returned a punt for a TD and scored on a blocked punt.

Team A has a much better than 50% chance to win in OT. They have proven that they are superior on offense and defense. Team B is only in the game because of their punt units, which are completely eliminated in OT, and the fact that they have recovered 3 fumbles (most statisticians agree that recovering fumbles is a chance event that is not related to skill).

Team A should be much less likely to take risks at the end of regulation because they have a better than 50% chance of winning in OT. Team B may decide to go ahead and do what Bielema did (take the shot at blocking a punt) because they know deep down that Team A will ram it down their throats in OT.

At the end of regulation there is always a Team A and a Team B. The difference is not always this striking, but there is usually one team that is better and a second team that has hung around due to luck. I feel like in this game Wisconsin was Team A, although they weren't lightyears ahead of MSU by any means"

Wonderful Post CP87. For that same reasoning, I think Iowa was Team B and Ohio St was Team A in the shoe in 09. That is why Iowa should have tried to go down field in regulation. Ohio St had the superior offense and the advantage in OT.

 

[CP87]

That's actually incorrect, specifically because the overtime period in college football is so little like the regular game. You get the ball on the 25 yard line.

This isn't opinion this is based on actual studies of overtime results. Nothing before the OT period is as determinative as the coin flip.

Just because the coin-flip makes a big difference, this does not mean that odds are 50-50 prior to the coin flip (see my previous analogy). Oh well, I guess we can just disagree.

One other thought: is the coin-flip that predictive in college FB? I know it is a huge deal in the pros, but it does not seem like it would be as important with the different rules in college. Could you provide some of the statistics that you were quoting?

 

[CP87]

For that same reasoning, I think Iowa was Team B and Ohio St was Team A in the shoe in 09. That is why Iowa should have tried to go down field in regulation. Ohio St had the superior offense and the advantage in OT.

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.

Another great example is the 2007 Fiesta Bowl between Oklahoma and Boise State. Oklahoma was undoubtedly more talented, and after BSU got up early, Oklahoma was rolling them to the tune of a 25-0 run late in the 3rd Q through most of the 4th. BSU had the great hook-and-lateral to send it into OT. Oklahoma easily scored a TD on the first possession, followed by BSU scoring a TD. BSU went for 2 points. Teams generally convert between 40-50% of the time, depending upon whose stats you look at. But BSU took the risk because they liked that better than continuing to butt heads with Oklahoma in another OT. As we know, it worked out.

 

[CP87]

Just because the coin-flip makes a big difference, this does not mean that odds are 50-50 prior to the coin flip (see my previous analogy). Oh well, I guess we can just disagree.

One other thought: is the coin-flip that predictive in college FB? I know it is a huge deal in the pros, but it does not seem like it would be as important with the different rules in college. Could you provide some of the statistics that you were quoting?

Never mind, I did my own research and came up with this link that provides a theoretical analysis (I couldn't find an empirical analysis). The team that wins the coin flip has a small advantage, getting roughly a 52% chance to win (all other things being equal).

With the old NFL OT rules, the winner of the coin flip had a 57-60% chance to win, depending upon whose numbers you trust. I haven't seen an NFL game go to OT this year, but I believe if the team that gets the ball first kicks a FG, the opposing team gets their own possession (right, or am I just imagining this change?). I am not sure how this will affect the probabilities.

 

[MikeyJoe]

Just because the coin-flip makes a big difference, this does not mean that odds are 50-50 prior to the coin flip (see my previous analogy). Oh well, I guess we can just disagree.

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.

 

[woodyk1]

Never mind, I did my own research and came up with this link that provides a theoretical analysis (I couldn't find an empirical analysis). The team that wins the coin flip has a small advantage, getting roughly a 52% chance to win (all other things being equal).

With the old NFL OT rules, the winner of the coin flip had a 57-60% chance to win, depending upon whose numbers you trust. I haven't seen an NFL game go to OT this year, but I believe if the team that gets the ball first kicks a FG, the opposing team gets their own possession (right, or am I just imagining this change?). I am not sure how this will affect the probabilities.

The NFL rule change for OT (if 1st team gets FG, other team gets a possession) is for the playoffs only. The regular season is still the old OT rules currently. Here's an article referencing how the NFL refs did not know this earlier this year (at least according to the Lions' coach).

Jim Schwartz helps remind officials of overtime rules following Lions' win over Vikings | MLive.com