Scenario

Can I ask what the playcall on 3rd down was?  I often get disappointed when situations like this happen, but the 3rd down play doesn't seem to compliment a 4 down territory philosophy. 

Regarding the decision, I can see where someone might feel the chances of getting into FG range going by going for it on 4th & 8 (even more so if it was 4th & 3 like blb suggested) at the +47 than they would by trading punts, likely getting the ball back on the minus side of the field, and having to make a few plays with the clock working against you.  

I think the biggest coaching take away is the 3rd down play call, particularly if the 4th down was a 4th&8.   One of my pet peeves in coaching is seeing coaches fail to set up their team/players for the best opportunity to succeed with the previous playcall.  Low percentage pass routes on 3rd and 10+, only to go for it on 4th down?   Constantly see Wing-T teams running Bucksweep toward the QBs throwing arm on 2nd or 3rd down...and then calling waggle to the field (QB's non dominant arm side), not giving the QB the best chance to be a dual threat.   Things like that. 

I didn’t see the game. Even with the bad outcome, with the timeouts Franklin got PSU a pair of scoring opportunities to win or tie the game with under 3 minutes left.

If they elect to punt, they’re burning their only remaining guaranteed possession in hopes of getting a second (not guaranteed) with better field position and even less time with no timeouts. Possessions and opportunities trump field position in that case due to the time restrictions.

If they punt, they would have still needed to get a stop and burn all those timeouts to get the ball back, plus they’d still have to deal with that punter again. Even with a punt, would have almost surely gotten the ball back on the wrong side of the 50 again no matter what.

I feel like Franklin made the right call in that particular situation. If they get the conversion on a 4th and 3, they’re in business and can take their time trying to score or kick a FG—with a few more yards, even a long FG attempt is in the table. If they fail, which they did, they still had the timeouts and another chance as a fallback option, which is what they chose.

Essentially this comes down to whether they should have traded the (modest) possibility of a conversion and scoring opportunity in the game’s closing minutes for what would have probably only netted them 28-40 yards in field position, as a touchback would have still been the most likely thing to happen, with a successful coffin corner kick or fielded pooch punt being a strong #2 possibility but not a given.

Another thing to look at is the reaction from boosters and fans of Franklin *didn’t* try to convert and they still lose. They would have called for his head and blamed the loss on him.

Certainly could have. I watched the game but don't specifically remember that play. He was under constant pressure and not hesitant to leave the pocket.

Thanks. The 4th and 3 is different from 4th and 8 but I still thought that the punt was the way to go. To answer the question about the play calling I don't remember disagreeing with either the 3rd or 4th. Execution was the problem. 

I thought the same thing.. What was even more weird IMO was that Iowa to a knee without trying for a first down before punting the ball back

OK, but what were the odds they'd've found a better QB in the time it would've taken to trade punts?  Like they could've traded punts, used up their timeouts, and not been in passing situations on the final drive?

Right- but then your backup qb still has to make plays after you punt. And likely from worse field position. Without any time outs while the clock is running down. Or am I missing something?

Punt.  Use your timeouts.  Since you have them pinned back, they'll most likely be conservative in the play calling.  You'll get the ball back in a similar spot with only a little time gone off the clock and 4 downs to play with rather than 4th and 8.

The defense that you are counting on to get a quick stop to make the punt decision work out? 

There is a phenomena that people think that if one choice didn't work, that means the other choice would have worked automatically.

Of course, if I make a choice and it doesn't work, I would love to go back and change my choice and see. But it is quite possible that even if multi-verses exist, PSU was losing that game no matter what they chose on the particular branch at that time.

There's no end to that "game".  Even if you went back and changed your choice, that's just one "rep" of each you're comparing.  What if you went back 10 times and didn't change that choice?  Same for the other choice.  And it's not as if "go for it" had to mean the same play.  And think of the choices the defense had to make for that play too.

The impression that if one choice didn't work, the other must have, is only a small part of the impression we have working all the time that tells us we have more control over results than we actually do.  Like now I'm about to e-mail the other coaches about, not decisions in the game, but preparation all season leading to it, that might've worked better...and yet I still have the suspicion that we would've lost last night's game (meeting of undefeateds) more or less badly no matter what things we might've coached differently.  For every suggestion I have in mind, there's a counter-argument, a trade-off, even if it would've made a difference.

You make the best decision you can based on information you have, including game situation, your personnel vs. theirs, what you anticipate from other side X and O-wise.

Then you live with it, for better or worse.

That's what you get paid for.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Had an assistant who said over time the results tend to even out.

He may have been right.

But by going for it- you are asking the back up (who hadn’t been playing great but had a little momentum in that current non 3&out drive) to make one play (3 yards) then maybe one or two more to put you in FG range. By punting, you are asking the defense (which I do not believe forced a 3 and out all half) to get you the ball back quickly, and then you are STILL relying on that Qb who hasn’t played well to create something.