To defer or not??
- Thread starter longtimer
- Start date
I think it is like a batting lineup (our offense) seeing a pitcher (their defense). The more times through the order, the better your chances of figuring things out. They want to see how the D is going to respond to certain formations right away and then get to working solving the puzzle.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
I remember in the early Kirk years we would almost exclusively take the ball if we won the toss. Then during a stretch it seemed as if we would kick and now the last few seasons, it seems he’s back to taking the ball. Maybe it just seemed that way.
I would rather have them defer. Our defense usually takes one drive to adjust to the game so get it over with. Also, I like getting the kickoff to begin the 2nd half. And if you're lucky, you scored a TD or a FG with under a minute left in the 1st half and that builds real momentum.
I am in the camp that this decision makes absolutely zero difference in the outcome of the game. Each game, you start one half with the ball. If its the first, you get a jump start in figuring out their defensive gameplan. If its the 2nd, you get a jump start in figuring out their halftime adjustments. This is one of those things that people debate and act like it makes a difference, but it is just a bunch of wanking around.
HawkeyeHypnosis
Well-Known Member
It definitely can make a difference. Every decision after the coin toss can leave a mark on a game.
I used to think I had statistical data that would warrant deferring. There's slightly fewer plays in a game after they changed that clock rule a few years back. In theory, enough fewer plays could add up to one less possession. Second half usually has less possessions/plays.
But I still can't see any real practical way to play that out and can think of a jillion other factors that have far greater impact.
Certainly, I think having a less than ideal offense had an impact on some of that deferral stretch.
Frankly, I think playing with a lead is always beneficial. Sure, the other team might have to go a little harder. But I think in college football....going a little harder and trying a little harder....can result in negative results. It's kind of like if I were a third base coach. I would almost ALWAYS send the runner. So many things have to happen. Outfielder has to catch/field the ball. They have to transfer it and make a clean throw to the cut-off man who has to catch/field it. Transfer it and make a throw online to the catcher, who has to catch/field it and apply the tag. That's a lot of things that have to happen right. Also a lot of things that when you throw in a little urgency and duress that will go wrong more often than not.
And if you trust your defense...to lead off the game, why wouldn't you trust (especially a Phil Parker defense) to get the job done coming out of the half?
I was not in your camp.
Am now.
Lovely camp. Orderly. Well laid out. Nice tents. Great fire. Want some more beans Mr. Taggart, sir?
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
He used to take the ball all the time early in his tenure. I actually feel lately (last few yrs) he's been prone to defer more often.
I prefer taking the ball, unless there is a huge wind or weather implications. I like the chance of setting the tone early and maybe controlling the LOS. In addition, it ensures you at least an extra possession. It's always nice to go on a 11-12 play drive to start the game and score. leaving the other team with their first possession with 7:12 on the clock and few offensive drives in the first Q. Have them stand on the sideline for half the first Q.
The 2002 team was notorious for always taking the ball and they almost always scored on the first drive it seems, setting the tone. If you don't feel comfortable taking the ball on the flip, you have more issues with your team than that decision, IMO.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Yes, I agree, there is that strategic play that can be controlled with winning the tip.
But there is absolutely no way to predict in advance HOW it will make a difference, so why worry?
Just part of the strategy of a game like going on 4th and 1 from the 50. I guess I like to have my best group out there first and that’s Defense for Iowa. Especially when they are starting a first time QB and the crowd is in a frenzy. Here might be times when weather or other things might change the strategy but I like deferring and getting the ball to start second half. Probably most coaches would agree but Ferentz isn’t one of them
Fryowa
Administrator
Lots of was to look at it.
Winning the toss you can decide on which end you defend, which in Kinnick IMO is a huge advantage. Myself, if I win the toss I'm placing the opponent having to try to score 4th Q in the north endzone every time. PSU and Indiana games the past few years this has made a game winning difference. In 21 if you erase the 40 yds of false starts form PSU including the 3 in a row, we probably lose that game. It's sooooo much louder on that end. If the wind is blustery either north or south that's obvious as well.
If crowd noise isn't a factor I'm choosing to defer in case I have offensive momentum going into halftime. That's the only time of the game it's possible to score and finish a drive and turn right around to do it again without a turnover which is out of your control for the most part.
The end of the game is more important than the beginning because with every minute that passes you have less time remaining to score and make up for mistakes. Thus, I want to control as much as possible (even if it's just a couple percent more) in the 2nd half as possible. I want to put my opponent in an area of the stadium in the 4th quarter that will cause miscommunication and false starts, and I also want to have the ball as much as possible. Having the ball as much as possible starts with having it first in the 3rd quarter.
I've read a couple academic studies that said in college and NFL games the coin toss winner has won 52-53% of all games so while it's debatable what to do when you win the toss, 2% is huge when were talking about really good teams. It's more important to me to win the toss regardless of what I do with my choice.
Oh....
Fascinating.
This sent me into an IMMEDIATE rabbit hole. I love numbers. Since I don't really know the actual gears of "football" in terms of what goes on 6 days out of the week and most weeks out of the year. I have no idea what it's like to be suited up and on the field. When I can, I like to go with numbers and data, because there's enough data to overcome my lack of knowledge/experience.
So...yeah...2-3% advantage for teams that win the toss. In the NFL.
Goes up to 54.9% for teams that win the toss and defer in the NFL. Almost 5%
I could not find specific data on college. There's a few studies out there. One just shows a statistical but modest advantage (which I would guess would be 2-3%)
Another study showed a 5% advantage for college for the coin toss winner, again, similar to the NFL. But it didn't say what percent were deferring. It might be quite a bit.
But since 2014, NFL teams were deferring at a clip of 68%.
There's no actual data I could find on college rates of deferring other than suggesting it was quite high. I found that hard to believe. Deferring at a higher rate in college wouldn't surprise me. Because as you note....wind/crowd...which probably have a bigger effect in college than NFL stadiums in aggregate.
Also, as you said. It's the only way to score twice without giving the other team possession (other than some flukey kick off fumble or something). And, according to the data, this happens 12% of the time in the NFL. Which is just below the average for scoring on consecutive possession as a whole. I think scoring twice without the other team having a chance absolutely can have an unmeasurable impact. Other than, teams that defer and have a chance to do that win at a ~5% higher clip.
I've been ambivalent about it. Because I'm also in camp of "score first. You're playing with a lead." And the more you have that lead, the more the other team has to potentially play differently than they would like to. Again, unmeasurable. But teams that score first do win 64-65% of the time. That being said, the percentage that teams (NFL is only data I have) that score on the opening drive is actually 3% or more LOWER than the average percentage of scoring on any given drive.
So....I am no longer ambivalent.
-Up to a 5% overall average of winning if you defer.
-First team to score has a significant +15% overall chance of winning.
-Teams have a lower chance of scoring on their opening drive than "regular" drives.
No need to debate the nuance or football stuff I don't know about like "momentum" or "playing with a lead" or having to change the way you play when trailing. Or Crowd/wind and consecutive possessions.
The numbers are clear. Especially if you have a quality defense.
DEFER!!!!
Unrelated footnote. The advantage of deferring for OT is exceptionally high. You know what you have to do. Plus any other benefits if you can choose endzones. I don't even know if they switch endzones. Either way, I think the value of knowing what you have to do is way better. Whoever goes first almost has to go with a kick 4th and 2 at the 20.
That is a nice summary of your analysis.
With the bolded part, this relates even more to Iowa. Our offense isn't really the type of offense to come out firing on all cylinders. It just seems to me when you have a very good defense, and a pretty slow starting offense, why not defer?
