Jump to content

hail2mich

GDT: #3 Ohio State at Michigan 11/30/2013

Recommended Posts


Here's what is known with 100% certainty. The two point conversion failed. Michigan lost. Everything else is just conjecture, speculation, and guesses.

Welcome to life. Where you use the information available to you to make the best informed decisions. Hoke did that without a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted them to go for 2 after a TD as soon as OSU scored with 2 to go. I felt it was the right decision then and I still do now, even though it didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? You think choosing the option with 40% success rate over the option with 96% success rate is anything other than egregiously stupid? That it reflects well upon Brady Hoke as a leader? What did math ever do to you to make you hate it so much?

I feel bad for those players whose hard work was pissed away by their coach who didn't have enough faith in them to win it OT.

The problem is you're assuming they had an over 40% chance to win in overtime.

96% beats 40%, but 96% only ties the game. 40% wins it.

I would also say it was a much higher than 40% chance that Michigan converted the 2 point conversion given the defense on display by both teams. Just as it was beyond belief that Michigan would stop Ohio State's running game in Overtime, or that Michigan's broken down players and lack of a placekicker would give them anything approaching a 50% chance to win in overtime.

I'm the furthest thing from a Hoke fan, but this was a case where a Michigan coach actually showed a killer instinct and went for the winning play instead of playing it safe. It was nice to see, and the fact that it didn't work doesn't make it the wrong play.

Personally, as soon as Ohio State scored to go ahead, I felt that the one way Michigan could win was if they went down the field, ate up all the clock, scored, and went for two. I never thought Hoke would actually do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is you're assuming they had an over 40% chance to win in overtime.

96% beats 40%, but 96% only ties the game. 40% wins it.

Actually, no, 40% does not win it. It puts you ahead with :35 or whatever seconds to go. Either way, it was the wrong call. The momentum was on UM's side, they having just scored the TD that should have tied the game and sent it to OT. All of the pressure was on OSU to win it on the road in a game that everyone admits they could not stop UM all game long. So not only is it 40% vs 96%, but it's one stop loses you the game vs one stop loses you a down.

You never go for 2 unless you need 2 to tie. This game is definitive proof of that axiom. You just don't do it. Ever. It's always the wrong call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, no, 40% does not win it. It puts you ahead with :35 or whatever seconds to go.

I appreciate the need to argue semantics from the guy who cited 96% vs. 40% as his primary argument why kicking the extra point was the obvious choice.

It is pretty unlikely OSU would have won in reguation had UM converted the 2-point play. They had no time outs and Miller wasn't throwing the ball particularly well. Had UM lost after converting a 2-point play, then they almost certainly would have lost in regulation had they tied the game, so I guess I am not getting how a small amount of time on the clock better argues going for the tie.

Either way, it was the wrong call.

It was the right call.

What, not convinced? Now you know how I feel about your statement above.

The momentum was on UM's side, they having just scored the TD that should have tied the game and sent it to OT.

One could argue the UM did the right thing and tried parlaying that momentum into a 2-point play rather than run the risk the they not get the ball again for around 15 minutes and lose that momentum.

All of the pressure was on OSU to win it on the road in a game that everyone admits they could not stop UM all game long.

The pressure was on OSU to stop UM on the 2 point play as well. Just because there is pressure on a team does not mean that team won't respond. Besides, I don't see how pressure is going to necessarily mean OSU would struggle in OT but make the play at the end of regulation.

Also, I don't claim to know what everyone is saying, but in my opinion OSU was a hell of a lot closer to stopping UM than UM was to stopping OSU in the second half.

So not only is it 40% vs 96%, but it's one stop loses you the game vs one stop loses you a down.

Second thing first - Yeah it is only one stop for them, but it is also just one play for you. A play you get to choose. And the advantage of extra downs in OT works in OSU's offense's favor as well.

Back to the first point:

It isn't 40% vs. 96%. That just is blatently false unless you believe Michigan had a 100% chance to win in OT. Surely you know this and do not think UM had a 100% to win in OT. So please stop misrepresenting the odds in such an obvious manner as it is insulting to others' inteliigence.

The math* is basically 40% vs. 96% X the odds you think UM wins in overtime.

