Around the Big Ten

[iam416]

Yup, you need to be able to throw the ball when you do face one of the 2-3 teams on your schedule that can shut (or slow) down a power run game like Wisky's. You still need a QB that can move the chains, convert 3rd downs and not give the opposition the football.

EFZ. See Wisconsin vs Nebraska; Wisconsin vs Ohio State

[iam416]

It is absolutely imperative your game breakers are able to block in that case, and it goes without saying you better have a really good QB who can read the play.

Well, the H-back is a horizontal constraint, so no need to block. Your WRs need to block well. That's the difference between 5 and 20 yards. But basically you're positioning the defense into a 7v7 play (including the QB). If your OL blocks well and your RB makes the unaccounted for guy miss, it's over.

OSU has managed to run for roughly 500 yards in its last two games against MSU -- a pretty good defense. And they've done it with a lot power using spread concepts to remove defenders from the play. Unfortunately in 2014 OSU's WRs couldn't beat the press man with any consistency. In 2015 they did and JTB put the ball on the money.

[entropy]

I call it credible threats. You have to pass enough to keep everyone honest. That doesn't mean balance either... Same with passing teams. You have to be good enough in the run to keep teams honest

[Hannibal]

IMO it really becomes a matter of defense...can you play D well enough for that style to be effective? Is it worth the resources and effort to try and be that good on defense?

Why not look to blow teams out of the water so that you're not relying on the defense to hold the opposition to 14 points? Why would you set yourself up to need that type of performance?

[entropy]

so everyone should adopt Baylor's approach...?

[WM Wolverine]

It works for friggen Baylor, so yes.

[iam416]

There is a certain "game theory" component to bucking the offensive trend and getting huge mismatches against a defense geared to stop the spread. It hasn't really happened, yet, but if, as Hoss suggests, LBs become obsolete...heh, you could see an Arky or HARBAUGH!!!! offense dominating the LoS.

That said, to reiterate what WM said...it works for F'n Baylor! Now, I don't think you can make the jump from good to elite without playing pretty solid defense. But you can certainly get from total ass to pretty good with a hellraising offense. 70-63 (or whatever the outrageous score of the WV-Baylor game a year or two ago was) is still a win. It's sickening, but whatever. Hell, 61-58 is still a win.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU...or I'll do a John Jay HS blindside on your Bucknut arse...

[WM Wolverine]

More important than what you do is you have to be really good at something (defense, throwing, rushing, option) to be successful. It's better to be excellent defensively and have a lousy offense than be mediocre at everything.

Otherwise you'll end up like Iowa who tries to be Bama with much, much inferior talent.

[Wild Hoss]

Why not look to blow teams out of the water so that you're not relying on the defense to hold the opposition to 14 points? Why would you set yourself up to need that type of performance?

I don't really know. Maybe the idea is that the coach who fancies his teams as being the most disciplined, well-coached, and executes better, wants to limit possessions as to maximize the impact those advantages bring. Ask Jim I guess?

Not really a huge pro-style fan, unless you're implementing some expansions to the run game...QB, Jet, etc.

[Mike]

Speaking of game theory, are any of you familiar with Kevin Kelley from Pulaski Academy in Arkansas? He's the high school coach who never punts and always onside kicks after scoring. His philosophy is simple: Why would I ever voluntarily give the ball away? As crazy as it sounds he has had tremendous success, 4 state titles in 9 years and wins over 90% of his games. There was a bit on HBO's Real Sports last month and it was very enlightening. I figured he was just a crazy ideologue but his approach is rooted in statistical data that supports his theory.

In the last 8 years he has punted 10 times. He refuses to punt regardless of where they are on the field. He shows a clip of his team going for 4th down on their own 5 yard line. Insane, right? He breaks down the numbers (for high school) and says if they don't convert the 4th down, the opponent will score a TD 92% of the time. If he punts and the opponent takes over after an average net of 30 yards, they will still score 77% of the time. But if he goes for it he has a 50% chance of converting so he thinks it's crazy to punt.

