Why did we kick a field goal instead of going for it?
- Thread starter Judoka
- Start date
I wouldn't call it playing not to lose, it's not like he punted.
I'm pretty confident he did choose the option that would give him the lesser amount of average points scored. He also did something that 95% of coaches would do in that situation.
Exactly. By going up by 6 Texas had no option but to go agressive with their playcalling.
The previous 4 Texas drives were 2 punts and 2 fumbles and almost no yardage gained, AND we actually forced what should have been a fumble on the game winning drive. Easily the right call, anyone that thinks otherwise is playing too much NCAA 14.
Lets recall every play of the game and say we should have done something different because we would have won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Exactly. So what's the risk in giving them the ball on the five yard line when the upside is you score a touchdown and seal the game? They have to drive down the field and will be willing to settle for a field goal if they are able to drive.
Doesn't matter where they get it. 6 point lead LARGER than 3 point lead at that point.
It has nothing to do with ncaa 14, it's math. One of you stat nerds could calculate the exact odds if you wanted but from reading the advanced stats guys at football outsiders and on grantland I'm pretty confident going for it was the correct play call as far as expected averages go.
Again though, 95% of coaches would have kicked the fieldgoal because it's the safe route in terms of media criticism.
95% of coaches kick the field goal because they understand the odds in football, and also do not expect their team to allow a late drive for 7.
Exactly my thoughts. I don't think ill ever trust our kicking game, and it made me really nervous to think it might come down to a 50+ kick to win.
Because it's going to be harder to keep them out of field goal range than it is to keep them out of the endzone, it sounds like you would rather us play for overtime? I'd rather put our defense in a position to do what it had done the entire 4th quarter for a chance to win us the ballgame rather than for a chance to save overtime.
Coaches are not thinking of criticism at that point. They are thinking 6 > 3 at that point. It really is, that simple. And, I know the grantland story. It didn't do a good job of taking into account time of game and momentum because Barnwell doesn't believe in MO.
Going for it would be playing to win and settling for likely OT if it doesn't work. Instead we settled for praying we don't lose.
Setting for OT doesn't sound like playing to win. Going up 6 and trusting defense (even though it didn't work) is playing to win.
This too, crossed my mind. I still don't understand why isu always has to line up in thre pistole/spread no matter the situation