Note: *I don't think the number is 40% in that specific situation, just as I don't think UM had a 60% chance to win in OT merely because they were the home team. I think Michigan had a somewhat better than 40% chance to score and less than a 60% chance to win in OT given the differential in the quality of teams involved. In any event, each case is specific and need to evaluated on their merits rather than using what other teams have done historically.

You never go for 2 unless you need 2 to tie. This game is definitive proof of that axiom. You just don't do it. Ever. It's always the wrong call.

This game wasn't proof of anything of the sort. Teams can (and do) the wrong thing and succeed plenty of times, and teams can (and do) the right thing and fail plenty of times as well.

All a coach can do is make decisions that give his team the best chance to win. We can debate about whether the odds favored Hoke's decision or not, but the math is a hell of a lot closer than is suggested by the claim it is always the wrong call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Didn't like Beckman at all with the Tigers...

"Cruz Control" :tired:

Anyone questioning Gardner at this point really needs to pull his head out of his *****. He's a college player. Remember that first and foremost. And he showed more heart, guts and determination than I have seen in a long time. He could have easily said his ankle was too bad, but not only did he stay in, he likely hurt it a lot more trying to win. Gardner won't go down as one of the greatest QBs in U of M history, but that performance should endear him to any real U of M supporter.

The talk from someone earlier about getting rid of the "RichRod era" by replacing Gardner at QB is completely ridiculous. Borges spent all season trying to get away from the "RichRod era", and you had an offense that couldn't do anything because they were being asked to do things they weren't best suited for. It's nice to say "move away from that trash", but you still have a set of players whom you can't replace with free agents. A coach needs to work with what he has, not try to force feed what he wants.

Which brings me back to why this game should cement Borges being fired. As was asked earlier in the thread, where was this offense all season? The playcalling was completely different yesterday than most of, if not all of, the rest of the season. There were enough runs up the middle to try to keep the defense honest, but for once, he used the tools Gardner does have, and also got the ball in guys' hands in different ways. What did he do before yesterday? Save the playbook? Borges made decisions all season that did not take advantage of his player's talents until yesterday. Yesterday should not absolve him of having to take responsibility for it.

Re: the decision to go for two. Correct call. A freak play was the only way OSU didn't score a TD each possession OT lasted. Gardner was almost on one leg. Correct call to go for two. Play call was weak though.

Gardner played with heart all season long, not just on Saturday. I question his ability as a QB because of his decision making with the football. He locks on to 1 receiver, doesn't decide who to throw to early enough, & by then it's either too late to pull the trigger or he's throwing into coverage. I haven't been a big fan of Borges' play calling either, & we also have to take into consideration the fact that the interior of the OL is really young & the WR pool has not been especially deep (No separation) - however that does not excuse Gardner's decision making for much of the season.

I think Morris is better suited for this offense, & Gardner's NFL future will be much more suited (like Denard's) to catching the football. I did not think that at the beginning of the season, but I have eyes. Moving Gardner back out to WR gives him more reps for scouts to judge him by. Knowing what I know about Brady Hoke, Gardner will be the starting QB in 2014. Borges will be the OC. Let's hope they're able to replace Lewan and the OL learns from this season. I am encouraged by Hoke's recruiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You never go for 2 unless you need 2 to tie. This game is definitive proof of that axiom. You just don't do it. Ever. It's always the wrong call.

Well, using the numbers in the thread, if a road team has a 40% chance to win in overtime and a 40% chance to convert a 2-point play, then just that situation on its face suggests a push.

Surely there are situations where your odds are better going for 2 because of injuries or whatnot, so I highly doubt it can always be the wrong call / be axiomatic to kick the extra point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Cruz Control" :tired:

.... He locks on to 1 receiver, doesn't decide who to throw to early enough, & by then it's either too late to pull the trigger or he's throwing into coverage. .

These are pretty garden variety weaknesses for college QBs but his tendency to make ill advised desperation tosses instead of eating the play and his lack of discipline carrying the ball when running do stand out as worse than typical. Still, he has a lot of talent and if he gets a chance to play behind an O-line that gives him some time and a better running game threat I think the team could still be very successful with him at QB. The fact that Morris has not shown enough to even get into some of these recent games makes me think I wouldn't want the odds that he's going to beat Gardner out of the job next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, using the numbers in the thread, if a road team has a 40% chance to win in overtime and a 40% chance to convert a 2-point play, then just that situation on its face suggests a push.

