The book says....

[EdH85]

I always thought the rules for going for 1 or 2 pertained to fourth quarter situations, where you score with less than 5 minutes (or so) and are down 5. I don't understand how "the book" is pertinent in the 2nd or 3rd quarter. Is this antiquated thinking on my part?

 

[cjrugger]

Yes

 

[Nitt1300]

math is constant, and doesn't change by quarter

I hope some of your people aren't claiming to be PSU degree holders

 

[EdH85]

math is constant, and doesn't change by quarter

I hope some of your people aren't claiming to be PSU degree holders

But this isn't math, it's a game where situations change. Oh, and you can shove your snarkiness.

 

[cjrugger]

But this isn't math, it's a game where situations change. Oh, and you can shove your snarkiness.

Its called analytics. People with advanced math degrees run simulations and come up with a chart that coaches use to make decisions. Often times, when you wait til the last '5 minutes or so' its too late to make those decisions. The earlier you make the decision, the more options you have going forward

 

[WDLion]

But this isn't math, it's a game where situations change. Oh, and you can shove your snarkiness.

Hindsight is great. If the two is successful a field goal sends it to OT.

 

[EdH85]

Its called analytics. People with advanced math degrees run simulations and come up with a chart that coaches use to make decisions. Often times, when you wait til the last '5 minutes or so' its too late to make those decisions. The earlier you make the decision, the more options you have going forward

But we ended up with fewer options at the end. I understand what analytics are and what they are supposed to do, but I believe there are too many variables moving forward in the 2nd and 3rd quarter. And this is not the first time Franklin pulled "the book" out early and it cost us. It seems to me that taking the points in the early part of the game would give you more options in the latter stages of the game.

 

[EdH85]

Hindsight is great. If the two is successful a field goal sends it to OT.

Yes, and if we had the 1 point, Franklin would have kicked the field goal instead of going for the TD. That would have put us in the position to win the game on a field goal at the end. I know it's hindsight, but I've always felt you take the points in the quarters 1 thru 3, and then in the 4th quarter go for 2 if it gets you with in a field goal.

 

[cjrugger]

But we ended up with fewer options at the end. I understand what analytics are and what they are supposed to do, but I believe there are too many variables moving forward in the 2nd and 3rd quarter. And this is not the first time Franklin pulled "the book" out early and it cost us. It seems to me that taking the points in the early part of the game would give you more options in the latter stages of the game.

There were 19 minutes left in the game, not sure why you keep mentioning the 2nd quarter. If we kick the XP, we're down 31-26 with 4 minutes left. We have to go for 2 there and if we miss we need another TD. If we get the 2 point conversion at 19 minutes, we kick the XP at 4 minutes and only need a FG. More options

 

[Jo Man]

And when you do not make the 2 pts, you just gave the momentum back to the other team right after you scored a TD !!! All of a sudden your team is deflated right after scoring. Another reason not to go for it unless its late in the game.

 

[WDLion]

Yes, and if we had the 1 point, Franklin would have kicked the field goal instead of going for the TD. That would have put us in the position to win the game on a field goal at the end. I know it's hindsight, but I've always felt you take the points in the quarters 1 thru 3, and then in the 4th quarter go for 2 if it gets you with in a field goal.

Agree. And i also said it was to early to go for two.

 

[Bobpsu]

Hindsight is great. If the two is successful a field goal sends it to OT.

Yes, and if we had the 1 point, Franklin would have kicked the field goal instead of going for the TD. That would have put us in the position to win the game on a field goal at the end. I know it's hindsight, but I've always felt you take the points in the quarters 1 thru 3, and then in the 4th quarter go for 2 if it gets you with in a field goal.

Typical jackwad alleged PSU fan.....ease up kemosabe!
Where will you be standing this Saturday?

 

[cjrugger]

And when you do not make the 2 pts, you just gave the momentum back to the other team right after you scored a TD !!! All of a sudden your team is deflated right after scoring. Another reason not to go for it unless its late in the game.

Thankfully the players are much more emotionally stable than this board and don't pout and cry whenever they face adversity

 

[WDLion]

Typical jackwad alleged PSU fan.....ease up kemosabe!
Where will you be standing this Saturday?

What?

 

[EdH85]

Typical jackwad alleged PSU fan.....ease up kemosabe!
Where will you be standing this Saturday?

I'll be standing in the west stands where I have stood for the past 35 years. And why is someone a jackwad if they are questioning something they don't agree with? Seems to me the jackwad is the person that just starts calling someone names out of the blue rather than engage in a substantive discussion, jackwad!

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

But this isn't math, it's a game where situations change. Oh, and you can shove your snarkiness.

He can be snarky. Many of us can. But FWIW, I agree with him.

 

[Bobpsu]

I'll be standing in the west stands where I have stood for the past 35 years. And why is someone a jackwad if they are questioning something they don't agree with? Seems to me the jackwad is the person that just starts calling someone names out of the blue rather than engage in a substantive discussion, jackwad!

