|
Post by silkyice on Mar 5, 2024 21:51:56 GMT -6
there's no way college football ever dies, all that will happen is instead of 3 divisions there will eventually be 4 or 5, just like how english soccer eventually had the premier league break off for the best teams, there will be division 3, 2 and 1 and premier more people will still watch premier league college football, some will watch D1 and D1AA (just like how people watching FCS today but not as much) and then fewer will watch D2 and D3 which are basically regionalized / local people initially won't like it because its different but eventually those people will tune in / buy tickets because people always do... I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it will die. But, as soon as fans think it is more minor league football than it is college football, it won't bring in the same money or have the same enthusiasm. AND as soon as the NFL realizes this and decides to play on SATURDAYS and Sundays... Uh oh
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 5, 2024 14:57:18 GMT -6
With the chaos of college football, free-for-all that is high school football in many places and the shenanigans that youth football can bring, the NFL may be the purest form of football we have right now. I made the same decision this January. Isn't that crazy?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 5, 2024 13:01:36 GMT -6
I think they are mining for gold and digging their own grave at the same time. Great way to put this. I think this is very similar to EA Sports college football. Players wanting to get paid for this just ended the game. So every kid that I coached for the last 10 years that played college football never got to be IN THE GAME. And for what, maybe a $500 check or something? Let's say it was $10,000. Most of the players would rather have traded being in a video game over that long term. Not saying that the players shouldn't have gotten paid for this either. I think this is what actually led to the Supreme Court NIL decision. But what could also end up destroying college athletics and the players.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 5, 2024 12:57:07 GMT -6
There is another side to this, that doesn’t get nearly the attention as the NIL or pay the players narrative: That if Joe Burrow, J’marr chase, Justin Jefferson etc all played for the Baton Rouge Rough Riders semi pro team on Saturday nights at a public park, and a bunch of other guys were wearing white and gold in Tiger stadium, the people would go watch the other guys. THIS Weird tangent I have said this for years. The players are only important because the game and teams are important - especially in college. I don't meant that the players shouldn't get what they are worth. But when it becomes just about the players, it will dramatically hurt college football. In the NFL it is about the players but it is also about the teams and most importantly, about the game itself. The tradition, betting, America, etc. Here is what is wild in my mind, if the top 1000 football players in the world never existed, the game would still be just as popular. There would just be another Tom Brady that can now be Tom Brady because Tom Brady didn't exist. Maybe not that exactly, but you get the point. There will still be DE's that are huge and can fly and can do amazing things even if the 1000 best ever never played. RB's, WR's that are amazing, etc. Entertainment is weird business. You don't have to be good, you just have to one of the best. Now, by default, you will be good if you are on of the best, but if the top 100 bands of all-time never existed, there would just be 100 other bands to take their place, and we would never or just barely notice a difference.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 5, 2024 9:49:28 GMT -6
I think one of the biggest issues that no one really is discussing is “what is college football” going forward. If the employee model takes hold, is that “college football” anymore. Will college football lose its allure when it is officially not played by students who are “in class” like I am/was. If it’simply becomes a professional sports organization loosely affiliated to a university because the players are licensed to wear the school colors and apparel, does it keep its place? Look at the once majestic bowl system. They’ve always been exhibition games, just like many major college football players have always been “wink wink nudge nudge” students. But once they were officially declared exhibitions compared to the playoff games- the majesty is gone. What happens to college football when the “ Wink, wink nudge nudge” is gone? I am just being an old guy, but I really worry that college football could drop off big time because of this. The 12 team playoff is coming at just the right time to maybe generate some more excitement to "gloss" over what is happening. The moment college football becomes more like basketball's "G" league or baseball's minor leagues, it will never be the same. AND the MONEY will evaporate.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 3, 2024 15:49:05 GMT -6