He onside kicks after every score because even if his team doesn't recover, they're only giving up 14 yards of field position on average. It's worth the gamble to keep the ball in his opinion. To him, kicking the ball away is akin to a turnover. Keep in mind his numbers are for high school where I believe they kick from the 40 so the ball needs to at least cross midfield. If they kick deep, say down to the 10 and you figure a 25 yard return, that's a 14 yard difference in field position. They have 12 set plays for onside kicks.

A few years ago they had a big match-up with one of the top teams in the state on the road. Their opponent elected to kick deep to Pulaski who marched down the field and scored. They then recovered 3 consecutive onside kicks and took a 28-0 lead less than 3 minutes into the game. They won.

The HBO segment features an economist and statistician who wrote a book on forecasting scores of sports games. He crunched NFL numbers. He said every time a team punts from between the 40s, they decrease their chances of winning. That's the sweet spot because there is virtually no downside to not converting a 4th down in that part of the field. Giving up the ball at the 50, for example, isn't that bad. Pushing back the team 30 yards with a punt is a little better. But keeping the ball is by far the best outcome. You should go for anything 4th and 8 or less.

Kelley's new innovation is something he calls rugby football where he stacks 3-4 WRs on one side and they basically run hook and laterals. His data shows that plays of 20+ yards have an even greater impact on winning a football game than turnovers. He wants to implement the rugby-style pitching of the ball between players to extend plays, which he says leads to greater gains. It'll be interested to see how they do with that.

People are too freaked out by his unorthodox approach to give him a shot at the college level. He actually was considered for the Columbia job 3 years ago but their AD said he "wasn't the right kind of coach for our program". They have won 1 game the last 3 years. He has been contacted by 2 NFL teams to discuss his philosophy. One was the Atlanta Falcons and the other swore him to secrecy. If I had to guess I'd say that other team was the Patriots. Remember Belichick going for 4th down on his own 20 in OT?

Now, onside kicking after every score and going for 4th down on your own 5 isn't going to fly at the major D1 or NFL level. But I think there is a great opportunity for an innovative (and ballsy) coach to implement some of this theory. In fact, I think it may end up being the next big revolution in CFB. You guys talked a lot about how the spread changed the game. We might be talking one day about how people used to punt all the time back in "the old days". I actually think a team like Michigan that is trying to find an offensive identity might as well adopt a no-punt rule once they cross midfield. Just go 4 down territory from the 50 to the goal line (unless you need a chip shot FG). Think of how much stress that would put on a defense! You're giving yourself 25% more plays to make a first down and decrease the needed yards per play to 2.5. According to the stat geek that analyzed NFL games there is virtually no significant difference in terms of being scored on if you give your opponent the ball at their 45 or their 25. I thought it sounded crazy but if the numbers work out, who am I to judge?

Teams like Baylor and Ohio State are putting up video game numbers. If you really want to beat them, you probably shouldn't voluntarily give them the ball so much.

[iam416]

Yeah, I've seen that.

In CFB the difference between onside kicks and kicking away is roughly 30 yards. I consider that significant.

I do think you should go for it on 4th down anywhere near the 50 depending on the distance.

[Hannibal]

Punting definitely needs to be rethought but going for it from your own five if you have something resembling a solid defense seems insane. I also can't imagine a college team recovering more than about 15% of its onside kicks.

[Mike]

Agreed re: onside kicks above the HS level. I think there is definite room for improvement in the traditional mindset as it relates to punting/field position. I'm sure we can all think of a few Lloyd Carr decisions to punt that we'd like back. Possessing the football trumps your opponents' field position 100 out of 100 times. I'd love to see a creative mind figure out a way to implement some of this stuff at the FBS level. It reminds me of the switch from dump-and-chase to puck possession hockey.

A shit program like EMU would be a great candidate. They are on life support and trying to pump some life into the program. I hear a lot of advertising for tix on the radio and they have feee concerts and and such to strum up interest. They'd be better served by offering an exciting product on the field. It would be a perfect labratory for a crazy Mike Leach type to try this.

[Wild Hoss]

Its easy to talk about going for it on 4th down as being bold and statistically beneficial, but if you fail to convert 3 of 4 against your crosstown rival you'll be having a much different conversation.

I'd think that a lot of it would depend on your offense; if you have a dominant unit that going to convert most of these attempts, sure. If you're struggling to get to 4th and short in the first place, probably not a great idea.