Doug’s Den – Take 1 – Wake up, Wake!

Editor's note: It is my distinct pleasure to introduce the first guest columnist of this blog – DH. Doug is an expert on college sports trivia and a fount of knowledge, mostly useless. If pressed to describe him, I'd say he is 5'10", 170 pounds, Aquarius, and not afraid to cry! However, I'll let him introduce himself (for now!).

"I have taught mathematics for more than a quarter century, and I have been an avid sports fan for better than 2 quarters of a century. My principal sports interests are football, basketball, baseball, and tennis, and I prefer the college game to the professional, although I enjoy watching both. I was a sandlot legend (regrettably self-described – few others would subscribe to that label) in the four sports mentioned above. I have had a web site available for inspection (BCS Exposed!) that deals with the college football BCS formulation – specifically, it sought to rectify any number of bizarrely illogical elements in place.  I have good reason to believe that this site, together with several correspondences that I had with BCS committee members, was influential in a number of the changes made 3 years ago. By all means visit the site, but blow the cobwebs off it first. I have not updated it in 3 years because no changes have been made during that time."

In the Wake Forest–Ole Miss football game a few weeks ago, a situation arose that occurs frequently enough that it merits discussion. WF trailed by one point with 11:30 left in the game, then scored a touchdown (TD). The dilemma: kick the extra point to take a 6-point lead, or go for two in hopes of a 7-point lead.

The "pros" of the 1-point conversion: success is almost certain. With a 6-point lead, 2 field goals (FG's) by the opponent in the remaining time will only tie the game.

The "cons" of 1-point conversion: a single countering TD by the opponent will almost certainly put you behind again by 1 point.

The "pros" of 2-point conversion: success will push your margin to 7 points, and single TD drive by your opponent will now simply tie you (assuming opponent kicks conversion). Also 2 FG's by the opponent with no longer be sufficient to tie you.

The "cons" of a 2-point conversion attempt: Failure (which empirical evidence suggests happens about 60% of the time) leaves your lead at 5 points, and now 2 FG's by your opponent will put you behind.

What should be done? I've followed college football for 50 years and have a fairly extensive base of empirical data (although not tabulated statistically). This issue is clearly time-dependent, that is, the amount of time remaining in the game is critical. A popular rallying cry these days among the sports-media "analysts" is "Don't chase after points." Here, this means don't bypass getting one sure point to chase after 2 points for the sake of reaching a desirable point differential (usually a 7-point or 3-point margin). Well, for much of the game this is good advice, but when you get sufficiently late in the game, it ceases to be good advice.

Okay, so how late is "late"? The answer can vary somewhat based on the particulars of the teams in question. How potent is the opponent's offense? How good is their kicker?...etc. But as a reasonably good general advice, I would say that if you've reached the 4^th quarter you'd better do all you can to keep a single score (here, a TD) from beating you. Thus, in this case, I would have strongly recommended to Coach Jim Grobe that he attempt a 2-point conversion.

(In case you did not watch the game, here's a short summary of how it played out. WF kicked the extra point to take a 6-point lead. Ole Miss was able to, with their second possession, march down the field and, with about 1 minute remaining, score a TD to take a 1-point lead. (At that point, I was thinking, "Coach Grobe, you owe your team an apology for your earlier decision.") Fortunately for WF, the quarterback, Riley Skinner, led the team into FG range in the last remaining minute, and on the final play, the WF kicker won the game with a 40+ yard FG.)

Too many times I have seen a team settle for a 6-point lead, and then get beaten by a single TD. It's all about assessing how likely the game is to play out one way or another in the time remaining. My experience (both as a football fan and as an individual well-versed in the theories of probability) leads me to believe that if this situation arises in the 4^th quarter, you'd better seek a 7-point lead rather than a 6-point one.

While we're using WF as our whipping boy (and I actually feel Coach Grobe is one of the best coaches in the country), let's talk about last Saturday's game with Florida State University (FSU). For a long stretch in the second half, WF led FSU 9-3. FSU had proven to be amazingly self-destructive with numerous penalties and interceptions hamstringing their efforts. Nevertheless, a single big play or drive could give them the lead.

Now, in the other instances you may find me chastising a coach for being too conservative and playing for a FG rather than seeking a TD. That is definitely not the case here, however. As the game got to the midway point of the 4^th quarter, it became quite clear that a mere FG would be critically valuable to the Demon Decons of WF. So, my advice to Coach Grobe would have been, "If you are well within FG range, make sure that if a 4^th down arises the ball is ideally centered to make the kick as easy as possible." Well, Coace Grobe didn't do this (or else his players failed to execute his plans). Although the WF kicker is one of the country's best, he missed a short kick with about 4 minutes left which would have given WF a 9-point lead. The kick was quite difficult, however, due to the acute angle.

Once again, though, WF got fortunate. FSU basically said, "Here, try again," and threw another interception to give the ball back to WF. Yet again, WF was in FG range and didn't get the ball centered when their 3^rd down conversion play failed. This time, fortunately, the kicker made the FG from an angle, and the game was iced. (I realize that most people who present arguments like I'm doing pick examples where the team fails to win because they didn't follow the recommended course of action. In my two examples, WF won despite not giving themselves the best chance to win!!)

Sadly, but not surprisingly, in neither of these instances did the TV analysts seem even remotely aware of what strategic decisions should be considered.

In my next conversation with you, I shall consider a situation where it is better for the defensive team to forego an interception in order to increase their chances of winning!!