Started By
Message
If you were a HC, would you be base your decisions on analytics or fundamentals?
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:05 pm
going back to the 2pt conversion that failed in the Fla/Tenn game.
“This is one of those paths you go down where a lot of people don't understand, but we're going to base our decision-making off of research and evidence and true facts and numbers,” he later continued. “So it is what it is.”
The math is quite simple: go for two and you position yourself to win the game with a touchdown, point-after kick and field goal. And with his team playing on the road in front of a reported attendance of just under 102,000 people and having already conceded over 500 yards of total offense to the Volunteers, Napier wasn’t playing to send the game to overtime.
“There's two avenues, when you really dig into the numbers, about the approach there,” Napier said. “First of all, you start talking about playing for a tie, right? When you're on the road, there's a slight advantage for the home team in overtime, and there's certainly a bigger advantage when you're a two-score favorite. I think it's around 63 percent advantage if you're the home team playing overtime, and you're a two score favorite. So that goes into your decision-making.”
Do you say:
"i'm gonna play for overtime because that's what anybody else would do, and i don't want to look like an idiot."
Or:
"frick it, we're on the road and favored to lose. let's go for the win in regulation."
i'm not sure i would know what to do. i don't think i would even think of analytics either before or during a game.
here's another scenario. take the Fla/Mizzou game last year. Drinkwits goes for two in OT when he could've tied it. he converts it for the win. smart or dumb decision?
“This is one of those paths you go down where a lot of people don't understand, but we're going to base our decision-making off of research and evidence and true facts and numbers,” he later continued. “So it is what it is.”
The math is quite simple: go for two and you position yourself to win the game with a touchdown, point-after kick and field goal. And with his team playing on the road in front of a reported attendance of just under 102,000 people and having already conceded over 500 yards of total offense to the Volunteers, Napier wasn’t playing to send the game to overtime.
“There's two avenues, when you really dig into the numbers, about the approach there,” Napier said. “First of all, you start talking about playing for a tie, right? When you're on the road, there's a slight advantage for the home team in overtime, and there's certainly a bigger advantage when you're a two-score favorite. I think it's around 63 percent advantage if you're the home team playing overtime, and you're a two score favorite. So that goes into your decision-making.”
Do you say:
"i'm gonna play for overtime because that's what anybody else would do, and i don't want to look like an idiot."
Or:
"frick it, we're on the road and favored to lose. let's go for the win in regulation."
i'm not sure i would know what to do. i don't think i would even think of analytics either before or during a game.
here's another scenario. take the Fla/Mizzou game last year. Drinkwits goes for two in OT when he could've tied it. he converts it for the win. smart or dumb decision?
6
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:09 pm to finchmeister08
Billy played the whole game like he was fighting for a punchers chance. His game philosophy was to try to steal as many possessions as possible.
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:14 pm to finchmeister08
I agree with Florida's approach. The traditional approach would not have gone for so many 4th down conversions, but those decisions are why it was a game. The 2pt attempts were based on the expected scoring from the Vols. He coached a good game. His defense needed to either bring pressure or prevent wide open receivers. You can't allow both to happen.
This post was edited on 9/27/22 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:15 pm to finchmeister08
Your paid to make the best decision ysing both.
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:20 pm to finchmeister08
I think there is a balance. I think statistics are helpful, but at the end of the day a coach has to know how his players are performing and if they can execute instead of just referring to "in 69% of the time in this situation, you increase your chances of winning if you do X."
There is a human element in football more than any other sport I think, and especially with 18-22 year old young men who may be distracted by something going on back home or something else. No Visio chart with percentages is going to give you the right answer every time in that situation.
There is a human element in football more than any other sport I think, and especially with 18-22 year old young men who may be distracted by something going on back home or something else. No Visio chart with percentages is going to give you the right answer every time in that situation.
Posted on 9/27/22 at 6:24 pm to finchmeister08
It’s only a bad decision when it doesn’t work.
But to answer your question. I would probably use both. I’d want it to be a little more overwhelming though, like 80%.
But to answer your question. I would probably use both. I’d want it to be a little more overwhelming though, like 80%.
Posted on 9/27/22 at 7:01 pm to finchmeister08
Yes.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News