Jump to content

Texas vs. byu - 2:30pm on ABC

Pancho

By Pancho
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jkwellborn

Jkwellborn 6,713

Posted
Posted
Thank you.  I feel like we have the same discussion every year.  The analytics say to.always go for it inside 5.  Especially when you are winning and want to limit the opponent's quality possessions.

You can argue analytics all you want. But the fact remains, Texas can’t score inside the one against hardly anyone. At least not running the ball. As bad as BYU was playing offense, go ahead, take 3 pts and get the fg team a little practice too. Because the snaps were suspect not long ago. Kickoff coverage needs work too.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Kdub
Kdub

People are being gaping pussies about a 35-6 win. What the fuck??

BurntOrange&White
BurntOrange&White

I’ll take 35-6 with our backup QBs first start. Fuck you idiots who expect absolute perfection 

ztejas
ztejas

This game thread is absolute cancer today. The entitlement and unrealistic expectations some of you have is utterly insane - coupled with posters jumping on a QB who is starting his first ever game -

Posted Images

Hard Times

Hard Times 302

Posted
Posted

I don't know exactly how the analytics are calculated but it's probably an average of all games/teams. In a live game situation does the team with the best OL in football do the same thing as the team with the worst OL? And the same can be said about going against the best/worst DL.

To not take into consideration the other variables of the situation would be shear stupidity.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Surly Bevo

Surly Bevo 25,080

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Hard Times said:

I don't know exactly how the analytics are calculated but it's probably an average of all games/teams. In a live game situation does the team with the best OL in football do the same thing as the team with the worst OL? And the same can be said about going against the best/worst DL.

To not take into consideration the other variables of the situation would be shear stupidity.

Well and analytics removes the human element, which may be fine sometimes and not others.  So I get the notion that you go for it, you don't get it you leave them a long field to cover.  But let's say they pop a run or a pass and mount a drive that results in a TD and an XP.  Then your offense with a first time starter at the helm is getting the ball back in a one possession game with all the momentum having swung the way of the opponent, a defense with a history of doing dumb things late and therefore a lot of pressure to get something done.  That shit had better factor into the equation next week because a 2nd time starter ain't much more than a first time starter (see Milroe in his 3rd college start)

Edited by Surly Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immamac

immamac 42,872

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Atticus said:

Can we just mention the good sportsmanship BYU showed in this game?

They offered to help our guys up, didn't do a bunch of extra curricular activity, etc. 

Big difference from last week.

I seriously think they self imposed that delay of game for the back to back timeouts. I don’t think the refs did anything on that lol

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3,660

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Atticus said:

Can we just mention the good sportsmanship BYU showed in this game?

They offered to help our guys up, didn't do a bunch of extra curricular activity, etc. 

Big difference from last week.

And they voluntarily took a Delay when the refs screwed up.  That was huge - it used to be common, but it's pretty rare in this era.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurntOrange&White

BurntOrange&White 39,934

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Atticus said:

Can we just mention the good sportsmanship BYU showed in this game?

They offered to help our guys up, didn't do a bunch of extra curricular activity, etc. 

Big difference from last week.

Seemed like they were chirping. BYU usually is pretty bad on the extra curricular stuff but in general they were better than they have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vermin

Vermin 3,054

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, JBJ said:

Thank you.  I feel like we have the same discussion every year.  The analytics say to.always go for it inside 5.  Especially when you are winning and want to limit the opponent's quality possessions.

Only analytics for morons. You can take anything to a ruinous extreme.

Expected value of points is higher by going for it inside the 5, correct, but it's a higher variance play. So towards the end of the game you should sacrifice some point equity for less variance if a FG increases the number of possessions the opponent needs to score on to win.

If your house is worth $500k would you risk it on the flip of a coin to win $500,002 if you could just be given 75 cents for free? Higher expected value doesn't mean it is always worth the risk.

An 18 point lead late in a game is a near-lock to win. A 22 point lead isn't *that* much better since it's still 3 possessions, especially at the risk of being left with a 15 point (2 possession) lead which is quite vulnerable.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdhorn92

jdhorn92 1,552

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Vermin said:

An 18 point lead late in a game is a near-lock to win. A 22 point lead isn't *that* much better since it's still 3 possessions, especially at the risk of being left with a 15 point (2 possession) lead which is quite vulnerable.

