Now, pay attention to what Babers is saying

[HRE Otto IV]

Nope, you're over thinking it.

You are under thinking it.

What I am saying:

The conversion % on a 4th and 3 from our own 30 with this year's squad, Dungey at QB, Babers calling the play, going against Colgate at home in a game where we have gotten yards with ease is a lot higher than the probability of a 4th and 3 from our own 30 with 2013's squad, Hunt at QB, McDonald calling the play, going against FSU on the road in a game where we have struggled to get any type of yardage.

You are saying that they are the same thing which is just silly.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

So...you were saying there was no data...sounds like a whole lot of data to me.

We can send humans into space but we still can't figure out the 4th down conversion...got it.

I am saying there is a very small sample size. A theory can be created but no theory has been tested yet because coaches don't like going for it on 4th down.

We didn't just one day decide to shoot a human into space. Rockets were tested. Space shuttled were tested. Animals were sent up on test flights. Then after all that testing humans were sent into space. Not too hard to follow.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You are under thinking it.

What I am saying:

The conversion % on a 4th and 3 from our own 30 with this year's squad, Dungey at QB, Babers calling the play, going against Colgate at home in a game where we have gotten yards with ease is a lot higher than the probability of a 4th and 3 from our own 30 with 2013's squad, Hunt at QB, McDonald calling the play, going against FSU on the road in a game where we have struggled to get any type of yardage.

You are saying that they are the same thing which is just silly.

No sir. I am accurately thinking it.

 

[CuseOnly]

I am saying there is a very small sample size. A theory can be created but no theory has been tested yet because coaches don't like going for it on 4th down.

We didn't just one day decide to shoot a human into space. Rockets were tested. Space shuttled were tested. Animals were sent up on test flights. Then after all that testing humans were sent into space. Not too hard to follow.

I am saying that plenty of coaches have gone for it on 4th down since the forward pass was allowed in 1906. That is a huge sample size.

So in 110 years there was nothing learned from all those attempts...got it. Nothing was tested, tried or thought out in all that time...OK.

I think maybe most folks analyzing it are over-thinking it just like you are and considering too many variables. Worrying about whether the QB had Nike shoes as opposed to Adidas might make a difference too. Or whether tighty whiteys or boxers were worn by the QB and RB and whether or not that may restrict throwing motion and influence the results.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Some people will complain because FOOTBALL.

Others will trust in math.

Just look at the SU women shall. The math may not win every game, but it wins overall.

 

[SWC75]

Doug Marrone used to say that he didn't want to take a chance if he didn't feel his team could make up for it if it failed.

And yet, if your team is not as good as the other team, don't you have to take chances to make up the deficit?

 

[007]

I am saying there is a very small sample size. A theory can be created but no theory has been tested yet because coaches don't like going for it on 4th down.

We didn't just one day decide to shoot a human into space. Rockets were tested. Space shuttled were tested. Animals were sent up on test flights. Then after all that testing humans were sent into space. Not too hard to follow.

There is a ton of data out there to support going for it on 4th down more often The link below is one of the hallmark studies from advanced football analytics. As to your point on "small sample size," this study alone looked at data from 2400 NFL games over a 9 year span. That is the antithesis of small sample size.

4th Down Study - Advanced Football Analytics

 

[CuseOnly]

There is a ton of data out there to support going for it on 4th down more often The link below is one of the hallmark studies from advanced football analytics. As to your point on "small sample size," this study alone looked at data from 2400 NFL games over a 9 year span. That is the antithesis of small sample size.

4th Down Study - Advanced Football Analytics

It's all about the shoes and briefs. Data doesn't count when it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[SWC75]

It's all about the shoes and briefs. Data doesn't count when it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[RF2044]

It's all about the shoes and briefs. Data doesn't count when it doesn't fit your narrative.

Amen to that.

 

[sufandu]

i am guessing that we do not have the oline that can play at that speed for a game. i think we will some subtle changes in pace and running game

On the contrary the more we play at that speed and practice at that speed the better the oline will get. It's the opposition that will have to try to adjust. But they won't be able to unless their team runs the same offense.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

There is a ton of data out there to support going for it on 4th down more often The link below is one of the hallmark studies from advanced football analytics. As to your point on "small sample size," this study alone looked at data from 2400 NFL games over a 9 year span. That is the antithesis of small sample size.

4th Down Study - Advanced Football Analytics

I have read that before and several others. I am pro 4th down. My point is that a theoretical 4th down NFL chart shouldn't be the only thing a college HC goes by to determine what to do. Other factors are involved. Even from that article you can see:

"This analysis only applies to ‘typical’ game situations when the score is relatively close, time is not expiring, and weather is not a large factor."

