Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

I hope you are driving at coaches playing for FGs far too often, which I agree with


otherwise....I have no clue

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

So much depends on the skill level and tendencies of the League. We don't know if you're talking NFL, CFB, or, hell, HSFB. Answers would differ if you were talking about Pac10 or C-USA.

But, why not:

25
35
8

Not really sure what you're driving at.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ 'another'

the first one still rests on very questionable assumptions

[/ QUOTE ]
like?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

Let's play a new game, odds that Sklansky replies in this thread? I say 90% that he starts a new one.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

I guess I just remember the times it succeeds, but it seems as though teams get decents looks on field goals in this situation.

1. High Teens %
2. Mid to High 30's
3. Very rarely like 3-5% I guess

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.

This probably might become more interesting if the team with the ball is trailing by 1 instead.
Again, it's 2nd and 1 on the 10 with 1:40 left and the defending team has no time-outs.

If you let him score a TD right now then you get the ball back with about 1:30 left trailing by either 5 or 7.
If you stop them from getting a FG then you will get the ball back with about :15 left trailing by 2.

Has to be better chances with the first option.

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
similar ideas of 'not wanting to score too quickly' have been tossed around before but I'm not sure a team has actually intentionally allowed a team to score to get the ball back.




[/ QUOTE ]

Packers/Bronco's Superbowl?

Re: Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?
 

[ QUOTE ]
no idea what you're driving at here.

I was thinking of a different math-football thing and will mention it here instead of in a new thread:

Team is up by 7. 2nd and 1 on the opposing 10 with 1:40 left.
Team that is trailing has no time-outs left.

It's my contention that the team that is losing should allow the winning team to score a TD right now if they will take it.
If winning team gets a 1st down they can run the clock out.
If losing team is able to stop them on 2nd and 1 and 3rd and 1 then the winning team will kick a FG to take a 10 point lead and the trailing team will get the ball back with about 10 or 15 seconds I think.

Trying to score 10 points in 15 seconds has to be more difficult than trying to score 14 points in almost 1:40. Both are really unlikely of course but the 2nd one is at least somewhat possible.

Of course, if the attacking team was especially smart then the runner would get the first down and then would fall down shy of the end-zone while the other team is trying to let him score.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea is much more applicable when a team is up by one and either the defense stupidly doesn't allow the team to score or the offense stupidly goes in for a TD instead of falling down.

Edit: Washington appeared to have done this against the Eagles earlier this year when they were down by 1 after a turnover and smartly let Westbrook run it in from the 10.