Post here when coaches do something obviously stupid

[Case Closed]

Since we are on the topic, I think it would be sick if the Colts just went the rest of the season going for 2 after every touchdown unless they are in certain situations.

[MicroBob]

sooner or later there has to be SOME team out there that figures it out.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
sooner or later there has to be SOME team out there that figures it out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever brought math into a conversation with a run of the mill sports fan? I mentioned statistical variance to some of my brighter friends during a football game and they were like no way there is no place for math in this. Hell, it's surprising how many people don't get the concept of results oriented thinking.

[jgunnip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sooner or later there has to be SOME team out there that figures it out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever brought math into a conversation with a run of the mill sports fan? I mentioned statistical variance to some of my brighter friends during a football game and they were like no way there is no place for math in this. Hell, it's surprising how many people don't get the concept of results oriented thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've tried doing this with some peers at a University widely considered to be a top notch school of high education. I've written out the math for them, tried explaining it in less complicated terms, done the whole variance shpeel, but the conversation always comes down to two points. 1) Statistics don't take into account "intangibles" like home field advantage and momentum, and 2) When it comes down to it, no coach in the NFL is going to go against conventional wisdom when their job is on the line thus they'll never do this.

I've gotten some friends to agree that in a theoretical sense going for two down 8 is correct, but they still aren't sold.

However, I think it is more correct to do it in the NFL where possession in OT is determined by a coin flop whereas in college skill level does come into play much more.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sooner or later there has to be SOME team out there that figures it out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever brought math into a conversation with a run of the mill sports fan? I mentioned statistical variance to some of my brighter friends during a football game and they were like no way there is no place for math in this. Hell, it's surprising how many people don't get the concept of results oriented thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]



we're not talking about the average sports fan though. We're talking about a coach or coaching staff that is sharp enough to 'get it'.
I agree the pressure from media and fans is high. But I'm just saying that sooner or later it's going to have to happen somewhere. They can't keep making the same mistakes forever just because it's the old-school way of doing things. Somebody is going to get it at some point. Perhaps at the high-school or small-college level or something. But it will happen and it might just grow from there.

IMO, there are some coaches out there who are open-minded and experimental enough to try this at the NCAA level.
Not a ton of course. But there are a handful who might be smart enough to 'get it' and also be willing to implement it.

One guy I would have loved to have sat down and tried to chat about this stuff with is the late Terry Hoeppner formerly of Indiana and Miami, Ohio.
I don't know if he would have quite gotten it. But I think there was a slight chance with him.

Some of these guys are always looking at different ideas and different ways of approaching the problem. Having the 2ndary cover in a different way that can confuse the other team's QB. They meet with a couple other coaches to discuss in detail the different things they are doing.
Stuff like that.

The guys not afraid to experiment who are trying to build up some losing program like an Indiana or something are the kinds of guys who just might be able to pull off something like this.

Math geeks have flooded into baseball now and I think it has changed the game a bit as a result. The innovative GM's are actually listening to these guys. Mistakes are still being made all over the place of course but the fact is that the math people are not being completely ignored.

Football seems to be changing all the time. It's pretty different than it was 15 yrs ago or 25 yrs ago, etc etc.
At some point there will be a realization that the high chance of converting on the 2-pointer after the TD needs to be looked at much more closely.

At some point in the future such a new thing could end up being not that much different to the public than some underdog basketball team that fires up a bunch of 3-pointers to stay in a game instead of going for mostly 2-pointers.

[Triumph36]

bob - I just don't see it. The minor increase in gameEV doesn't justify the decrease in jobEV.

[kidcolin]

I don't think you'll see the breakthrough begin in the pro level. The risk is too much. But some I-AA teams in college? Sure. If that gets the ball rolling eventually you'll see it make its way up to the pro level.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'll see the breakthrough begin in the pro level. The risk is too much. But some I-AA teams in college? Sure. If that gets the ball rolling eventually you'll see it make its way up to the pro level.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you need is a combination of a coach with untouchable tenure and an innovative, open-minded approach. Its obvious why this is a rare combination. For him to have an iron-clad job with no risk of being fired, he has to have had some serious success over time. This means he will be a) old and b) confident that his system works...which it does. There is very little incentive for this guy to be innovative. Its not impossible, just rare.

Plus jocks are dumb ldo.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
bob - I just don't see it. The minor increase in gameEV doesn't justify the decrease in jobEV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is the succinct version of my long-ass post.

[kidcolin]

vhawk,

Couple of points. As mentioned before, the transition doesn't have to start at the pro level, where I agree, the money is too huge to risk getting run out of town.

Point two: baby steps. Some coaches are already smartening up about going for it in situations like 4th and 3 on the opp's 45. That can grow to drastically reducing the amount of punts attempted and it eventually becomes standard practice. It need not be one guy who comes in and always goes for two, never punts on 4th and <5, and doesn't kick field goals on 4th and <2 inside the 20.