Also to my point about data we can see:

"Let's say you're the coach of a team facing a 4th down and 3 from the opponent's 37. It's early in the second quarter and the score is tied. Should you call a punt, attempt a FG, or go for it? In reality, coaches have called for the punt 100% of the time in close games early in the second quarter."

They used 2400 NFL games and yards to go on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd downs. There were very few data points on actual 4th downs. So the 4th down sample size was small. The 4th down sample size on your own end of the field even smaller. If NFL HCs went for it a lot on 4th down then there would be nothing to debate, it would be conventional wisdom and not theory.

Using 1st-3rd downs is flawed IMO as it doesn't taken into account sports psychology. Humans are not robots their emotions will impact their output. There isn't the same level of pressure to perform as there is on 4th down, where if you don't convert it is like a turnover. We see in end of game situations kids make stupid mistakes all the time because of the pressure. Look what the LSU QB did today. He doesn't make that mistake in the 1st Q.

Also like I said above the NFL is a lot different than CFB. The NFL talent level from team to team doesn't vary as much as it does in CFB. So outcomes are a lot closer to the mean. In addition the level of execution in the NFL is at a different level. You cannot expect a kid to have the same output as a professional.

Heck IMO the college HCs should go for it more often in your opponent's territory because of the poor FG kicking overall. In the NFL a 45 yard FG is a gimmie. So the expected points is a lot higher. And the opposite is true when in your own territory. An NFL team at their own 30 needs to go 40 yards to get an expected 3 points. A CFB team needs to more likely go 50 yards, assuming you don't have a good kicker or bad kicker which varies a lot more than in the NFL. So CFB HCs should go for it less often the further away they are compared to NFL HCs because the expected points is smaller. Thus using NFL data in college wouldn't really translate.

Should HCs go for it more often? Yes, and the theoretical outcomes prove that to be true. Are all 4th downs in a vacuum where other factors should not be considered? Absolutely not. Does NFL data translate easily to CFB? No.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The end of the Clemson game is an interesting point.

A FG ends the game. A missed FG leaves Auburn needing 76 yards to win the game. However a blocked FG could reduce that distance needed or even have Clemson trailing if it is returned all the way. A 34 yard FG in CFB is less likely to be converted than in the NFL by a long shot. As is a blocked FG, which I have seen too often happen in end of game situations.

A 1st down ends the game. Gaining zero yards leaves Auburn needing 83 yards to win the game. And obviously gaining or losing yards would change what Auburn would need. As could a fumble or an INT, either of which could be returned for a TD. Although an INT could make the distance greater as well.

IMO given the situation and the fact that you have Watson, the safer play was to go for it. But Clemson should have put the ball in Watson's hands instead of calling that play which had no chance at getting a first down. Also the 3rd down call was dumb as it killed the clock.

 

[tipphill]

You will be wrong.

wont be the first time

 

[OrangePA]

All I know was that I had a lot of fun watching our team play on Saturday.

I have never been a big fan of the spread offenses or up tempo strategy. But on Saturday I found myself yelling "let's go faster" and I wanted Coach Babers to go for it on almost every fourth down we faced.

Did the OL have a great game? Probably not. Did Dungey get hit too much? Probably. Should we have done better on third and short. No doubt.

But it was a lot of fun and I saw pretty much what I wanted to see.

So let's get ready for Louisville!

 

[Scooch]

No one (or very very few) is suggesting that a team should go for it on every 4th down. But there have been far too many times in the recent past when we punted in situations that, both statistically and game condition-related, screamed for going for it on 4th. Like every time we punted between the 45-35 in the opponents territory, for example.

Babers gets it. I'm happy.

 

[Jake]

All I know was that I had a lot of fun watching our team play on Saturday. I have never been a big fan of the spread offenses or up tempo strategy. But on Saturday I found myself yelling "let's go faster" and I wanted Coach Babers to go for it on almost every fourth down we faced. Did the OL have a great game? Probably not. Did Dungey get hit too much? Probably. Should we have done better on third and short. No doubt. But it was a lot of fun and I saw pretty much what I wanted to see. So let's get ready for Louisville!

As much as us nut jobs loved it, it will also appeal to the casual fan - which is what we need at the dome.

We need more of the "I don't know exactly what's going on, but it sure is fun to watch" crowd.

