Napier’s Decision To Go For 2

[First&Tenn]

I didn't like the decision, math be damned.

However, as i pointed out in another thread, I have no doubt in my mind, that if the extra points were kicked, Tennessee gets the first downs they need at the end of the game to run out the clock on their last possession or score.

There isn't a decision that was made in this game that wasn't influenced by the fact that Napier knew Florida had a snowball's chance in hell of stopping Tennessee's offense.

There were several unorthodox decisions made in this game, which happened to be the only reason the score was close.

I think this is accurate. He went high-risk, high-reward all day. He had to know it increased his chances of getting blown out, but he thought it gave them their best chance to win. How often do you go 5/6 on 4th down regardless of yardage? How often does a long pass on 4th and short actually work? And that's not even considering the 2 pt attempts. A combination of Richardson having his best game of the season, luck on some of these risks, and UT's pass defense being the weakest link of the team gave UF a shot to win in the end.

I honestly don't know if he called a brilliant game or an idiotic game, because if about 3 of those big risks go the other way, UF loses by at least 3 possessions. However, it almost worked, so he gets credit for that. I can't tell you how Napier will do at UF, but I watched his Louisiana team win a lot (I'm also a Coastal Carolina fan and former employee).

I will say it will be interesting to see if he stays this aggressive against UT in the future and how the gambles pan out. It may be they continue to work, or the law of averages may catch up to him. With UF vs UT, it's difficult to say where the luck will fall in the future (which is honestly encouraging as a UT fan).

 

[kckempf]

I’ve checked multiple models and his late decision to go for two was mathematically correct. It increased his probability of winning. You can argue until blue in the face but it was the correct call strategy wise. It’s like doubling 10 vs the 6 in blackjack. It’s absolutely correct but you may lose that hand doing it. Lastly please don’t give me any **** over this post. I’m simply telling you the math behind the decision. I’m glad he f-ing lost.

I in general like the increased use of mathematical models for helping coaches to make these kinds of decisions, but I'm curious whether these models have been trained on a theoretical ideal couple of teams, or if Napier has modeling based on his own team and its likely matchups. If it's us in the same situation, with Hooker instead of Richardson, the math probably is more favorable because Richardson against our defense missed half his passes, and Hooker against theirs missed only a few. Does going for 2 in that situation still make sense if the likely success rate is somewhere around 50% rather than 65%?

 

[vavolfan6]

Your statements “a participant in blackjack can not deduce much information if any at all” and then “the game is based on luck” disqualify you from having any educated opinion on mathematics and game theory. I will not waste my time trying to educate you nor change your mind. One thing I will ask you….why in the hell do you think professional card counters in blackjack are asked to leave the table and eventually barred from playing? Do you think the casino would give a **** if it was all luck? Your statements are so ignorant and closed minded theyre not even worth the 5 minutes it took me to write this rebuttal. Believe what you wish.

Its mostly luck. Yes, there are very minute things you can do to better understand your odds, but in the end your odds are written in stone, there is no changing them. You can't control what cards come out next. Card counting just allows you to better understand your odds. So sure some mathmatics can be done and you could simply follow a chart that would apply to every situation.

The same can not be said for football. Football is an everchaning game. There are multiple factors that can change the outcome of a game, even as the game is in progress. Injuries, players who get on a hot streak, mismatches that unfold as the game goes on, weather conditions, fan noise, home crowd impact, momentum, referees, etc. You have to understand the conditions and context of the situation. If you simply follow a one size fits all chart, you are treating every situation as if it is the same, when that can't be further from the truth.

So in Blackjack, you can use a mathematical chart. Football is much different. Its not the same or anything close. You trying to compare the two is ridiculous. Most people with common sense can tell the difference.

 

[GAVol]

I in general like the increased use of mathematical models for helping coaches to make these kinds of decisions, but I'm curious whether these models have been trained on a theoretical ideal couple of teams, or if Napier has modeling based on his own team and its likely matchups. If it's us in the same situation, with Hooker instead of Richardson, the math probably is more favorable because Richardson against our defense missed half his passes, and Hooker against theirs missed only a few. Does going for 2 in that situation still make sense if the likely success rate is somewhere around 50% rather than 65%?

I wondered the exact same thing. Seems like it would be hard to have a blanket mathatical model for 2 point situations that would apply across different teams, opponents, talent levels, offensive styles etc.