 

[Nitt1300]

But this isn't math, it's a game where situations change. Oh, and you can shove your snarkiness.

or you can grow some skin

 

[Omar81]

There were 19 minutes left in the game, not sure why you keep mentioning the 2nd quarter. If we kick the XP, we're down 31-26 with 4 minutes left. We have to go for 2 there and if we miss we need another TD. If we get the 2 point conversion at 19 minutes, we kick the XP at 4 minutes and only need a FG. More options

Your facts are wrong with regard to the score when we went for two. If we kicked the XP, we would have been down 31-27 and instead of throwing the absurd fade on 4th and goal from the 4 (after three other horrendous play calls, but that’s another discussion), we kick the FG to be down by 1. Then on our last possession, we kick another FG to go up by two. We would have had to stop them with about 1:30 left, but we would have had the lead.

By going for two and failing, we took options away. It was wrong/too early to go for 2.

 

[artsandletters]

I always thought the rules for going for 1 or 2 pertained to fourth quarter situations, where you score with less than 5 minutes (or so) and are down 5. I don't understand how "the book" is pertinent in the 2nd or 3rd quarter. Is this antiquated thinking on my part?

Nobody looked at a ‘book’. That was a choice.

 

[Judge Smails]

I think the bottom line is Franklin needs to be able to look into the future and see whether decisions he is going to make are successful or not, and then don't do them if they aren't going to be successful.

How about if Ricky Slade simply picks a lane, runs hard straight ahead and dives for the end zone he probably easily makes it in.

 

[EdH85]

or you can grow some skin

I think the bottom line is Franklin needs to be able to look into the future and see whether decisions he is going to make are successful or not, and then don't do them if they aren't going to be successful.

How about if Ricky Slade simply picks a lane, runs hard straight ahead and dives for the end zone he probably easily makes it in.

Well, how about if Ricky Slade is allowed to get a running start towards that lane instead of dancing in the backfield for a few seconds until our QB decides to hand the ball off...which he does 95% of the time. That lane sometimes is only there for a second or two. Asking our O-line to hold their blocks for 4 and 5 seconds is asking a lot... which is a whole other can of worms...

 

[cjrugger]

Your facts are wrong with regard to the score when we went for two. If we kicked the XP, we would have been down 31-27 and instead of throwing the absurd fade on 4th and goal from the 4 (after three other horrendous play calls, but that’s another discussion), we kick the FG to be down by 1. Then on our last possession, we kick another FG to go up by two. We would have had to stop them with about 1:30 left, but we would have had the lead.

By going for two and failing, we took options away. It was wrong/too early to go for 2.

We're not talking about the 4th and goal play. We're talking about going for 2 when Bowers scored to make it 24-19. You make decisions as they come up based on the score, not what happened 2 possessions before in the early 3rd quarter

 

[fairgambit]

math is constant, and doesn't change by quarter

I hope some of your people aren't claiming to be PSU degree holders

Math is constant? Well then how come, as a kid in grade school, I could do the same math problem 5 times and get 5 different answers?
Wait. I guess that was constant. I was constantly wrong.

.

 

[cjrugger]

Well, how about if Ricky Slade is allowed to get a running start towards that lane instead of dancing in the backfield for a few seconds until our QB decides to hand the ball off...which he does 95% of the time. That lane sometimes is only there for a second or two. Asking our O-line to hold their blocks for 4 and 5 seconds is asking a lot... which is a whole other can of worms...

It was a screen pass, not a running play

 

[fastlax16]

If you’re going to use analytics to defend the decision. Please use them to defend calling Slade’s number.

 

[EdH85]

It was a screen pass, not a running play

I wasn't sure which play he was discussing. I assumed when he said "lane" he meant a running play. My bad, but I still don't like the dancing around in the backfield that goes on. I mean, why can't we occasionally have a quick hitting run play through the line, especially when we need just a yard or two?

 

[Ughhh]

Its called analytics. People with advanced math degrees run simulations and come up with a chart that coaches use to make decisions. Often times, when you wait til the last '5 minutes or so' its too late to make those decisions. The earlier you make the decision, the more options you have going forward

I have multiple advanced engineering degrees and will bet dollars to donuts that I have run more simulations and developed more models than you ever have.

We have a phrase for the types of “black box” models that people substitute their own judgement for without vetting all the data being fed and all the ways in which parameters can vary, “Garbage in, garbage out”.

Going for 2 was stupid against MSU and it cost us OT against Minnesota - the model tried to predict possessions remaining and it was way the **** off

 

[Ughhh]

Thankfully the players are much more emotionally stable than this board and don't pout and cry whenever they face adversity

And as members of a tier 2 football program that thinks a highwater mark of 10-2 and the Citrus Bowl is good enough, they also have as many CFP appearances as this board and fewer than Mark Dantonio.

 

[cjrugger]

I wasn't sure which play he was discussing. I assumed when he said "lane" he meant a running play. My bad, but I still don't like the dancing around in the backfield that goes on. I mean, why can't we occasionally have a quick hitting run play through the line, especially when we need just a yard or two?

