Minnesota Football: The Goldy Ratio - Ohio State by Matt Humbert

A higher level mathematical and inferential review of certain topics that arose from snowy battle between Minnesota and Ohio State.

Hey, remember when I did Charts & Chalk? Those were the days.

Game Theory'n

Many folks have questions/thoughts/#TAKES on Jerry Kill's decision to kick a field goal down ten points from the 17 yard line. The general commentary from the dissenters goes like this: you have the field position, so why not go for the more difficult of the two scores?

Here's my rebuttal. (To see Matt’s rebuttal click on the link below. WARNING: This is not for math sissies.)

http://www.thedailygopher.com/2014/11/19/7235283/minnesota-football-the-goldy-ratio-ohio-state

I've heard both arguments. I'm not sure which I believe. The one thing about getting a TD first is that if you actually get the onside kick you are only ~20 yards from long field goal range, plus you still have the option of trying for the endzone. You kick the field goal first, basically the defense can sit back, not rush and defend the sidelines and the goal line.

Obviously the counter is that if you do go for the TD and burn some time and still come away with a FG (or worse yet go for it on 4th and miss) you hurt your chances of winning greatly.

The other thing I question is whether the decision was influenced in part to get to at worst a one score loss. Losing by a touchdown looks significantly better than losing by 10 to people who pick bowl games and rank teams. I honestly don't think the Gophers are still ranked if they lose by 10.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggsting that Coach Kill didn't try to win the game. But if there are two ways and neither is significantly more probable, then the one that results in a "quality loss" might be the better option. Because frankly the chances of a field goal on that drive were much greater than the chances of a TD. And if they don't score the TD, they lose by 10 (double digits!).

I think either way you look at it comes up with a long shot for winning the game, I think you take the points when you can get them.

I think i would have gone for a TD there first (losing by 3 looks better than losing by 7) but to win the game required 2 scores and recovering an onside kick. had the kick resulted in a MN football than it would have been interesting if we would have scored if Kill went for two.

I would have run a fake kick/pass. It was only 2nd down, worst case you air it out and kick on 3rd. Still save the time you'd have spent trying for 6, still get many of the game theory benefits of scoring fast vs scoring big.

A small factor could be pressure relief on the kicker, instead of a game tying kick at the buzzer he gets a slightly more relaxed situation.

I thought kicking was the right thing. You had to assume that it could take as many as 3-5 plays to score from there. That's a lot of clock time. I say, kick, go for the onside, know where you're at with time to spare. It would be different inside the 10.

highwayman said:

I thought kicking was the right thing. You had to assume that it could take as many as 3-5 plays to score from there. That's a lot of clock time. I say, kick, go for the onside, know where you're at with time to spare. It would be different inside the 10.

Click to expand...

+1 and I think John T. Reed (author of Football Clock Management) would agree as well given situation and time on clock.
It would be interesting to have his thoughts on it.

Buck

Kill explained his reasoning on the radio. They kicked the FG because we were out of timeouts.

He said that if you moved the ball but didn't score right away the clock would have run down too far to give them any time for a second drive. Say they scored a TD with 20-30 seconds left, then you try the onside kick you would have only had 1 or 2 plays to score the FG. This way they still had 1:20 to move it down the field to get the TD. He would have kept going for the TD if they would have had TO's.

Lakeville Goldy said:

The other thing I question is whether the decision was influenced in part to get to at worst a one score loss. Losing by a touchdown looks significantly better than losing by 10 to people who pick bowl games and rank teams. I honestly don't think the Gophers are still ranked if they lose by 10.

Click to expand...

I would bet my life savings that never entered the minds of any coach or player. Taking the points with more time is the right decision 100% of the time.

man if only santoso had some english on that field goal we wouldnt have to hash it out here