 

[ksgovols]

I have a question. When the Vols gave up the ball on downs prior to the Florida touchdown in question, why didn't we kick the field goal and go up 41-27? 14 better than 11 and they have to get 2 touchdowns and a 2 pt conversion to win.

 

[MSCE09]

I have a question. When the Vols gave up the ball on downs prior to the Florida touchdown in question, why didn't we kick the field goal and go up 41-27? 14 better than 11 and they have to get 2 touchdowns and a 2 pt conversion to win.

converting the 1st down all but wins the game. You have to feel 11 is enough to win at that point. Hard to imagine two scores happening that fast when Florida has only moved the ball against us all game on long slow drives. So I think going for it on 4th down makes a lot more sense.

 

[Jax_Vol]

I have a question. When the Vols gave up the ball on downs prior to the Florida touchdown in question, why didn't we kick the field goal and go up 41-27? 14 better than 11 and they have to get 2 touchdowns and a 2 pt conversion to win.

Where were we at on field, and how many yards did we need to make the first down?

I can't remember anything these days...

 

[ksgovols]

Where were we at on field, and how many yards did we need to make the first down?

I can't remember anything these days...

We were around the 30. I'll have to rewatch, but I remember at the time thinking we were in field goal range.

I'm not opposed to the decision to go for it if the metrics say there's a better chance of giving up a blocked kick and then giving up an onside kick plus a 2 point conversion than what we did which almost bit us in the butt.

 

[ksgovols]

converting the 1st down all but wins the game. You have to feel 11 is enough to win at that point. Hard to imagine two scores happening that fast when Florida has only moved the ball against us all game on long slow drives. So I think going for it on 4th down makes a lot more sense.

I'd love to know what the metrics say. I suppose the chance of a blocked field goal if you're not in gimme range could outweigh a 2 touchdown lead with 1:40 or so left on the clock. Getting 3 points right there more than almost wins the game. Hindsight is 20/20, but the Gators were throwing for the end zone and the win on the last play of the game which hasn't worked out for us all that well previously. Why not run the clock all the way down and make it a 14 point game?

 

[08Vol]

Sure. I get that's probably why he did it. My point is that a poster above is claiming it was "mathematical" decision. I was calling BS on that. Specifically because any statistical model of Florida's odds of winning (or not) in OT would have to be pulled from someone's nether regions, vs stats on two point conversion rates which are one of the more solid stats in all of football.

Coaches are still adjusting to the new OT rules requiring going for 2 in the 2nd OT then just running 2pt plays in the 3rd OT and on. Analytics were part of Napier’s decision but so were his instincts, how AR was playing, and how his defense was playing. He also knew that converting that 2 pt would force UT to throw the ball if they recovered the onside kick. Throwing the ball greatly increases the odds of a turnover and it stops the clock on incompletions.

Napier made some gutsy calls in a game where his team was clearly outmatched and in the end it almost worked for him.

 

[BanditVol]

Coaches are still adjusting to the new OT rules requiring going for 2 in the 2nd OT then just running 2pt plays in the 3rd OT and on. Analytics were part of Napier’s decision but so were his instincts, how AR was playing, and how his defense was playing. He also knew that converting that 2 pt would force UT to throw the ball if they recovered the onside kick. Throwing the ball greatly increases the odds of a turnover and it stops the clock on incompletions.

Napier made some gutsy calls in a game where his team was clearly outmatched and in the end it almost worked for him.

I get that he wanted to win in regulation and have already said so at least twice in this thread.

There is no credibility in basing such a decision on "OT analytics". WTF are those exactly? What is the database that's based on? How many OTs have been conducted in the entire history of college football? How broad a category is that? Does it control for who wins the coin flip? What is the adjustment for the home team?

There is absolutely no way "OT Analytics" are solid, for anyone who knows anything at all whatsoever about statistics, and a HC making a decision on such a flimsy basis is a ****ing tool and deserves to lose. Period, dot.

 

[Jax_Vol]

I get that he wanted to win in regulation and have already said so at least twice in this thread.

There is no credibility in basing such a decision on "OT analytics". WTF are those exactly? What is the database that's based on? How many OTs have been conducted in the entire history of college football? How broad a category is that? Does it control for who wins the coin flip? What is the adjustment for the home team?

There is absolutely no way "OT Analytics" are solid, for anyone who knows anything at all whatsoever about statistics, and a HC making a decision on such a flimsy basis is a ****ing tool and deserves to lose. Period, dot.

Agree!

Florida = L-o-s-e-r-s!!!