If the NFL truly cares about the game as they SAY they do, they will find a way to utilize their influence in creating big-time college football into a developmental entity within their own structure. After all, isn't THAT what big-time college football has become anyway? Create and manage a way to underwrite the "league" of schools (the National Collegiate Football League?) and structure it in a manner beneficial to the schools and athletes choosing to be part of it, and for the "league" itself. Schools that cannot financially or philosophically choose to become a member of the NCFL remain as members of the NCAA with agreements to structure NIL to benefit the athletes and the schools for their futures, or restructure the NCAA period. I think this could be very detrimental. A "G" League is not the way to go. In my opinion, that could be catastrophic to college football which will also affect NFL down the road. Now, that being said, if they do everything "just right", maybe it could work. But I see way more harm potential.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 3, 2024 13:25:19 GMT -6
The 40 year head start is EXACTLY why it is easier now more than ever. I am not saying easy or doable. Easier. Just saying there is one factor that now outweighs all other factors by a mile. Factors like coaching, facilities, tradition, conference, being on tv, ability to compete for championships, etc. all still matter. But pale in comparison to just paying a kid more than another school will. If for some reason Elon Musk decides to be a Georgia Tech mega fam and spend 1 billion on the best players for them, they will be the greatest team of ALL TIME next year. If it was only about money a lot of schools could be football powers. Harvard has more money that anybody. Ha. I actually made a whole thread about that. Of course it isn't only about money. Well, it is. But it is about how much you have and your willingness to spend the money on football.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 3, 2024 11:35:47 GMT -6
Correct. By school, I meant school, fan base, donors, etc. I still don’t think it’s the case that it’s necessarily any easier for other programs as “the big boys“ have had a 40 year head-start since the NCAA versus board of regents of Oklahoma University to build a foundation and cultivate a culture where groups of people are willing and excited to bankroll a sport that is associated with a university Also, the current landscape is very much like an industry, with weak antitrust laws in which the largest competitors will simply take the assets of smaller upstarts The 40 year head start is EXACTLY why it is easier now more than ever. I am not saying easy or doable. Easier. Just saying there is one factor that now outweighs all other factors by a mile. Factors like coaching, facilities, tradition, conference, being on tv, ability to compete for championships, etc. all still matter. But pale in comparison to just paying a kid more than another school will. If for some reason Elon Musk decides to be a Georgia Tech mega fam and spend 1 billion on the best players for them, they will be the greatest team of ALL TIME next year.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 3, 2024 7:36:11 GMT -6
Here is my weird take. I think it is now EASIER for any team to fit. If they just decide to spend the money on the players. It was harder in the last 30 years for teams to fit because you couldn't keep up with all the factors. Now, it is just pay the players more. The question is if the school is willing to pay. Not quite. The schools can't pay a dime. The schools need to find others to pay. Correct. By school, I meant school, fan base, donors, etc.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 2, 2024 14:05:13 GMT -6
At some point when an "old-school" coach retires, and he hears the trashing of what garnered his success, he tires of being "above board", and with nothing to lose he finally speak his mind. Good for him! Sure, many coaches say Coach Johnson was tough to work for, but I would bet numbers of coaches would also say that guys like Saban were also tough. Success for GT football was spotty at best. Prior to Coach Johnson Chan Gailey brought glimpses of it back, but it was Coach Johnson who woke up the echoes of the days of Bobby Dodd. Hopefully Brent Key can restore of some of that Johnson magic. The question is how does GT (And a lot of other schools that presently belong to Power 5 conferences) fit into the emerging model of D.1 football? Here is my weird take. I think it is now EASIER for any team to fit. If they just decide to spend the money on the players. It was harder in the last 30 years for teams to fit because you couldn't keep up with all the factors. Now, it is just pay the players more. The question is if the school is willing to pay.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 27, 2024 20:46:30 GMT -6
Just listened to all of it. Enjoyed it!! how can one listen on other than apple device? I did it on my iphone with podcast so I am not sure.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 27, 2024 19:12:23 GMT -6
Had a great opportunity to speak on the Mind of a Football Coach Podcast last night. Dropped the site in the first 5 minutes! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coaches-roundtable/id1253750485?i=1000645179496Thanks to all of you who have made this site so awesome and all the friends I've made over the years finally meeting some of you in-person after being what my wife calls, "internet boyfriends". Too many of you to try to hit you all, so I won't try to tag people. Love this site and it's been a lot of fun in the last 18 years I've been on the site (I just looked and I registered TODAY, Feb-13 way back in 2006). Just listened to all of it. Enjoyed it!!
