I like that, actually. Believe it or not, that’s playing the percentages. I think more teams should go for it on 4th – punting is basically done because it is seen as safer, but in the end, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
kcatnd
Yeah, I’ve heard that about 4th down too. Even if the numbers and stats and percentages suggest going for it, there are still a lot of psychological/momentum aspects involved in 4th down calls that complicate matters. I think it would be fun to have “lab games” to test this sort of thing experimentally, similar to flipping a coin a 100 times and logging how often it lands heads/tails – imagine a game in which one team ALWAYS has to go for it on 4th down. It would be fun to see the results!
Jazz
I did a quick internet search, but couldn’t find the article – from memory, Sports Illustrated had a bit a few months ago about a high school that never punts because they think punting is foolish. They’re from Alabama (or something) and have won a couple state championships in a row (or something). Apparently the players love playing for the no-punt school.
Seem to recall the article citing some nerd who, in the spirit of Bill James proving that bunting never made sense in baseball, showed that punting rarely made sense in football. The couple of first downs worth of field position were usually not worth the lost offensive opportunity, to say nothing of the many things that can go wrong on a punt.
I didn’t see the ND game, but the anti-punting nerd cited in SI agrees with B. Minich above that it often doesn’t make sense to punt. This seems correct to me.
Now, I will say that the one thing that might be at issue here still is that I heard that ND didn’t have “their most important player out on the field” from somewhere. Not even sure who that was, or what that meant. Depending on Weis’s personnel choice or play call for this play, there could be an issue.
David K.
Minich, I think it was either Clausen or Tate, but Brendan can probably confirm. As for the punt thing, depends on the team, and depends on your field position. Going for it when you are on your own 15 yard line say is pretty foolish if you ask me.
Brendan Loy
You’re all talking about punts, but did you notice I said 4th & goal? 🙂 This was not a debate between going for the first down and punting. It was a debate between going for the TD and kicking a chip-shot game-tying field goal — basically a PAT worth 3 points. Given the situation, the time left in the game, and Notre Dame’s personnel, it was COMPLETELY BATSHIT CRAZY to anything other than kick the game-tying FG. It’s as if Charlie Weis thinks he’s coaching USC or something, like he’s got a dominant offensive line where he can be 95% sure they’ll get the TD. With Notre Dame it’s a 50/50 proposition at best, even from the six-inch line. How can you possibly take that risk in that situation, when a FG would TIE THE GAME midway through the fourth quarter, at home? Nuts, absolutely nuts.
Is Charlie Weis, with the Irish down 16-13 in the fourth quarter, seriously going for it on 4th & goal?!
I like that, actually. Believe it or not, that’s playing the percentages. I think more teams should go for it on 4th – punting is basically done because it is seen as safer, but in the end, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Yeah, I’ve heard that about 4th down too. Even if the numbers and stats and percentages suggest going for it, there are still a lot of psychological/momentum aspects involved in 4th down calls that complicate matters. I think it would be fun to have “lab games” to test this sort of thing experimentally, similar to flipping a coin a 100 times and logging how often it lands heads/tails – imagine a game in which one team ALWAYS has to go for it on 4th down. It would be fun to see the results!
I did a quick internet search, but couldn’t find the article – from memory, Sports Illustrated had a bit a few months ago about a high school that never punts because they think punting is foolish. They’re from Alabama (or something) and have won a couple state championships in a row (or something). Apparently the players love playing for the no-punt school.
Seem to recall the article citing some nerd who, in the spirit of Bill James proving that bunting never made sense in baseball, showed that punting rarely made sense in football. The couple of first downs worth of field position were usually not worth the lost offensive opportunity, to say nothing of the many things that can go wrong on a punt.
I didn’t see the ND game, but the anti-punting nerd cited in SI agrees with B. Minich above that it often doesn’t make sense to punt. This seems correct to me.
Now, I will say that the one thing that might be at issue here still is that I heard that ND didn’t have “their most important player out on the field” from somewhere. Not even sure who that was, or what that meant. Depending on Weis’s personnel choice or play call for this play, there could be an issue.
Minich, I think it was either Clausen or Tate, but Brendan can probably confirm. As for the punt thing, depends on the team, and depends on your field position. Going for it when you are on your own 15 yard line say is pretty foolish if you ask me.
You’re all talking about punts, but did you notice I said 4th & goal? 🙂 This was not a debate between going for the first down and punting. It was a debate between going for the TD and kicking a chip-shot game-tying field goal — basically a PAT worth 3 points. Given the situation, the time left in the game, and Notre Dame’s personnel, it was COMPLETELY BATSHIT CRAZY to anything other than kick the game-tying FG. It’s as if Charlie Weis thinks he’s coaching USC or something, like he’s got a dominant offensive line where he can be 95% sure they’ll get the TD. With Notre Dame it’s a 50/50 proposition at best, even from the six-inch line. How can you possibly take that risk in that situation, when a FG would TIE THE GAME midway through the fourth quarter, at home? Nuts, absolutely nuts.