At what point in the game is a TO worth more than 35 seconds on the clock?

[Crusty]

I started to thank that if your offense is really ineffective, especially in the passing game, there must be a point where the ability to run an extra play (by avoiding a spike), becomes more important than saving 35 seconds on the clock. If there is more than say 3 minutes on the clock, does it really makes sense to use your last TO to stop the clock with 3rd and long coming up? I wonder.

 

[Millhouse]

I started to thank that if your offense is really ineffective, especially in the passing game, there must be a point where the ability to run an extra play (by avoiding a spike), becomes more important than saving 35 seconds on the clock. If there is more than say 3 minutes on the clock, does it really makes sense to use your last TO to stop the clock with 3rd and long coming up? I wonder.

totally agree.

it's just something they do, they don't actually think about percentages.

 

[Halfmooncuse]

If you make a decision to take a time out please take it before thye clock starts. In the game against Pitt the last time out was taken after 7 seconds was started on the clock. SU would have had another 7 seconds to play if needed. Ironically it was not needed as a runner ran out of bounds after a two yard gain in a effort to save time so that we could throw two incomplete passes and give ball to Pitt with about 1 minute plus left.

 

[Crusty]

If you make a decision to take a time out please take it before thye clock starts. In the game against Pitt the last time out was taken after 7 seconds was started on the clock. SU would have had another 7 seconds to play if needed. Ironically it was not needed as a runner ran out of bounds after a two yard gain in a effort to save time so that we could throw two incomplete passes and give ball to Pitt with about 1 minute plus left.

That is exactly what I was thinking. The difference between 3 minutes without a TO and 2:25 (or even 1:49) with one TO is a very interesting decision.

We called TO with 2:52 left and Pitt had 3rd and 19 - a passing down. An incomplete pass stops the clock at maybe 2:36 and a completed pass is probably a first down and the game is effectively over. (Perhaps, if we did not call TO and the clock ran down to 2:24 (remember we stopped the clock 7 seconds late) Pitt would not have passed and then they would have run another 35 seconds off and we get the ball at 1:49) at our 44 with one TO left.

So, the worst case is that we get the ball at our 44 with 1:49 or so remaining and one TO left. Is that not enough time to get into FG range (whatever that is for us)? With one TO left the play calling options are so much greater. As it was we ran 9 plays and left 1:01 on the clock.

It seems to me that using the last TO with 3 minutes left did not seem like the correct decision to me.

 

[FortyFourCT]

I think the TO with 3 minutes left was the correct call 100% of the time.

Look at it this way, by not calling the TO, Pitt bleeds the entire play clock. If we save the timeout to stop the clock ourselves, how much time are we saving? Not the whole play clock because when on offense we control how quickly we snap the ball. Even with our slow hurry up offense, we still get the snaps off with more than 1 second left, so it is a net savings of time. With 3 minutes in college, you don't need a timout. The clock stops on first downs. The whole playbook was open to us. We just didn't play call or execute properly, but it was the right use of the timeout.

 

[JoeSU]

I think the TO with 3 minutes left was the correct call 100% of the time.

Look at it this way, by not calling the TO, Pitt bleeds the entire play clock. If we save the timeout to stop the clock ourselves, how much time are we saving? Not the whole play clock because when on offense we control how quickly we snap the ball. Even with our slow hurry up offense, we still get the snaps off with more than 1 second left, so it is a net savings of time. With 3 minutes in college, you don't need a timout. The clock stops on first downs. The whole playbook was open to us. We just didn't play call or execute properly, but it was the right use of the timeout.

I agree. You're much more in control of the clock on offense.
Another rationale for the TO is that it allows the coaches to make sure the defense is prepared for whatever the Pitt offense might throw at them on 3rd and long, remind the players not to commit a dumb personal foul, hold, etc. that results in an automatic 1st down, and maybe give them a short blow. If the D doesn't make that stop, its game, set & match.

 

[Alsacs]

I laugh when any team calls a TO to avoid a delay of game penalty. Unless its the first half the value of a TO is worth WAY MORE THAN 5 yards. When those 5 yards a minor inconvenience if your offense has any semblance of being decent.

Now a team like Syracuse any 5 yard penalty for me automatically feels like a drive killer because our offense is so bad that I am amazed honestly when doing anything good and its just because of how we have executed thus far through 11 games its not the talent as much as the execution.

 

[Crusty]

I think the TO with 3 minutes left was the correct call 100% of the time.

Look at it this way, by not calling the TO, Pitt bleeds the entire play clock. If we save the timeout to stop the clock ourselves, how much time are we saving? Not the whole play clock because when on offense we control how quickly we snap the ball. Even with our slow hurry up offense, we still get the snaps off with more than 1 second left, so it is a net savings of time. With 3 minutes in college, you don't need a timout. The clock stops on first downs. The whole playbook was open to us. We just didn't play call or execute properly, but it was the right use of the timeout.

Yes , I get that line of thinking. Bear with me for a moment. Obviously, the value of the seconds relative to the value of the TO go up as time ticks down but the crossover point must have something to do with the estimated minimum time required to get into scoring range (in this case FG range). So, if only a FG is needed, less time is required and the seconds have less value (vs TO) than if a TD is needed. That seems indisputable. So, the question seems to me to be how much time is needed without a TO to score what is required FG or TD.

The most they could bleed the play clock was 70 seconds (63 if you count the lost 7). So, obviously you wouldn't call your last TO with say 5 minutes left or even 4. I am not so sure you do it with three either.

We are not a seasoned vetern offense and that wasn't Nassib back there. Had it been I wouldn't have thought much about this.

I raise the question for a couple of reasons. First, I think the play calling in that last series was really bad and I think it had something to do with the fact that newbie coaches did not have time to think when things did not go according to plan. It seemed frenzied and not well practiced. A year from now maybe things are different but this time I was left with a real question in my mind about the value of a TO to clear the head and get feedback etc.

Secondly, had we got into FG range and we had a muffed snap we would have had no way to stop the clock even if we were attempting on third down.

You are probably right but I got this bad feeling when it happened and I still wonder.

 

[upperdeck]

the TO call was correct.. however by waiting until half the play clock was gone to use it you might as well save it.

 

[Crusty]

the TO call was correct.. however by waiting until half the play clock was gone to use it you might as well save it.

OK, but why? I am looking for some reasoning. And at what point is it not - 4 minutes? 5 minutes?

 

[retro44]

OK, but why? I am looking for some reasoning. And at what point is it not - 4 minutes? 5 minutes?

easy...I think the staff gets overly conservative in tight situations. other than penn st. no game has come down to the last possesion

 

[Crusty]

easy...I think the staff gets overly conservative in tight situations. other than penn st. no game has come down to the last possesion

OK, I buy that. Inexperience is certainly a factor in all these things.

There are several coaching decisions that seem like toss ups but in reality should be based on better criteria. 2 point conversions is the classic. The real issue is the probability of conversion both passing or rushing for your team. The probability of a one point conversion is less than 100% - 98% in the NFL, so, a 2 point conversion probability of something less than 50% is break even. Add to that injuries, replacement kicker, weather, etc. and going for 2 every time becomes a better decision. I am just saying that the conservative, conventional decision, especially in college football, may be the wrong one for many teams, even early in the game.

Fourth and short is a bit more complicated but I think the conservative decision is not always the correct approach either because it is usually based on field position instead of probability of success.

In the same vein, TO's is another one of those knee-jerk reaction decisions and I am not so sure it is always all that well thought out.

BTW I am referring to all coaches and am not calling out Shafer. If I am him, I trust my D and not the O and every decision I make has that at top of mind.