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 25, 2024 12:36:23 GMT -6
Yep. The numbers in their reports are sometimes inexplicably wrong. I've gotten to the point that I just export the play data to excel and do all the statistical analysis by hand (I use R; I do this kind of work professionally). Their tools are just bad. It's an online viewing platform, that's it. If you export to excel, let excel do the number crunching.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 22, 2024 13:23:47 GMT -6
Random thought 1. Is there anything to prevent d3 schools giving NIL deals? I know that the schools don't actually give the deals, so I am assuming no restrictions. So are d3 schools doing this? Probably not, but I could see a few with some donors doing it. Be a $100,000 NIL guy at a d1 or come to a d3 and we give you $150,000 plus pay for you school to make the deal $200,000.
Random thought 2. I also assume that Ivy League schools could do this. I would actually love to see Harvard somehow tap into there $50 BILLION endowment interest and create the greatest college football team of all-time in 2024 (or 2025). They could take 2% of that endowment and pay Saban $100 million for one year, add in another $100 million for the rest of the staff, and have $800 MILLION left to pay the players for one year. Get the best 40 players in the nation by paying them $20 million each for one season. Literally have the top 40 draft picks all on one team. Just blow this whole thing up. Ha
Don't argue the numbers on the two random thoughts. Argue the concept.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 20, 2024 15:31:07 GMT -6
No, I'm saying the named the phenomenon of enrollment and donations going up to whichever school produced a Heisman trophy winner after the Heisman trophy winner and not his coach -- a phenomenon which persists to this day. The notion that "free school" is enough when the sport rakes in billions with a B and the value of a college diploma is plummeting isn't going to move the needle. Every single head football coach will tell you that recruiting is the first priority, and there's a reason for that. If anybody thinks Nick Saban is going to the Hall of Fame because of RIP and/or LIZ, they are kidding themselves. The recruit has always been the prize. They used to pay them under the table, now they don't have to. A friend of mine was just hired by a G5 program, and he told me that the HC told the players he's not fundraising for facilities anymore, he's fundraising for NIL. The facade of the sport is gone and now we all get to decide what we really want it to be. I believe it'll become a big league for the ones that want to be in that group and don't care if their star QB goes to class, and everyone else. If you want the sport to go back to the good old days, then stop watching. But since viewership is going up, not down, the money will go up, not down. Your choices now are to follow the growing NBA model of sending promising high school prospects to a developmental or lower-level professional league, or rebuild college athletics around the new economy. Make football a major and stop pretending anybody goes to Alabama or Texas or USC for the tradition and the family atmosphere. I don't disagree with any of this. Not sure why you targeted me with this. You just are ranting. My point was that USC was making plenty of money before Caleb Williams and will make plenty after him.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 20, 2024 13:17:55 GMT -6
I am not going to disagree, but USC football made plenty of cash before Caleb Williams and will make plenty of money after Caleb Williams. Sure, but it's called the Flutie Effect for a reason. Can anybody even name the coach of that BC team without looking it up? Hold on. Hold on. Are you really trying to compare Boston College with USC? Doug Flutie is the best BC player ever by a mile!! They were only relevant while he was there. He actually gave BC national recognition where there was none. Caleb Williams is not the best player ever at USC. And they aren't close as a team what they have with other great players.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 19, 2024 14:08:39 GMT -6
Caleb Williams did more for USC than any single student there and arguably more than Riley does. I am not going to disagree, but USC football made plenty of cash before Caleb Williams and will make plenty of money after Caleb Williams.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 18, 2024 11:19:44 GMT -6
I've seen tons of clips of Liberty Hill running this offense better than anyone. I've noticed two things though: - It seems like their 11 aren't even close to being set for a full second before the snap of the ball. Maybe 1/4 of a second at most. For anyone familiar, has this ever been addressed or clarified? Do the refs just default to "one moment?"
