UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Say he falls down at the 1. You figure the chances of kicking a field goal vs. time left and Duke kicking a field goal. Say he scores (obviously he did). You figure the chances of Duke scoring a TD with their allotted time left.

The percentages favored him falling down at the 1. But where analytics fall short is game flow.

I hope you aren't defending him on this one.

You DO NOT take guaranteed 6 points off the board, to maybe put 3 points on the board, when trailing.

By scoring the TD we instantly made Duke have to drive entire field and score TD to win and opened up the opportunity to make a two point conversation to make Duke have to score a TD +extra point just to tie.

If we fall at 1 Duke potentially has to do nothing to win, we bobble snap or shank kick, game over, we lose.

The thought of trading 6 guaranteed points (plus 1-2 maybe points) for 3 maybe points is beyond stupid.

I'm sorry, I've been trying to give him the benefit of a doubt due to heat of the moment decisions, etc...but if he's too clueless now, looking back, to realize that analytic needs to be crumpled up and thrown in the trash, then we hired the wrong F'ing dude. That type of thinking will lose us games...

And I clearly said analytics can't take game flow into account. Also add emotion.

If the analytics say when you're trailing by 1, to forego the sure 6 pts (plus maybe 1-2) to kneel at 1 and go for maybe 3 points, they are broken plain and simple.

Passing on sure points to go for maybe points is the surest way to lose football games.

You score a TD with 31 seconds to go, as Estime did. You kick the extra point or fail to get the 2-point conversion. The other team has, say, a 6% chance to score a TD and win the game, so your chances of winning are now 94%. If you go for 2 and get it, other team may now have a 4% chance of winning, and yours are now 96%. Combined we're looking at about a 95% chance of winning if Estime scores a TD.

You fall down at the 1. Duke has 3 timeouts left and has to burn one. You run 3 more plays, and let the clock run down to maybe 3 seconds left, Duke has no timeouts left. Your kicker kicks what basically is an extra point and he makes these 97% of the time, so you have a 97% chance of winning doing it this way. And 97% > 95%.

Maybe Duke's chances of scoring a TD and winning in OT were less than 3%, but that's undoubtedly low. So Freeman is right, the analytics dictated ND would have a better chance of winning had Estime fallen down at the 1.

This is not hard to understand. But as I said, analytics doesn't take into account game flow. Maybe Shrader in this tense situation is only 85-90%, who knows? Either way, ND had a great chance to win at this point.

that would sway it the other way and I never mentioned game flow, that was you.

But none of that matters..the only thing that matters is FGs, even from extra point distance, are not guaranteed and there is NO math that makes 3 unguaranteed points greater than 6 guaranteed points.

I'll say it again since it's not sinking in...taking sure points off the board when trailing for the hope of future points is the surest way to lose games.

I'm talking the exact same analytics any stats guy would tell you.

It's not a situation where unguaranteed 3 points are greater than guaranteed 6 points. The question is, what gives you the better chance to win?

You should! It's a losing battle.

As you said at the very beginning 'common sense'.

What gives you the best chance to win, when trailing with 31 seconds on the clock, is to leave the guaranteed points on the scoreboard not take them off and lay the whole game on the hope nothing goes wrong on the kick, just because some stupid analytics sheet tells you to.

There's a million things that could go wrong on the kick that the analytics don't and can't take into consideration. False start..did we have any of those? Personal foul? Bull rushed OL on their back. The list could go on and on...the flaw with the analytics is it assumes the kick gets made, but this isn't Tecmo Bowl and in the real would you do not take points that regained the lead off the board.

We don't need a head coach if that's the case, we can have you or me stand out there and say 'well this is what the analytics say to do' and lose a shit ton of games.

Analytics sheets aren't meant to be used as the rule, they are a guide to help make decisions when on the fence. This isn't a situation where taking a knee at the one should have even been considered.

NOTE: something to consider

I bet those same analytics would say to kick the FG on 3rd down instead of 4th. So that means we would have given ball back to them with close to 30 seconds, no timeouts but only up by 2.

(no message)

for example, let's switch it up. Let's say we were stopped on 3rd down trailing by 1 with 31 seconds left and kick the FG, make it, go up by 2, but there's a defensive penalty that gives us first down at the 1 IF we accept and take the points off the board to go back to trailing by 1.

You decline that penalty and leave the points on the board.

Then there is reality. You don't take away guaranteed points and leave open the possibility that something could go wrong. You fall down at the one ONLY if you already have the lead. Otherwise, make the other team beat you and not risk beating yourself. Hope someone talks some common sense into him.

In the real World this is how coaches lose games (and jobs).

Someone needs to talk to him for real.

late against OSU. ND would probably be undefeated right now.

(no message)

(no message)