You started a thread about the 2 point conversion. That's the play we're discussing

 

[EdH85]

You started a thread about the 2 point conversion. That's the play we're discussing

I understand that now. I just misunderstood his post. Thanks for getting me back on point.

 

[danvillenit]

And as members of a tier 2 football program that thinks a highwater mark of 10-2 and the Citrus Bowl is good enough, they also have as many CFP appearances as this board and fewer than Mark Dantonio.

Really. Which player said 10-2 and Citrus Bowl was good enough? You should definitely let that player know your thoughts or are you just a message board jack#ss

 

[cjrugger]

I have multiple advanced engineering degrees and will bet dollars to donuts that I have run more simulations and developed more models than you ever have.

We have a phrase for the types of “black box” models that people substitute their own judgement for without vetting all the data being fed and all the ways in which parameters can vary, “Garbage in, garbage out”.

Going for 2 was stupid against MSU and it cost us OT against Minnesota - the model tried to predict possessions remaining and it was way the **** off

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Feel free to run the simulations and produce a better chart. I look forward to it

 

[fizzyskittles]

Yes, and if we had the 1 point, Franklin would have kicked the field goal instead of going for the TD. That would have put us in the position to win the game on a field goal at the end. I know it's hindsight, but I've always felt you take the points in the quarters 1 thru 3, and then in the 4th quarter go for 2 if it gets you with in a field goal.

I'd chase points with a big lead, down I'm not going to it immediately.

 

[Sooner Lion]

The book must say to run the ball straight at Chase Young on 4th and 5.

 

[ram2020]

Nobody cares what I think, understandably, but I had 0 problem with Franklin going for 2 there. I guess I would rather know how many points I need ultimately as the game plays out. I feel like I can make more informed decisions if I know how many points I ultimately need. It's a data point I would covet in his situation. I also think he may have been concerned how many times they would get the ball back and their ability to stop Minny from scoring. If you think Minny is going to continue to move the ball, chew up clock, and possibly score more points(hopefully field goals), I suppose you make a case for scoring as many points as possible when you are in position to after half time.

I have far bigger problems with our red zone offense and our inexplicable coverage defensively.

 

[OKC Nittany]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Feel free to run the simulations and produce a better chart. I look forward to it

Do they have charts based on NCAA rules & results?

 

[bison13]

I'll throw my .02 in here from a coaching perspective though I'm sure some on both sides will disagree. Generally that chart comes in to play when you feel that there are 3 or less possessions left. Now it could move up as based off of the style of play (say Big 12 style may lead to 4 or 5 possessions left) but the base rule is to take the sure thing until that point which is almost always in the 4th quarter. If you are down more than 24 in the 2nd half, you probably arent stopping the other team enough to even worry about going for 2 anyhow.

Some other issues in play are how confident you are in your defense quickly getting the ball back, special teams play (field position) as well as how long a single possession would take for each team, we always used 2 minutes 30 seconds for us to score. Minnesota was running all 40 off the play clock so at minimum 2 minutes 15 seconds per possession would go away if they ran 3 times and punted without using a TO. It's alot to think about in a short time, but with the OC calling plays, the HC has some time to plan that out.

Also I will say that we have gone against that rule and tried for two just based on the momentum factor. Sometimes we had a real good thing going and had a good play call so we went for it, didnt make sense 'by the chart' but we had a line moving people and a RB running hard so we tried (and got it). I dont think that is what JF did but some coaches do go on tehhgut instinct.

Personally I think it was a bad call as too early in the game and I would have accounted for UM scoring at least another FG as well as they moved the ball. Even though I do have engineering and math/stat degrees all of this is based off of 100's of hours of planning, film study, etc. so TIFWIW.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

An experienced human mind (which we should expect within a 5 million dollar coach) is difficult to replicate with simplified models, so I'd have a hard time accepting the recommendation of a "chart" to say whether to go for 1 or 2. In all likelihood, that chart just doesn't represent all of the pertinent, complicating factors.

I didn't have a problem going for two in that situation, though at the time I did feel there was a good chance it would backfire. The bigger issue, for me, came later, if it is really true. That is, Franklin actually basing the decision on a "chart."

If one knows nothing about the teams, nature of the game, conditions, strengths, weaknesses, and so forth, then maybe using such a chart derived with aggregate data makes some sense. But that is not what we have here. This wasn't a simulation, and the situation wasn't perfectly aligned within all of the bulk averages.

So, by using such a chart you are admitting at the time that you either know or understand nothing about the game at hand. You are admitting to bringing an inadequate level of pertinent experience to the table. That is the disturbing issue for me.

 

[Ughhh]

LOL..... apparently COSTCO now sells "advanced engineering degrees"

Or a top twenty and a top ten engineering department, by NRC, US News or any other rankings.

Speaking of credentials, how's that Trustee campaign coming? You any closer to office that the next average, pissed off trailer park resident who never learned how to talk to people?