- Did anything ever come of this TD play where the ball was tackled, but the refs bit so hard on the fake, the ball carrier got up and "scored." (4:50 mark)
To the second bullet point: Was that ever addressed, or is this something they are still getting away with?
I'm not trying to belittle it honestly. These two points are just so bizarre that I was wondering what conversations or actions have been going on around them.
WOW!!! Everyone says I have a story for everything, but I have one for this. Ha Senior year, playoffs. Other team runs a fumble rooskie type play to the guard. He scores a TD. They bring it back for being an illegal play. The crazy part was when we watched it on video. We actually tackled the guy when he got the ball. Knocked him down trying to get to the guy we thought had the ball. The guard just got up and ran for a TD. Thank goodness they brought it back, but the refs had no idea he had been tackled.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 18, 2024 11:07:59 GMT -6
I just remembered that I went against the odds/analytics/logic two years ago in OT.
Crazy game. Our biggest rival. HUGE rival game where we had put them out of the deep playoffs the last two years.
7-7. They try and kick a FG, we block it, complete a deep jump ball pass and miss a 48 yard FG barely wide right as time expires, so OT.
This being a not-so-friendly rivalry, admin sits the two students sections on opposite ends of the field so that they aren't across from each other. Smart decision.
Anyways, we win the first coin toss and don't pick offense or defense, we pick the side of the field where our student section is.
First OT is ends 14-14.
Their choice, they take defense, so we pick our side again just like planned. Won 21-14.
The student sections legitimately make that much of a difference in this rival game. We actually dominated OT. Scored in 2 plays both times. They only scored on a 4th down play from the 10 where the QB knee hit the ground before he threw it when you put in slow motion. We had 4 good plays out of 4 and they had 1 out of 8.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 18, 2024 10:51:37 GMT -6
To me it was the timeout to get my field goal team situated to give us a chance to make it if we needed to go on offense. If we don't get the 3rd down play, I need to run 2 plays and complete at least 1 for about 10 yards to give us a shot at a FG, but wanting to be able to call TO and setup for that FG was worth the 40 seconds to me. I think TOs are more important than the average coach does. But if you call timeout after the 3rd down, you will end up with 40 more seconds. That is time for possibly 4-6 more plays on top of the 2 you said you would run. So that gives you 6-8 plays and then just spike the ball to get your FG team out there if necessary or run them out there if the ball is stopped inbounds under 10 seconds. They should be ready to do that. Just my thoughts. 40 seconds is WAY more valuable than a timeout because the MOST a timeout can buy you is 40 seconds. That being said, each game has a life of its own. Your job is to find a way to win it and you did just that.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 17, 2024 12:38:27 GMT -6
Bob,
They are 10
Have an inside play. Off tackle play. Outside play. Have a counter.
Be able to throw deep when they aren't covering back there. Be able to just throw in the flats somehow because that is probably easy money if you can consistently throw and catch it.
That is 6 plays x 2 if you do them both directions so 12 plays. That might be too much!!
Get the ball to your best player. Get the ball to your fastest player. If they are the same player, get him the ball A LOT!
Don't do things that beat you. Like not lining up right. Like jumping offsides. Like being confused. Like missing assignments.
