To defer or not??

[dagdaj]

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?

I admit, I was kind of shocked by that. Not shocked. More shocked that this isn't all common knowledge. And seeing that is what really put me over the top and wiped out any ambivalence I had. I'd really love to know the actual data for college. Especially knowing that offenses are highly scripted in the early going of games in college it seems it might have an even stronger impact.

I know there's coaches who have tried with limited success taking numbers games out to their max. Going for it on 4th anytime you're near midfield. Frequent onside kicks/etc. Or even in basketball doing the Grinnell thing.

But I don't think there's a whole lot of data that shows that kind of stuff works when you deploy it regularly and all the time.

I think the numbers that an amateur numbers guy like me can see (assuming it's all valid data)....it's clear as day. Regardless of the qualifiable things (wind/crowd). That data is in the quantifiable 5%. That's literally a +1 win a year figuring that you only win the toss 50% of the time. Probably MORE if you consider that a 5% bump doesn't help you in the same way against OSU as it does Minnesota.

Something else coming in to play that I just dug around on. Home field advantage is a 6-7% bump. And you figure you lose the coin toss 50% of the time. The deferral is worth almost half of home field advantage.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

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?

It also kind of depends on your team makeup which can change in college. For example, when Tory Taylor was here or when Iowa has a very solid punt game, one can argue that they could take the chance at taking the ball when winning the coin toss. Not I admit, Iowa's offense and QB play was not the best in that era, but I am just making a point about how a team can afford to take the ball with great special teams.
I mean, take the ball and if the offense can get 30 yards and if have to punt, you could have a punter who could pin the other team inside the 5-10 yrd line. You will field position from the start and set the tone.

I also think there is a legit point about taking the ball in the 2nd half, but the point about giving a team consecutive possessions (end of first half & start of 2nd) is moot. That is not always guaranteed and prob happens 50% of the time.

The NFL for years has the team winning the toss taking the ball first. I presume there is a reason for that, but college and the college atmospheres is different than in the NFL so I get it.

 

[CP87]

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.

Surprised by that, thanks for sharing the data.

 

[dagdaj]

I also think there is a legit point about taking the ball in the 2nd half, but the point about giving a team consecutive possessions (end of first half & start of 2nd) is moot. That is not always guaranteed and prob happens 50% of the time.

Yah, I never saw the data as to how often it happens. In the NFL I just got that 12% stat.


Which....I wish I was a better math/stats guy.

On average, counting all teams, an NFL team has a 34-37% chance of scoring on any given possession.
Teams in the NFL score on the last possession of the 1st and the first possession of the third 12% of the time. I don't know if that 12% is for teams that GET the ball twice in a row. Or if it's 12% of all games.

If it's 12% of all games, then it's starting to look statistically significant. 34% of 50-50....coming up with 12%? Figuring that sometimes they're only getting the ball at the end of the second with :05 left? That would mean an even bigger advantage.

It's got to be 12% when they actually "get it twice in a row". Which would mean, it's not that big of a deal. In fact, a little bit less of a deal in that the opening drive in the third, appears to be a bit like the opening drive at the beginning of the game. Slightly less than the average scoring per possession.

Man, I love this stuff. I would like to say if I could go back to college I would get into statistics and maybe data analysis. Or even actuary. But no way. I am just not good enough at math. Fascinated by it, yes. Dedicated enough to do it? Nope. Not by a longshot. I'd go back to become an occupational therapist. I've come to find that a good OT is worth their weight in gold and can add soo much to quality of life.

Or I'd just be a wedding planner. I think I'd be terrific at that. Except for the dealing with people and detail juggling. I'm more of an ideas man.