Basic Football Math: 4th and 1

PellumPride

all that math sheet when way over my head and Pete's head. But, I've watched way more football games than Pete and I know you should NEVER punt from inside your opponent's 40. For teams with terrible offenses like UW, a possession that goes inside the 40 is as precious as Gold. You don't squander it. And, if you pay attention I guarantee this is what you'll see the next time, in any game, when some jackass coach punts from the 38:

The punt will sail into the endzone and will yield an 18 yard Net. Two plays later, the other team will have gained back the 18 yards and will be headed in the other direction with a first and 10. watch for it.

RaceBannon

Let's not forget that against Stanford last year in a similar spot late in the game he faked a punt rather than letting his offense try for it.

TierbsHsotBoobs

Tequilla said:

I don't need the math to tell me that going for it is the statistically right decision ...

To me, the situation is like game theory in poker ... if I'm playing a hand and I'm a 55/45 favorite in the hand, then if I'm playing thousand of hours/hands and continually get put in that spot, then I'm an idiot for not leveraging that advantage. If I'm looking at a single instance, then perhaps I can find a better spot.

And really, that's the point that I was trying to make. Given the game/score situation, I was ok with the idea of punting knowing that the odds of Oregon scoring were far reduced with the extra 30 yards to go. I liked the chances that we could force a 3 and out (which we did before Wooching fucked it up on the punt) ... and who knows whether or not we could have forced a turnover there.

This team has shown throughout the year that they generally play better in the 2nd half than the 1st ... so given that situation and what I've seen all year, the decision to punt to me worked in parallels with the idea of shortening the game.

Now, if you give me an offense like TCU, Stanford, Baylor, etc., then I'm going to say that going for it is just fine.

A bad offense needs to score there more than a good offense does.

You still suck at this.

Tequilla

You are only thinking about one side of the equation ... not the other.

TierbsHsotBoobs

Tequilla said:

You are only thinking about one side of the equation ... not the other.

You win football games by scoring more points than the other team does. If you don't score any points, you don't win.

DawgofThunder

We get the first down, great. We still wouldn't have scored.

Dardanus

DawgofThunder said:

We get the first down, great. We still wouldn't have scored.

Might as well not even play the game

DawgofThunder

I thought we would win. I was wrong.

FremontTroll

Tequilla said:

I don't need the math to tell me that going for it is the statistically right decision ...

To me, the situation is like game theory in poker ... if I'm playing a hand and I'm a 55/45 favorite in the hand, then if I'm playing thousand of hours/hands and continually get put in that spot, then I'm an idiot for not leveraging that advantage. If I'm looking at a single instance, then perhaps I can find a better spot.

And really, that's the point that I was trying to make. Given the game/score situation, I was ok with the idea of punting knowing that the odds of Oregon scoring were far reduced with the extra 30 yards to go. I liked the chances that we could force a 3 and out (which we did before Wooching fucked it up on the punt) ... and who knows whether or not we could have forced a turnover there.

This team has shown throughout the year that they generally play better in the 2nd half than the 1st ... so given that situation and what I've seen all year, the decision to punt to me worked in parallels with the idea of shortening the game.

Now, if you give me an offense like TCU, Stanford, Baylor, etc., then I'm going to say that going for it is just fine.

As someone who paid his way through undergrad and graduate school with poker winnings...your analogy is awful.

It would only apply in a tournament where if you lose the gamble you are out.

That is not the situation here. If he doesn't make 4th and 1 he isn't out of the game.

And he doesn't have your option of passing on this 4th and 1 opportunity and seeing if 4th and inches comes up on the next hand. Once he punts those 1-2 points of expected value are gone and there is no way to get them back.

Also- you don't "shorten the game" by giving up possession. You "shorten the game" by keeping possession and running the ball. Not that we would want to "shorten the game" anyways- we were the goddamn FAVORITE playing at home not a 24 point underdog. Oh- and we were already losing. Again- not the time you want to "shorten the game."

Doogles

Tequilla said:

I don't need the math to tell me that going for it is the statistically right decision ...

To me, the situation is like game theory in poker ... if I'm playing a hand and I'm a 55/45 favorite in the hand, then if I'm playing thousand of hours/hands and continually get put in that spot, then I'm an idiot for not leveraging that advantage. If I'm looking at a single instance, then perhaps I can find a better spot.

And really, that's the point that I was trying to make. Given the game/score situation, I was ok with the idea of punting knowing that the odds of Oregon scoring were far reduced with the extra 30 yards to go. I liked the chances that we could force a 3 and out (which we did before Wooching fucked it up on the punt) ... and who knows whether or not we could have forced a turnover there.

This team has shown throughout the year that they generally play better in the 2nd half than the 1st ... so given that situation and what I've seen all year, the decision to punt to me worked in parallels with the idea of shortening the game.

Now, if you give me an offense like TCU, Stanford, Baylor, etc., then I'm going to say that going for it is just fine.

If you ever have a 55% chance to win and don't bet you are a loser, plain and simple. Save for the tourney example above, it never makes any sense not to go for it. If Pete were to be terminated if they didn't make it, then maybe you think twice about picking a better spot than a coin flip.

But Pete is the opposite of tourney mode. He is house money guaranteed 5 years and beyond regardless of outcome. It was a very poor loser play that will cost UW games over the long haul, thus why we are losers.