By game 4, if you are able to execute those 12 and you want, tag one of those plays.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 17, 2024 12:22:47 GMT -6
A minute and a half left on the clock when we score and miss the 2pt conversion. Punter kicked the ball on average between 30 and 35 yards from the line of scrimmage in all our scouting and was punting exactly that during the course of the game. They are a shield punt team that has not once rugby kicked on any film we've seen or anytime during the game. Our FG/PAT team was not great. We had had one or two blocked throughout the year and running them out on the field in a clock-ticking situation to try and kick a game-winner as time expires was something I didn't want to risk. I wanted a TO so I could walk out there and line them up myself prior to the kick to give us the best chances if we were having to kick a field goal to try and win. When we kicked deep, they got the ball on about the 12 yard line because by the time they scrambled back and recovered it, we were able to pin them back pretty deep. On 1st down, they ran up the middle and we stopped them at about the 10.5 or 11. We called TO. About 1:25 left. 2nd Down, they ran zone-read and we forced the pull and the QB went laterally toward the sideline and gave up another yard or two and we tackled him in-bounds (barely) with about 1:25 left. Now they are 3rd and 12 from the -9. I'm thinking he kicks it to about the 45 and I'm not sure if I want to do the FCFC yet. That is a 55 yarder, which I still would rather take my chance with my kicker kicking a 55 yarder off a tee than trying to gain another 5-10 yards and kicking a 45 yarder when they can rush the kick and block it. On a field goal, we still need to snap, catch, hold, and kick without the defense blocking it. On a free-kick, the kick is the only variable. I hold onto the TO just in case the punt is a boomer and I have to try and get back to a makeable field goal. After I don't call the TO and the clock runs down to 0:25 and because I don't call a TO and they are surprised I didn't, they (I think) decide the game is over and have their QB get the ball and roll to the side and try to burn as much time as possible. My ILB sees the QB heading to the middle of the field and scrapes out and sacks him on the 5 yard line with 15-16 seconds left. I call timeout and ask the official on our sideline, "you ever seen fair-catch-free-kick?", and he answers "no". I tell him I want to talk to the white-hat and let him know what we are doing. We send 3 guys back (just in case they try to do anything weird with it) they are supposed to call fair catch as soon as it is kicked and they have been told they have to dive, jump, tip, or DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to catch the ball before it hits the ground. I have told all the officials that we are fair-catching the kick no matter what and that we are gonna win on a FCFC, to which the white-hat says, "get outta here". We lineup with our 8 guys in the box and our 3 deep with our 2 guys coming off the edge and 4 guys up the middle to force the kick to happen on-time so they can't just run around and eat the clock. Only a 2-pt lead, so taking safety isn't an option for them unless they want to go to OT so they have to kick it. Punter kicks it down the middle and we catch it on the 37 yard line, so he kicked it 32 yards and we are setup with a 47 yard kick off a tee with no rush for the win. 12 seconds on the clock. We kick it, it goes in, and we win on a play that nobody had seen in the state in a long time. A couple of questions. 1) Would you have kicked deep if they had someone deep? Most teams usually have 1 person back there to prevent that (especially with so much left on the clock) and also prevent a race for the ball and help clean things up. 2) What happens if they don't royally f up the 3rd down play? You have just left yourself one option when you let 40 seconds run off the clock. I think kicking deep is completely fine here since you had 3 timeouts. But I do find it odd that your reasoning when you did that was to win on a free kick. If they just get the ball to the 20 on the kickoff (reasonable to assume). Run 3 plays for 5 yards (again reasonable) and punt from the 25, you are now looking at a 67 yard free kick. Hell of a story and win! Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 22:29:50 GMT -6
I always have. Every week for the past 25 years I have practiced the "fair catch free kick" once a week just in case the 0.01% chance I would ever need it, we had repped it and the kids could execute. 2022 we won a game by kicking the ball thru the uprights off a tee with our KO team on the field and the opponent couldn't do anything but watch it go in and win the game by 1. My decision to kick deep when we scored with a minute left and all 3 timeouts after we missed a 2-pt conversion to tie was questioned (loudly) by pretty much every parent in our stands behind me, and even some of my coaches on my own staff. Then NOT using a timeout after 2nd down and letting the clock run down to 20 seconds was HIGHLY & LOUDLY questioned by EVERYONE in the stadium. Their players were celebrating and talking $h!t to our kids and pointing to the clock as it ticked down. Then we used TO#2 after 3rd down. I walked out to talk to the officials and told them we are gonna send 3 guys back and fair catch the ball on the punt. Then I would be choosing to use my free-kick. Once our KO team went out on the field, the stadium was going CRAZY. Their kids were trying to lineup on "defense" while my kicker was setting up the tee and they were talking a lot to him, so I used my final