 

[upperdeck]

the big question is how many 4th downs do you need to make to make it the thing to do.. 20%, 40%. ?? we struggled on 3rd down. but if you go for more 4th downs, its makes 3rd down less stressful too, your play calling has more margin for error. if we get to the point were we fail 90% of the time on 4th then its probably not going to happen as much. one thing is that we really run a lot of plays designed to get 3-7 yds, so we practice them a ton and should be better at using them which is the yardage i would most often expect 4th down tries. we probably will be worse at ones in the red zone until we can actually block the run better.

 

[upperdeck]

i am all for 4th down tries outside our 40 and anything under 7-8 yds. inside our own 40 is where the faith needs to be shown and the more the team believes in itself if will pay off. one advantage of running at pace is not having to call the TO to set up the play and let the D prepare. if you cn run the play at speed its much more likely to work.

 

[007]

The game was pretty good, but the response is even better.

"We will do what we think we need to do to win," Babers said. "And on that note, going down the road, on fourth down if we have to go for it we have to go for it. But I'm already telling you, after our first game, that we're going to do those things because we're not playing to be close. We're playing to win."

Babers lives by this philosophy, it's not just coachspeak.

Last season, at Top 25 Tennessee, he went for on 4th and 3 from his own 13 yard line... and made it (gained something like 18 yards on the play).

Now, that is a huge risk to take down 21-10 in the 2nd quarter.

I love that mentality, especially paired with this Offense. Make it or not, I will have no problem with Babers going for it whenever he feels it's the right play.

 

[RF2044]

As much as us nut jobs loved it, it will also appeal to the casual fan - which is what we need at the dome.

We need more of the "I don't know exactly what's going on, but it sure is fun to watch" crowd.

Exactly. Not that this is different across any other fanbase, but a significant portion of SU "fans" are of the fair weather variety. They could swing either way -- they'll buy tickets if the product on the field is good, or they'll roundly ignore the program when we stink.

Casual fans want to see something exciting to justify their interest / time / investment, and Babers's style of play is just what was needed to reinvigorate some community interest in the fair weather fanbase. Hopefully, scoring more points and playing a more exciting brand of football will not only pique curiosity / interest from that group, but also get them back in the Dome to be a part of the program's resurgence. Sucked seeing 35K in the stands on Friday.

 

[Cuse'91]

Babers has no fear when it comes to surrendering the ball on failed 4th downs no matter where it occurs. Just means the other team scores faster and he gets the ball back on O faster...

 

[Yegorange]

Last season, at Top 25 Tennessee, he went for on 4th and 3 from his own 13 yard line... and made it (gained something like 18 yards on the play).

Now, that is a huge risk to take down 21-10 in the 2nd quarter.

What a call - love it! Even a good punt from 13 probably goes to midfield and gets returned to 40. You're facing a likely FG at least. But you know your O can get 3 yds, and stunned Tenn gives up 18. Considering the surprise factor that wasn't a huge risk, imo.

What a breath of fresh air this all is. We're in for a lot of fun it looks like. Don't care about 4 FG and missed opportunities on O - they'll click much sooner than 1.5 yrs. The biggest surprise to me was the D. To hold them scoreless after the opening drive was impressive. Doubt L'ville is putting up 70 on this D. And the O should make it interesting. Can't wait.

 

[007]

Exactly. Not that this is different across any other fanbase, but a significant portion of SU "fans" are of the fair weather variety. They could swing either way -- they'll buy tickets if the product on the field is good, or they'll roundly ignore the program when we stink.

Casual fans want to see something exciting to justify their interest / time / investment, and Babers's style of play is just what was needed to reinvigorate some community interest in the fair weather fanbase. Hopefully, scoring more points and playing a more exciting brand of football will not only pique curiosity / interest from that group, but also get them back in the Dome to be a part of the program's resurgence. Sucked seeing 35K in the stands on Friday.

Yeah, it did suck. But, for the first time, in a long time, it was exciting to be part of those 35k.

As Scooch said earlier, even if Babers crashes and burns here (I don't think he will), this is the direction and risk SU needed to take. They (decision makers) finally got it right.

I am all in on Babers' system, mentality, experience, and his attention to detail to all facets of the program fitting together.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Babers lives by this philosophy, it's not just coachspeak.

Last season, at Top 25 Tennessee, he went for on 4th and 3 from his own 13 yard line... and made it (gained something like 18 yards on the play).

Now, that is a huge risk to take down 21-10 in the 2nd quarter.

I love that mentality, especially paired with this Offense. Make it or not, I will have no problem with Babers going for it whenever he feels it's the right play.

The "math" would say to punt there but what Babers did would be fine with me. I hate when HCs play scared. At 21-10 there isn't a huge risk to go for it there. Had it been 17-10 though I wouldn't feel the same way. Which goes back to my point about the situation coming into play.