source control

these sorts of things shouldn’t happen on such a large scale.  or at least, i think they shouldn’t.

i’m somewhat misrepresenting things there (but only somewhat), but that seems like just bad business … crazy.

keeping the potential markets in mind is always important in evaluation a potential product.  sometimes we identify problems that exist correctly, but fail to identify _what_ segment of the world truly identifies with that problem.

indian:

Randy and I discussed this at length on the way back from the Wake game.  I think that only in very few situations (ie 4th and long inside your 20 where a turnover gives the other team an immediate score) is punting even defensible.  This article basically puts it into perspective, the emotive fear of loss is disproportionately greater than the satisfaction of gain, and a punt is just seen as a break-even proposition.  I mean, a team gains 4 yards per play or thereabouts.  Why is gaining 25-35 yards for your defense worth sacrificing a break-even shot at continuing a drive [which would dramatically increase your chance to score]?

Plus, until most teams start doing it, you’re going to have a big advantage in scheming and preparing for a game.  You know going in that you constantly are playing for 2.5 yard at a time, you have 4 shots at 10 yards, etc, where every defense practices/plans/mentally prepares to allow 3 yards for 3 plays then they’re done.  You have drastically more options at 3rd and 5, knowing that you’ve got two shots to get there.  Your opposing defense plans for you for a week, but you practice your offense all year.  I don’t even like the framework of the attitude of “let’s go for it on 4th down” because that implies that it’s not a conventional tactic.  If you drill and approach with the attitude that 4th is default, anything else is unconventional, you completely alter the game and your choices.

Job security is the reason this whole thing evolved as such anyways, and I understand it’s tough for a coach to do because failure is magnified, but there are a few coaches out there (Paterno, Urban, Peterson, Carroll) who could get away with it - maybe even Harbaugh if he sold it with EUTM.  Paterno said a few years ago that he thinks that’s the next coaching trend, just didn’t think he had the stones to get away with it.

While we’re on illogical coaching moves, when your defense is bleeding in the final 2 minutes and a team has driven down to the 15 yard line or closer in a tie game (or down 1), why do you let them run down the clock?  They are 95% likely to score in that situation, maybe higher, yet coaches routinely do nothing.  If you let them in, you at least give yourself some time to try to tie the game.  Instead opposing teams score with 2 seconds left, and your only option is to recreate the Play, which, let’s face it, ain’t happening (again).  I remember John Fox let a team in once a long time ago, the only time I remember seeing it happen.  They had about a minute left instead of 5 seconds, managed to drive to the opponents 40 and had some shots at the end zone.  Didn’t happen, but it was the right move.

I’ve been sitting on this for a while thinking about it. The more and more I think about it, the less I agree with you (well, in some ways).

In the short run, and for individual instances (particularly when you’re the lesser team by a significant margin), I do agree there are times where going for it is called for. In fact, I will agree that coaches are a bit _too_ reluctant in this regard (or at least they’re very inefficient in choosing how they behave).

In the long run (over the entire course of a game or season), however, I think you’re wrong. It’s kind of like volatility drag for a stock. Yes, throwing the ball deep, going for it on fourth down, and blitzing all increase your expected returns / likelihood of winning — but they all do so with a price tag of variance / turnovers / field position. That variance, in the long run (for a good team) hurts you. You might jump out to an early lead, or have massive spurts of success — but a good hedge fund evaluator would see those returns and think … too much beta and sell your team’s chances of winning.

Now, this doesn’t mean you should quick kick and never go for it on fourth down? Does it mean you shouldn’t throw the ball? Does it mean you should never blitz? No. I think variance is appropriate in many situations. I just don’t think it is a repeatable strategy.

In that same regard, I do think most coaches fail to realize where variance is called for and where it isn’t. They fail to adjust their schemes and thought processes for when they’re the favorite and when they’re not (I think Harbaugh actually does btw - even if he has some other massive game flaws). In fact, this is actually the biggest criticism I’d have for Jeff Tedford (and I’d cite his use of trick plays vs bad teams / withholding of them vs. better teams as one example). People complain that Pete Carroll is remarkably conservative in his play calling … I applaud him. That’s what you should do when you line up a better team than your opponent every time out.

Anyway, those are my (partially completed) thoughts. Go Cardinal.

who wants to give it a try?