timeout to go out and talk to the kicker and make sure he knew he was the hero or I was the idiot for trying all this craziness. If he had missed, I would have taken a lot of heat... but it wouldn't change the fact that I chose a sequence of decisions that I felt gave my team the best odds of winning. No guarantees, which is what everyone wants. If you tell me before he kicks it that it is 100% he makes it, that takes all the risk out of the decision. I am going to need a little more info on this exact situation. How much time was left on the clock when you decided to kick deep? Can't quite understand why you let the run down to 20 seconds while you had an extra timeout. Was the advantage that you were saving the timeout so you could talk to your kicker or to let more time run off so that the kick was the last play of the game? Where did they punt from? I have always envisioned this working when the team was punting from inside their 5. From the 10, a 40 yard punt, you fair catch, you now need a 60 yard fg to win. But if punting from inside their 5 with the punter in the endzone changes things. Not only is the risk of block greater, a hurried punt and they might just get a 30 yard punt. Ball on the 35. 45 yard FG to win. Also, a rugby punt team could really screw this up.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 20:57:45 GMT -6
Just scrap the thinking that you will be able to call plays during the game like building blocks or code. Your system is legitimately fine. I disagree here, because that west coast "building block" modular multiple plan IS his system. Bob seems to think that he will be looking from the sideline, determine that "hmm, in an absolutely static environment, on the white board right now I would do ________. Fortunately, I have devised a vast system of calls and tags to do exactly that". That is what I believe he needs to correct. Agree. I guess what I was saying that his terminology is fine. Nothing wrong with 21 trap. And 21 trap pass.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 20:10:36 GMT -6
Absolutely scrap your approach here, and do something more appropriate. I can't access your old post on bestweb about the sidesaddle T offense- otherwise I would offer more specific suggestions for the sake of the kids. Just scrap the thinking that you will be able to call plays during the game like building blocks or code. Your system is legitimately fine. Run 21 trap. Have 21 trap pass. Hell, even have the OP play (call it something different). But only have about 4-6 more plays. At most. (Due to coaching 10 year olds). Only what you can rep and rep and rep successfully at practice. And when you get to game 4 and are having success and truly execute your base plays, maybe add a tag the next week in practice. If you go with that, do me one favor. For real. Name the long named play "CoachHuey". And when it scores, please, please post it on here. I promise that I will be wildly happy when this happens for you and your kids. When we add plays during the season for a special reason we almost never call them by what our system would call them. They literally get named something weird like "Baha Blast" or "Tangerine". Our standard go to is to name it after our opponent's school name or mascot. Springville is still the name of our reverse flea flicker because 40 years ago some coach ran it against Springville. We scored in the state championship game on a trick play (uncovered an eligible tackle) named "Kingwood" because I saw a team named Kingwood run it and stole it from them 10 years ago. How we lined up, shifted, the play, the cadence, etc, was all just called Kingwood. It would have been an 18 word name otherwise. And we practiced it every week for 16 weeks to run it at just the right moment.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 16, 2024 13:34:21 GMT -6
Most of the coaches I've coached under have given the kids more complicated tools than they've needed. Wasted effort like that happens most seasons, in addition to running drills that don't develop the skills they need. Some have even put in plays that are either illegal generally, or not allowed in that division, because they don't do the research and don't tell anyone else. I even had a HC put in one of those plays after I told him it was illegal, because he didn't trust my knowledge; fortunately these days most of the coaches around me now do trust me on those points. So then why is it that I am the only one who's told here, "That's beyond the kids," or, "That'll never work"? I know some kids are just into memorizing things arbitrarily in whole chunks without the pieces making sense; those are the kids who are always the example to justify the look-say method of reading rather than phonics. But phonics make sense for most kids who are not hearing-impaired. You're right, there will be kids who'll be confused by my method; meanwhile other kids will be confused by other methods. No method will ever work for all of them -- but no method has to! If I have different kids tackling with different form, I'm not going to tell some of them their way is wrong. I'll work on bad form, but not try to fix different form. We already have cases in our club where the word is sent from on high to do things one way, and it's a perfectly fine way if executed perfectly, but meanwhile we do it that way only when the observer from on high is there, because we have our own methods that we know work and may be more forgiving of sloppiness. And we snicker because we know the way they told us the previous year was different from the way they're saying now. Ok, Has to be said. What in the ever loving F are you talking about it?
