• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Interesting article about going for it on 4th down.

I would think that his #'s are somewhat skewed, if he is basing his %43 success of going for it on 4th and G from the 2 from actual situations then the only coaches going for it would be very confident in their running game/offense. The others that didn't attempt it would probably have a) strong defense b) weak offense/running game.

I do however agree with the point of if unsuccessfull you are pinning your opponent deep in their own territory.
 
Upvote 0
In particular, Romer found that when faced with fourth-and-goal on the 2-yard line early in the game, going for a touchdown is the much wiser choice. While the field goal is a near certainty, getting a touchdown in that situation has about a 43 percent chance of success, he calculates.

....... :ohwell: how do you make calculations on something that didn't happen? on 4th and 2 one of two things happen. either A. you go for it or B. you don't. if you go for it, its because you believe you will make it. if you don't go for it obviously you don't. so the only way this "study" can even be remotely accurate would be to go back and actually go for the first down/td on the 4th and 2 play that never happened. outside of time travel or divine intervention, im not sure how on earth these scientists came up with this.

this data is 100% misleading. you can't take data gathered from a situation that favors you then apply it to a situation that likely does not and say your odds are the same.
 
Upvote 0
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE/journal/index.html


Well, it should be interesting to see Romer's rational for these conclusions. They should be available soon at the above web site (they list current issues thru February 06). Of course, the news article states "Romer details his findings in the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Political Economy". I'm guessing that refers to a publication by the University of Chicago, though several other publications of the same title exist (at least digitally, who knows how many exist in the non digital realm).


Humm, after some search I also found this article: http://www.footballcommentary.com/blunders.htm

Some more information of 'going for it' and Mr. Romer.
 
Upvote 0
....... :ohwell: how do you make calculations on something that didn't happen? on 4th and 2 one of two things happen. either A. you go for it or B. you don't. if you go for it, its because you believe you will make it. if you don't go for it obviously you don't. so the only way this "study" can even be remotely accurate would be to go back and actually go for the first down/td on the 4th and 2 play that never happened. outside of time travel or divine intervention, im not sure how on earth these scientists came up with this.

this data is 100% misleading. you can't take data gathered from a situation that favors you then apply it to a situation that likely does not and say your odds are the same.

I wouldnt say that, b/c it is obvious that some coaches are more conservative and will not go for it. He is just pointing out that when a team has a 4th and 2 or less and they decide to kick the fg instead of going for it, that the teams that go for it come out on the better end of the stick more than the team on the other end.
 
Upvote 0
I wouldnt say that, b/c it is obvious that some coaches are more conservative and will not go for it. He is just pointing out that when a team has a 4th and 2 or less and they decide to kick the fg instead of going for it, that the teams that go for it come out on the better end of the stick more than the team on the other end.

yes, some coaches are more conservative than others. however, most coaches have legit reasons for not going for it. if you haven't been able to run all day and are going against the #1 rush d in the nation, are you going to go for it or kick? according to this southwestern polly tech school for the blind has the same odds of getting 2 yrds on 4th down against the 05 tOSU squad as USC would. when you fail to take the most basic aspects of the situation the decision was made in into perspective, your "findings" are at best questionable.

i realize what they are trying to say. the problem remains that you can't use the findings gained from action taken and associate it with a case where action isn't taken and say the results would have been the same. its like saying if those teams who had gone for it hadn't, they would have had the exact same field goal %. well, kinda a lot plays into that. what was the weather? who was their kicker?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top