So, we play the game in fear of a turnover. On what % of plays from scrimmage does a turnover occur. Let's say 5%, which has to be high. That's a 95% that a turnover won't occur on a given play.

Then, what % of the time do turnovers in the situations we were in result in TD's for the opposition. Yes, we were near our goal line, but our D was playing well. Heck, let's call this 40%, which I imagine is high. Then, there's a 1.25% chance that going for it would have backfired.

So, a 1-2% chance over a handful of so or plays that going for it on each of the two occasions might have entailed.

In a game in which we had nothing to lose, being a huge underdog...and so much to gain by winning.

Now, we can't know what going for it on each occasion would have resulted in. But we lost, so I think it's firmer ground, given the percentages, to say that not going for it hurt us.


I just don't understand this ultra-conservative, deathly-fear-of-a-turnover, fear-laden attitude.

We just flat tice gave up on two possibilities, however longshot, to advance our cause. Solich is 0-4 in MACC so something isn't perfect. Deathly fear of turnover or anything but take air out of ball got us 20-0 to 20-23 last time. Lesson NOT learned.



And, no, I would not have been raking on Solich if going for it had backfired. Lost in the hate for me is that I'm pretty consistent. If I advocate a course, I own its consequences.

We have not learned much from 8,261 posts on this fan board, but it has been proven, 8,200 some times that Monroe certainly does not understand football coaching strategy. Enough is enough for me.

I say that I'd have owned the decision and its potential bad consequences ..and you tell me I wouldn't have. Seriously? I argue strongly for what I believe in but I've never told anyone what they feel or would feel.

Field position has a bit to do with it but not much. Again, morbid fear of turnover is a formula for 0-4 MACC and 20-0 to 20-23.

We hadn't much stopped WMU? That is EXACTLY why we should go for it, instead of turning the ball over to them and giving them more chances to score. Yes, it's a long shot but if we'd've made the 3rd and 14, WMU would not have gotten the ball and scored to go from up 16-7 to 23-7.


And, in fact, we'd been stopping them all half. Hold them to field goals or not scores mostly at that point--only 16 points by a high-scoring machine despite our two turnovers deep in our territory.


Definitely good coaching to forego chances to score. See the loss to Minnesota last year and the same approach at end of first half. Worked so well in that close loss, too.

Your approach works so well.

Monroe,

I purpose you do a survey off all 128 FBS head coaches. Give them the exact details of the situation, and ask them if they'd throw the ball down field in that situation or if they'd try to run clock. I suspect you'd find very few who would take the first option and the vast majority would opt to run the clock. Now maybe you are a better football mind than these coaches, but I've seen no evidence of it.

Actually, your high risk approach reminds me of a head coach at Kent State back in the 1960s (or maybe early '70s). This dude (can't remember his name) came up with some statistic that supposedly proved that you would be better off going for it nearly every time you faced a fourth down, regardless of field position. He tried this strategy. As I recall he abandoned this approach halfway through the season when it wasn't working. His theory based on his statistics proved in actually practice not to work. I think he wasn't the KSU coach for more than three years. I submit that your statistical analysis is probably right on par with this coaches use of statistics.

My reasoning is the same that's everyone's else's on here. Field position.

As a matter of course, if I'm down by my own end zone with 36 seconds left to play in the half, against a superior team and my offense has not shown an ability up to that point to be able to move the ball, in a game where I'm already down by 16 points, and I'm on the road, I'm running out the clock, plain and simple. I will make my adjustments at halftime and come out swinging in the 2nd half. I do not want to risk making the game out of reach.

Remember, Ohio's not playing this game in a vacuum. If Ohio comes out in a spread formation with 4-5 wideouts with 36 seconds left, WMU's defense is going to bring the heat. You say the risk of a turnover is low. I say the risk of a safety is significant if WMU's able to get to the QB. I don't want to take that chance. It seems to me the risk of something bad NEAR MY OWN END ZONE is greater than something good happening.

For me its a simple matter of field position. And for most coaches, I imagine its the samething. I'm not being facetious when I say, I very highly doubt that Bill Belichick would go for it in that circumstance.

And to be honest, for me (and me only) this was an insignificant part of the game. There were many other drives that one could point to as to why Ohio lost. For me, this isn't one of them.

And no worries, it's all good. I love your passion for all that's Ohio-I just hate the sheer repetition of your message, even if there are times I agree with it.

When you have one of the best kickers in the game I don't see it as low-reward. 36 seconds when the clock stops on first downs it plenty of time to take some shots down the field and try and get into range. Those 3 points would have come in handy down the stretch, no? No matter how you look at it that call was playing "not to lose".

Still think that fear of a turnover is a limiting paralysis and that a team should not turn down reasonable chances to score. How many times does a team take possession in a game? Why would we give up two of them in a game in which we had nothing to lose and in which a victory would have been MONUMENTAL?


It's too much part of the conservative approach that seems to limit our players' potential.

This is the kind of thinking that causes 18 point underdogs to lose by 40. So you're an underdog? Big deal. The game is on the line. You believe in yoursefl, you play your game, and you stick to the game plan, and you have the best chance to win. You start doing things you normally wouldn't do, and your chance of really bad results jumps dramatically.

By the way, giving up extra points to WMU is not the only bad result that was possible. Injuries are also possible, particularly to the QB, who the defensive line is going to be after full bore.

L.C. So well presented. Thanks. You with the patience of Job.

Guys, I believe one some/often times used play with 3-14 at the 10 is a bomb down the field. An int at or past midfield does what the punt would do on the next play if the pass is incomplete and you also give yourself a chance for the first. Agree with Monroe that we took the standard/conservative approach on the play and I think that is what he is bitching about. Taking no chance.

Don't know the statistics on this one...you could have a safety on the four which wouldn't be good!

That long pass was 40 yards. PSU was on the Wis side if the field. Put Ohio on the Western 40 with 30 seconds left and Ohio takes the shot. Not apples to apples in your example.