The last part of the report presented to Ohio State focused on special teams/circumstances.
"As you can imagine a large portion of that was devoted to the age old question of "when or when not to go for a two point conversion". As you can imagine this was a very very math oriented approach that focused on a) Time of game and b) point differential.
The main takeaway was that going for two is a much much better play than is often considered by coaches. Almost anytime they are down 4, 8 or 11 points it is the "right" thing to do---almost without exception.
The interesting thing about the conclusions however, wasn't focused strictly on the math. It was focused on the "impact" of such a mindset. First of all it forces coaches to spend more time gameplanning and scheming for two point plays--which in turn, increases their effectiveness. Secondly, the pressure it put on the other team is extraordinary--as they are forced to keep up. Third, much like the game of blackjack where what happens before effects future outcomes(unlike any other game in Vegas) a team that is successful with two point conversions enjoys a number of ancillary benefits in the overall game play as it affects the other teams play calls and strategies.
On side kicking is much the same way, in that teams that devote a lot of time to it are exponentially better at it then teams that don't. And also, teams don't spend a lot of time practicing on side kick recovery, so it presents an edge. But with the rule changes limiting the number of guys you can put on one side of the ball this has become and extremely low percentage play. So strictly a gimmick but not a strategy.
Punting is almost never a good mathematical play, unless you are backed up deep in your own territory. And coaches get this play wrong about 72% of the time---the highest percentage of any regular decision tree that coaches are faced with in a game. Teams punt wayyyy too often. And ANY time you are on the opposite side of the 50---regardless of down/distance its a "go". Ohio State has gotten better at getting this "right" in recent years---but still has a ways to go.
Punt block is the most misunderstood play in special teams. Teams that devote extraordinary effot to punt block do so at almost a 50% higher clip than teams that don't. And blocking a punt is the single biggest indicator of winning or losing a game---as teams that block a kick win the game ultimately at over a 89% rate.
A sub segment of punting is punt return which calls for a two returner setup over a long return man. Teams that put two guys back fumble 22% less of the time and average 6% more return yards. The only downside is they are more susceptible to fakes, but rarely give up big plays on them(0ver 20+ yards)
Kickoff strategy of kicking the ball to land between the 0-10 yard line picks up a team an average of 27 yards per game--so it is a statistically significant result over kicking the ball through the back of the end zone. Even when you net out kicks out of bounds and big returns. I personally don't like this, but that is what the math dictates.
Overall, was a terrific presentation and one of the most high quality analytical evaluations of Ohio State football in particular, and college football in general. Loads of good stuff in here that have Day and company pondering their approaches to the game....."
"As you can imagine a large portion of that was devoted to the age old question of "when or when not to go for a two point conversion". As you can imagine this was a very very math oriented approach that focused on a) Time of game and b) point differential.
The main takeaway was that going for two is a much much better play than is often considered by coaches. Almost anytime they are down 4, 8 or 11 points it is the "right" thing to do---almost without exception.
The interesting thing about the conclusions however, wasn't focused strictly on the math. It was focused on the "impact" of such a mindset. First of all it forces coaches to spend more time gameplanning and scheming for two point plays--which in turn, increases their effectiveness. Secondly, the pressure it put on the other team is extraordinary--as they are forced to keep up. Third, much like the game of blackjack where what happens before effects future outcomes(unlike any other game in Vegas) a team that is successful with two point conversions enjoys a number of ancillary benefits in the overall game play as it affects the other teams play calls and strategies.
On side kicking is much the same way, in that teams that devote a lot of time to it are exponentially better at it then teams that don't. And also, teams don't spend a lot of time practicing on side kick recovery, so it presents an edge. But with the rule changes limiting the number of guys you can put on one side of the ball this has become and extremely low percentage play. So strictly a gimmick but not a strategy.
Punting is almost never a good mathematical play, unless you are backed up deep in your own territory. And coaches get this play wrong about 72% of the time---the highest percentage of any regular decision tree that coaches are faced with in a game. Teams punt wayyyy too often. And ANY time you are on the opposite side of the 50---regardless of down/distance its a "go". Ohio State has gotten better at getting this "right" in recent years---but still has a ways to go.
Punt block is the most misunderstood play in special teams. Teams that devote extraordinary effot to punt block do so at almost a 50% higher clip than teams that don't. And blocking a punt is the single biggest indicator of winning or losing a game---as teams that block a kick win the game ultimately at over a 89% rate.
A sub segment of punting is punt return which calls for a two returner setup over a long return man. Teams that put two guys back fumble 22% less of the time and average 6% more return yards. The only downside is they are more susceptible to fakes, but rarely give up big plays on them(0ver 20+ yards)
Kickoff strategy of kicking the ball to land between the 0-10 yard line picks up a team an average of 27 yards per game--so it is a statistically significant result over kicking the ball through the back of the end zone. Even when you net out kicks out of bounds and big returns. I personally don't like this, but that is what the math dictates.
Overall, was a terrific presentation and one of the most high quality analytical evaluations of Ohio State football in particular, and college football in general. Loads of good stuff in here that have Day and company pondering their approaches to the game....."
Last edited:
