Napier’s Decision To Go For 2

[Jax_Vol]

Having a mathematical model tell you it increased his chances of winning doesn’t mean it increased his chances of winning.

Exactly! Winner Winner...chicken dinner.

Too many people watched Moneyball.

And, how many times have the Oakland A's won the World Series in the last 25 years?

Everybody has a mathematical model until Jeremy Banks hits you with a roundhouse...

 

[Boone&Crockett]

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 agree, I think he had a good gameplan and almost pulled it off, he knew we were gonna score, he ate clock and kept the ball as much as they could, the breaks really went their way it just caught up to them on the last play

 

[ptcarter]

This reminds me of the psychological evaluation between the mathematician and the engineer. They isolate them and run the experiment asking each to jump half way to a desirable woman across the room. In the analysis after the experiment, they ask the mathematician why he didn't jump. He says: "I'm a mathematician and I know that if I jump half way each time, I'll never reach her". The engineer on the other hand, says: "I'm an engineer. I know I'll never get there, but I'll get close enough to do some good".

 

[rdk4121]

For the "model" people, do you see Saban or Smart doing this kind of stuff? No, they probably would've been content with attempting the long field goal to go to overtime because they have faith in their team to get it done in OT. Trying to steal points means you don't have faith in your squad. Maybe he doesn't, but when people over think things, it leads for more chances for things to go wrong. This game would've been over if they failed 1 of those 4th down conversions, and arguably was lost because they didn't kick a pretty easy field goal on their very first drive (where they were stopped on 4th down). Also would've been over had we just converted that last 4th down attempt for us, but that's a different story. Could've kicked a FG their to make it a 14 point game as well imo, or even punted the ball to make them have to go even further.

 

[ShoalCreekVol]

If I'm remembering correctly, scoring that touchdown put them down 11. So making the two-point conversion would still have them down 9 points. Is that right?

That would be a touchdown plus extra point plus fg to win by one.

Kicking the extra point there and being down 10 would also be a touchdown plus extra point plus field goal, except to tie.

So I suppose the question of risk would come down to two things: the odds of a successful two-point conversion versus a successful extra point kick, and the odds of winning in overtime.

Am I missing something?

The choices he made tells us that Sunbelt Billy was terrified of going to overtime with us. For whatever reason, he had no faith in his team to get that done.

 

[chidave]

Butch would have went for 2.

 

[08Vol]

it still makes more sense to go for it on the second TD

Additionally its a strategic decision to play for the win and not the tie

Does the math factor in OT? I doubt it...seems the math would only work for "W in regulation", and thus the odds of actually winning less than settling for a tie

So glad he did it

Idea for going for it on the 1st TD is that you know if you miss it then you can still go for it on the 2nd TD to get the tie. Basically if a coach knows they are going to go for the win instead of OT then try it on the 1st TD.

Napier knew there was a better chance of his O scoring 2pts on our D than going to OT and his D having to shut down our O.

 

[EZE]

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.

Can you post pics?

 

[vavolfan6]

So let me get this straight: you are making your point for NOT going for 2 based on your “feelings”. Based on your instincts. Based on what you think is correct. You form your hypothesis with zero measurable data and only your beliefs and what your “gut” tells you. The other, and correct, hypotheses is based on measurable and quantifiable data thats processed by a computer program that can predict outcomes with far greater accuracy than the human mind EVER can. A program written by MIT mathematicians that can solve problems that you would be confused by simply looking at. I have a feeling if you play blackjack you’re the guy that stands on 16 vs the Ace because you “have a feeling.” You don’t double 10 vs the 6 because your “gut” says you’ll lose. You bet the hard 8 in craps because it’s bound to hit sooner or later right? Brother I truly dont care what you believe about mathematics, probabilities, or game theory. I’m not changing your mind and that is ok. I made my living for a decade based solely on gambling. The difference in me eating steak vs eating McDonalds came down to the quality of my strategic decisions. You believe what you want; it’s a free country. But what you’re saying and your belief system is based on hopes, dreams and fairy tales….and you dont pay the bills very long with any of that.

Quoting blackjack vs Football is hilarious to try and make your point. The two are NOTHING alike. A participant in blackjack can not deduce much information if any at all from the previous cards that were shown. The game is based on luck. Football is much more nuanced. As a coach you know your players, their abilities, their mindset, their practice habits, etc. General analytics do not account for the nuance in each individual game. Napier knew his defense could not stop Tennessee's offense. Therefore he was aggressive on 3rd and 4th down the whole night. General analytics probably say punt from your own 40 yard line. Instead he went for it, beause he felt he had no choice. And he was right in the end, because Florida D could not stop our Offense.

 

[SamRebel35]

Has anyone read "Foundation" by Asimov? This reminds me of the practical uses of "psychohistory". Given a huge data set, you can make broad predictions based on statistical analysis, but you can't make fine tuned predictions on the individual components that comprise the huge data set. A statistical model based on aggregates of thousands of scenarios by one hundred different teams in the past may not be of much practical use to determine if the same outcomes will apply to your individual team in the present.

 

[wmcovol]

It just makes more sense not to put yourself in position to have to go for 2, the percentages arent as good as you may think (something like 30%). Plus you always want a chance to tieor win with a FG late cause that makes the field much shorter for your offense to score than having to score a TD.

 

[SoFloVFL]

If you compile all of his decision making, the game he called reeks of desperation. That man knew and believed he was outmatched and was going to need more than what they could produce by conventional play. (Even with their offense rolling). Sun Belt Billy is Butch Jones with the wherewithal to realize he is outmatched. Even though he would never admit that he realized it.

 

[FBtime]

Sunbelt Billy talks like Butch and coaches like Butch.

We have different memories of Butch Jones I guess. I sure don't remember Jones as a coach would that would have had the balls to have gone for it on all those 4th downs. He played ultra conservatively and it's why we lost to Oklahoma among other games. He was also too stupid to go for 2 vs UF in 17 in an obvious time to go for it and it's why we lost that game.

 

[08Vol]

I agree with you as well.

The only problem I have with his logic/decision is starting that late with the 2 point trys…….he’s going to make them less than 50% of the time (not a lot less, but still 1/2 is all he can realistically hope to achieve).

knowing this………making 1/2 would not provide him the opportunity for a win (because he’s trying for a win not a tie). If he was going to do it……..he should have started even sooner (because you know you can’t make but a certain % of them).

When he went for the 1st 2pt conversion his plan was to not give the ball back. UF attempted an onside kick that we recovered. His logic in going for 2 on the 1st late TD instead of kicking then going for 2 on the next TD is this. UF wanted to win the game in regulation, Napier didn’t think they could win in OT. So he needed a 2 pt conversion on one of the late TDs. He did it on the 1st TD since he knew if UF didn’t convert then he still had another chance to attempt a 2 pt to at least tie the game. Kick on the 1st TD and the outcome for the 2nd 2 pt conversion is A) complete it and win or B) miss it and lose.

 

[08Vol]

We have different memories of Butch Jones I guess. I sure don't remember Jones as a coach would that would have had the balls to have gone for it on all those 4th downs. He played ultra conservatively and it's why we lost to Oklahoma among other games. He was also too stupid to go for 2 vs UF in 17 in an obvious time to go for it and it's why we lost that game.

Also he didn’t go for 2 in 2015 so we only took a 13 point lead instead of a 14 or 12 point lead. With the time left on the clock, UF had to score 2 TDs to catch us so being up 13 did as much good as being up 12.

 

[ftsandersvol]

Butch loaned him his game chart.

 

[CINCYVOL]

Math, ha.

 

[Jax_Vol]

When he went for the 1st 2pt conversion his plan was to not give the ball back. UF attempted an onside kick that we recovered. His logic in going for 2 on the 1st late TD instead of kicking then going for 2 on the next TD is this. UF wanted to win the game in regulation, Napier didn’t think they could win in OT. So he needed a 2 pt conversion on one of the late TDs. He did it on the 1st TD since he knew if UF didn’t convert then he still had another chance to attempt a 2 pt to at least tie the game. Kick on the 1st TD and the outcome for the 2nd 2 pt conversion is A) complete it and win or B) miss it and lose.

If he had been successful in pulling off all that stuff, they would have won in overtime. Who can defeat a wizard on a roll?

Luckily, he is just dumb ole Billy the Sun Belt coach.

With the fertile recruiting land, I remain surprised that Florida can't land an experienced Lincoln Riley, James Franklin, etc type coach.

 

[JoAllan]

When he went for the 1st 2pt conversion his plan was to not give the ball back. UF attempted an onside kick that we recovered. His logic in going for 2 on the 1st late TD instead of kicking then going for 2 on the next TD is this. UF wanted to win the game in regulation, Napier didn’t think they could win in OT. So he needed a 2 pt conversion on one of the late TDs. He did it on the 1st TD since he knew if UF didn’t convert then he still had another chance to attempt a 2 pt to at least tie the game. Kick on the 1st TD and the outcome for the 2nd 2 pt conversion is A) complete it and win or B) miss it and lose.

I understand “his plan.”

However I believe it was a very dumb plan……..because of the odds.

He has less than a 50% chance of making the first 2pt.

He has the same at making the second.

He had less than 10% chance to cover the onside kick and less than 1% chance to cover two in a row.

Saying that to say, his odds were FAR greater especially given the time, to kick, try and get a D stop, then score, then try 1 onside kick. Long field goals are made at a much higher rate as Hail Marys.

With his plan he needed to convert twice on less than 50%, then convert on less than 10%, then convert on less than 1%. Then try to get a Hail Marry………or drive provided time.

The other way he makes a kick with over 90% success rate. He makes 1 stop which should happen about 50% of the time, if you score your left with your lowest % chance for a win……that’s with the 1 onside kick (less than 10%). If you make it all you need is a kick…….your odds of tying and even winning go up dramatically here.

I don’t care what “his” model said……..there was WAY too much still needed. The “odds” for all that happening “should” have said do something else……..had he done something else things could have been way different.

I’m glad he loves the “model” because sometimes the model doesn’t understand all of the odds, back to back to back become almost impossible.

 

[Sivad]

This is not that hard to understand. Your down 17. You’ve got to have 3 scores no matter how you look at it. You kick the extra point. On the third score a touchdown wins an extra point ties. If we had scored a touchdown at any point the game would have been out of reach. It was a stupid decision

 

[BanditVol]

Idea for going for it on the 1st TD is that you know if you miss it then you can still go for it on the 2nd TD to get the tie. Basically if a coach knows they are going to go for the win instead of OT then try it on the 1st TD.

Napier knew there was a better chance of his O scoring 2pts on our D than going to OT and his D having to shut down our O.

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.

 

[BanditVol]

I understand “his plan.”

However I believe it was a very dumb plan……..because of the odds.

He has less than a 50% chance of making the first 2pt.

He has the same at making the second.

He had less than 10% chance to cover the onside kick and less than 1% chance to cover two in a row.

Saying that to say, his odds were FAR greater especially given the time, to kick, try and get a D stop, then score, then try 1 onside kick. Long field goals are made at a much higher rate as Hail Marys.

With his plan he needed to convert twice on less than 50%, then convert on less than 10%, then convert on less than 1%. Then try to get a Hail Marry………or drive provided time.

The other way he makes a kick with over 90% success rate. He makes 1 stop which should happen about 50% of the time, if you score your left with your lowest % chance for a win……that’s with the 1 onside kick (less than 10%). If you make it all you need is a kick…….your odds of tying and even winning go up dramatically here.

I don’t care what “his” model said……..there was WAY too much still needed. The “odds” for all that happening “should” have said do something else……..had he done something else things could have been way different.

I’m glad he loves the “model” because sometimes the model doesn’t understand all of the odds, back to back to back become almost impossible.

Whoever is saying there was a credible model telling Napier to make that decision needs to get on the short bus with Butch and his "chart" statement from 2015.

 

[DOCTORLOOMIS]

Quoting blackjack vs Football is hilarious to try and make your point. The two are NOTHING alike. A participant in blackjack can not deduce much information if any at all from the previous cards that were shown. The game is based on luck. Football is much more nuanced. As a coach you know your players, their abilities, their mindset, their practice habits, etc. General analytics do not account for the nuance in each individual game. Napier knew his defense could not stop Tennessee's offense. Therefore he was aggressive on 3rd and 4th down the whole night. General analytics probably say punt from your own 40 yard line. Instead he went for it, beause he felt he had no choice. And he was right in the end, because Florida D could not stop our Offense.

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.

 

[DOCTORLOOMIS]

Math, ha.

Math, ha.

Come to Vegas with that attitude. You’ll be living on the street quickly.

 

[Kinger]

They were down 11 and tried to get it to 9. I think he thought that Tennessee would score another touchdown. If Florida was down 9 when that happened, then they would only be down 16 after the Tennessee touchdown. If Florida kicked the XP (on the first one), they would have been down 17 instead of 16 if Tennessee scored another TD. Of course, I could be totally wrong but that is the only way I can see it making sense to go for 2 at that point.