Playing the percentages on offense AND defense

Lol. I see what you did there

The one I have heard countless times is in regards to going for a 2-pt conversion: 50% on 2-pt conversions is just as good as 100% on 1-pt conversions.

In theory, it makes sense. In practice, I have never seen it work.

Well, wouldnt it not working be because the percentage on two point conversions is actually less than 50%? I guess that is what you were getting at?

Yes, I agree, as I mentioned in the OP, I was just using that as an example to help illustrate what I was talking about.

If it's man coverage, yeah, but if it's zone, that's more about hitting the right holes in the coverage and providing the proper stretches.

Yeah.

Well, isn't the conversion rate of the 1 pt kick also less than 100%? 
I think this topic has been touched on several times, usually (mistakenly in my opinion as it is not the same topic) in the "moneyball" threads. 

The issue that always seems to come up when discussing game theory/percentages etc. is that those things work best in a continuous setting over a long period of time.  Football data analysis is looking at a compilation of small, discrete events.  Factors that contribute to one data set are often quite different than the factors that contribute to another.  Were they playing 3 because they were concerned about a mismatch in the undercoverage weeks 1 and 2, but not as much in week 3?  Or not as much with YOUR team?  Maybe they have pressured the last few weeks because of favorable matchups, but they don't like their chances against your OL.  Maybe there was an injury? 


Factors change from week to week that probably influence the data such that trying to rely on game theory to pick the "perfect" choices is likely a fruitless endeavor.  

So, would you say any playing of the percentages in football is fruitless?

No, but that is not what you are asking.  You are trying to dissect these percentages using game theory to a level that I believe would be fruitless when you introduce the idea of deciding between trying to match C3 beaters to the scouted C3% and C1 Beaters to C1 % but then factoring in you won't know when they will be in which so is it better to try and just run all 3 beaters etc.  Plus, you haven't factored in the notion that the opponent may be self scouting, so they know their percentages too, and my change things up.  

Now we enter into the "You know that I know that you know that I know ....." realm.  

PLUS, trying to put it into practice as the 40 second clock ticks down leaves you with :

"Ok, the last 3 passes I am pretty sure they were in Cov 3 so they are probably due a Cover 1 so lets call a cover 1 beater, but wait, maybe they called cover 1 several times but we were running the ball so we don't know they were in cover 1 so then they might be due to call cover 3 and  if we call a 1 beater they may be sitting in 3.  What personnel do we have in the game?  Ah crap, clocks running down, just throw it to the guy who is being recruited to USC."

I would say that when truly reflecting on scouting, the #1 advantage that HS's can gain would probably be match up based.  Schematically, it is important to find out what they do well, what they don't do well etc.  But in the vast vast majority of cases, being heavily numbers reliant probably doesn't matter. 

another easy scouting tell is, what do they call on the snaps 'that matter'.... I.E. 3rd and medium, 4th and short, possession and 10, red zone, backed up, etc....

I throw out small sample size on those.

OFFENSIVELY:  Rather than sweating % (& taking a chance that MAY be wrong) we would prefer "ALL PURPOSE" passes which have a Cover 3 beater, AND a Cover 1 beater BUILT IN to the SAME pattern(s), in the example you gave.

Then the QB can tell by his 1 or 2 step if the defense is Cover 3 (LB's Zone drop), or Cover 1 (LB's step up to match/man or moving laterally).  Then by the last step of his drop he looks for the first receiver in the progression (as dictated by the drop of the LB, PLUS the fact MOFC).  I feel we do a pretty good job TEACHING this by simply setting up a drill where the QB recognizes/verbalizes the LB movement during the drop and then the MOFO/MOFC by the time he hits the top of the drop.

We have 3-4 passes in this category.  One such pass is called the "NCAA PASS" (X/Post, Y/Cross/, Z/In, H/Angle Cross, & R/ Flat), the PROGRESSION would look like this:

COVER 1 = Z-Y-H

COVER 3 = Z-R

ETC.

Know what they want to do and who they want to do it with. First thing I worry about calling a game is what they are doing THAT game. Sure tendencies are great and all but if they don't match up with what is going on in the game you can get in real trouble. So many times have been worked on something a team does x% of the time previous weeks but then they don't do it once in our game. Have your stuff ready and work your game plan but if you want to run Cov 3 beaters 70% of your passes but they have been in a 2 HI shell almost every snap better be able to adjust.

Wing-T since 2005.  I know exactly what you mean.  I've had younger caches in our region tell me they brought in old veteran coaches to teach them how to defend wing-t, so we get defense of the week all the time.

As I get more "experienced" I have also learned that 50% of your game are decided when they schedule comes out as well.  Some games you can run power 16 times in a row and the game is done, some games they are running power on you 16 times in a row and the game is done.  

Break down the film, see their top 5 things they do either side of the ball, be ready for that, and believe your eyes during the game not the %'s.    Remember it's a bunch of 16,17,18 year olds out there maybe they are in Cov 3 70% of the time in theory but are they really?  Attack what you see, not what some sheet is telling you.

I think that in the 7 years I was there, we only played 1 other team that lined up in I more than 50% of the time. Coaches told us all the time how hard we were to prepare for because "they just never saw it anywhere".

We also were a little different of an I team. We ran very, very little power or counter. We also would run quite a bit of what we called white formation which was a TE and a wing with the I. Our #1 play out of standard I was Iso weak and out of the wing set it was something we called double lead.

You should have seen the stuff we saw when we ran the Wishbone: 6-3, 7-2.