|
|
|
OT Choice
Feb 15, 2024 21:05:42 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on Feb 15, 2024 21:05:42 GMT -6
One of the analytics guys on the internet said that they had simulated the OT rules last year when the new rule was first announced. Simulated 130,000 times the team going second won 50.14% of the time. www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/nfl/2024/2/14/24072644/super-bowl-overtime-controversy-rules-kick-or-receive-analytics-playoffs-regular-seasonThis says that receiving has the advantage. Wins 50.29% if the 2nd team does not go for 2, and wins 50.19% if the 2nd team does go for 2. Also says that strategy could change when facing a better qb. Really good article. I think you should receive. But I understand why someone would want to kick especially against Mahomes. Curious if “Team kick” is willing to acknowledge that receiving is at least reasonable.
|
|
|
OT Choice
Feb 15, 2024 20:51:54 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on Feb 15, 2024 20:51:54 GMT -6
jmo- (another one; i have lots, and a lot of them aren't popular) seems to me that with the general public, if a gametime decision works, it was a great decision, bordering on genius. if it didn't work, it was a stupid decision, and makes you wonder about the guy that called it. if he isn't an andy reid, kyle shanahan, etc... then he should probably be fired, or at least on the hot seat. again, jmo. Very much so. Imagine a scenario where the coin turned up HEADS. KC wins and kicks. 49ers kick a FG. Cheifs get a 4th and 7 from say the +25 or so. They are kicking the FG right? Then 49ers drive and kick another FG and win in sudden death. "Why on Earth would Reid give the 49ers an extra possession??? They had been getting stuffed all day, having only just found a little rhythm at the end of the game. What was he thinking??" Yep. This has been one of my points.
|
|
|
OT Choice
Feb 15, 2024 18:32:27 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by silkyice on Feb 15, 2024 18:32:27 GMT -6
Doesn't this depend on whether the Chiefs would go for one or two if they have the ball first and score? I know they've said they were going for two if they they got the ball second and scored, but have they said what they would do if they had it first? Because if you kick to them and they score and go for one, then you aren't giving Mahomes an extra possession if you decide the game on your two point attempt. What silkyice is describing is the scenario that some here have put forth: since Mahomes would undoubtedly "do what it takes" to win (even though the Chiefs had been a rather pedestrian offense all year), they obviously would be going for 2 after the first possession TD. Essentially Silkyice is trying to point out to those who have taken a stance that clearly the most concerning issue was Mahomes would not and could not be stopped, and everyone (except apparently Kyle Shanahan) knew this- then the only way to succeed would be to give him the ball first, and "hope" they only kicked the XP instead of going for two. Because clearly, if he would not and could not be stopped- the Chiefs certainly would go for two on the first possession. Right? Right. If Mahomes always does what it takes, and you kick to them first, your ONLY chance to win is They kick the xpt (not your decision) And You score a TD And You get the 2 pt conversation So when you kickoff, the game is NOT in your hands. It is in Andy Reid’s hands to decide. If you receive, you score and get the 2. Try the onside. If you get it, you win. If not, Mahomes scores and gets 2. You only have to kick a FG now. At least you have a chance. And you had a chance to recover an onside or drive and get a FG.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Feb 15, 2024 14:20:47 GMT -6
So the mistake that the 49ers made was
1) not going for the TD and 2 . Instead they kicked a FG.
2) not going for a surprise onside kick after they kicked the FG.
Taking the ball first was not a mistake.
|
|