I agree with that 100%.  Especially with a first time starter at QB. I kept thinking take the points, we're one MM pick six and onside recovery away from being a game.  At home , facing an inept offense,  extend the lead, keep momentum and give then no hope while taking the risk out of things.  The disdain for 3 points in CFB is maddening.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jw4381

jw4381 3,088

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, UncleSonny said:

So that’s not at all how that works. It’s so weird how posters just add 9 points in FGs to the point total without thinking that the context of those plays have an affect on how the game plays out. 

Part of the calculation of going for it inside the five is if you don’t get it, as long as your defense holds you immediately have great field position, almost back in FG range. 

After Sanders got stopped at the 1, defense forced a three and out and we started the next drive on the 49. It took us 4 plays to get back in the RZ. Shitty red zone offense popped up again but they started their next drive backed up again, threw a pick and then we finally got the touchdown. 

Sark does some dumb shit, but not settling for FGs from inside the 3 really isn’t one of them. “Take the points” is an antiquated take for the olds who don’t believe in math  


 

Get off my lawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Codaxx

Codaxx 5,794

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Vermin said:

Only analytics for morons. You can take anything to a ruinous extreme.

Expected value of points is higher by going for it inside the 5, correct, but it's a higher variance play. So towards the end of the game you should sacrifice some point equity for less variance if a FG increases the number of possessions the opponent needs to score on to win.

If your house is worth $500k would you risk it on the flip of a coin to win $500,002 if you could just be given 75 cents for free? Higher expected value doesn't mean it is always worth the risk.

An 18 point lead late in a game is a near-lock to win. A 22 point lead isn't *that* much better since it's still 3 possessions, especially at the risk of being left with a 15 point (2 possession) lead which is quite vulnerable.

There is value to giving an offense the ball on their on 1 yard line. That has a negative expected value. The most likely scenario is Texas gets ball back on offense between the 40s. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UncleSonny

UncleSonny 6,573

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Vermin said:

Only analytics for morons. You can take anything to a ruinous extreme.

Expected value of points is higher by going for it inside the 5, correct, but it's a higher variance play. So towards the end of the game you should sacrifice some point equity for less variance if a FG increases the number of possessions the opponent needs to score on to win.

If your house is worth $500k would you risk it on the flip of a coin to win $500,002 if you could just be given 75 cents for free? Higher expected value doesn't mean it is always worth the risk.

An 18 point lead late in a game is a near-lock to win. A 22 point lead isn't *that* much better since it's still 3 possessions, especially at the risk of being left with a 15 point (2 possession) lead which is quite vulnerable.

This entire post is a straw-man, from the weird coin flip analogy that has zero relation to the analytics of going for a touchdown vs. attempting a fg to the fact that the two decisions being discussed weren’t that late in the game, both of the drives in question started in the 3rd quarter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookem2147

Hookem2147 21,344

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Hard Times said:

"inferior opponent"  I was yelling take the FG against ou because I knew Texas wasn't going to push the ou DL around. 

Texas was down 7 with 12 minutes to go in the game from the 1 yard line against OU. Taking the field goal there to make a 1 possession game a 1 possession game is something Iowa would do.

Not even a comparable situation to yesterday.

Edited by Hookem2147
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,626

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Not a cat said:

Just now watched the broadcast because I was at the game.  Who the hell is in charge of research for this graphic?  I guess we had no bad ass dominant game breaking running back between 04 and 14.IMG_20231029_150127556_HDR.thumb.jpg.ebf4e3f39d076cc9bcc69700f5d3c015.jpg

 

Yeah, no idea how Jamaal Charles doesn't make that list. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16,585

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Hard Times said:

"inferior opponent"  I was yelling take the FG against ou because I knew Texas wasn't going to push the ou DL around. 

Nah, four down territory there was the correct mindset. A TD there would have been massive psychologically in addition to tying the game, and a FG doesn't do much for you at that point in the game. I'd change the play calls themselves and Sark has said as much in hindsight.

The bad decision against OU was kicking the FG on the final possession. They had 4th and 4 with a scorching hot QB against a broken OU defense with no timeouts. 4 yards to essentially eliminate the chance of losing in regulation and get a shot at a walk off win. You will rarely get a better deal than that, especially considering the Auburn FG - great kick as it was - was not at all a guarantee, he was sub-70% from that range for his career. It's as simple as asking what is easier - getting 4 yards or hitting this 49 yard FG and then stopping the OU offense from going down the field?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...