Surely there are situations where your odds are better going for 2 because of injuries or whatnot, so I highly doubt it can always be the wrong call / be axiomatic to kick the extra point.

Up 5 with one possession remaining is also an obvious go for 2 situation, almost regardless of the success rate. Up 1 in the same situation is also obvious.

But anyone that thinks comparing the success rate of the XP to the success rate of the 2-pt conversion is the correct comparison isn't likely to be convinced by any amount of data or logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine if Michigan had converted, then it would have been proof that going for 2 is always the right call. It might have even become an axiom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd guess you are at best a 50/50 shot to win in OT. They say 56% for the home team, but I'd have to imagine its less against a far superior opponent. Factor in a 4% chance to miss the XP as well. I'll take the 40% chance. They worked through our D so easily on that last drive and while Gardner played great, he was limping. Our K was out and Wile looke dlike **** too, so if you get in a situation where OT comes down to a FG kick, you were potentially in big trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no, it takes two to tango, but moreso to yes. Upcoming out of conference gets better than this season.

2014: Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, Navy, Kent State.

2015: Virginia Tech, Hawaii, Northern Illinois, Western Michigan.

2016: Bowling Green, Tulsa, Oklahoma (begin 9 game conference schedule).

2017: Oklahoma, North Carolina, TBA.

2018: TCU, North Carolina, TBA.

2019: Cincinnati, TCU, TBA.

I thought that they had signed on with Texas for another home-home, but its either beyond 2019 or I am just wrong.

It'd also be nice for the sake of strength of schedule if the rest of the Big (four and) Ten got itself together.

I will also admit that it does take some prognostication to know that a teams going to be good x number of years later when you're going to play after making the deal to play

but you can't look at what happened at the beginning of this season and suggest that they were trying to find someone good to play for 2013 OOC, can you?

FSU's non-con sucks too, so I guess the lesson is to get the win, who cares. While I hate OSU obviously, I can't blame them for playign the game, I'd just be happy if the game stopped being that way, and it would be awesome if it happened to OSU. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how much of my opinion about the call is because I couldn't hear the game announcers/analysis on TV. However, I did ask a colleague who was also there, and he said he supported the call. Neither of us knew that Gardner was injured to the point it was affecting his play.

In other news, the digital billboard on 94 in Ypsilanti today said "We Support the Call to Win it all" and had a big block M on it. Wonder who did that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will also admit that it does take some prognostication to know that a teams going to be good x number of years later when you're going to play after making the deal to play

We were talking about this at work today. OSU played a home/home with California and at the time of the deal being made, California was pretty good. Now that they have payed the games, not so much.

I think that there are enough schools that are annually above average that seeking a home/home with them isn't very risky as far as weakening your schedule. The Buckeyes seem to be moving towards that. Yeah, you don't know how 2019 Cincinnati is going to be. But I'd wager they will be a tougher game than 2019 Akron or 2019 Appalachian State.

but you can't look at what happened at the beginning of this season and suggest that they were trying to find someone good to play for 2013 OOC, can you?

No, and I think some of that is prior regime. Florida A&M was a replacement for Vanderbilt, who backed out of the contract late. Sure, Vandy is no juggernaut, but it'd have been a better contest than the Rattlers. I would be that jackass former president G had something to do with signing Vandy.

FSU's non-con sucks too, so I guess the lesson is to get the win, who cares. While I hate OSU obviously, I can't blame them for playign the game, I'd just be happy if the game stopped being that way, and it would be awesome if it happened to OSU. :grin:

I like that the B14 has mandated no more FCS schools on the OOC. I would like to see FCS vs FBS eliminated completely. I would also like to see an unbiased points system implemented rather than have a playoff selection committee. I would like the "eye test" and other biases taken out. Something along the lines of a credit/debit type system based off of the team's record, the team's opponents' records, the team's opponents' opponents' records, add in some pythagorean measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering how much of my opinion about the call is because I couldn't hear the game announcers/analysis on TV. However, I did ask a colleague who was also there, and he said he supported the call. Neither of us knew that Gardner was injured to the point it was affecting his play.

He wasn't moving around well at all. I admire him staying in the game. I would guess most kids probably would, but he was obviously dinged up pretty good. I have heard many suggest that they should have run a play with a run option for himself, but I don't know that that would have been a good choice. OSU was struggling against misdirection, and if they could have run something like that, they may have given themselves a better chance at winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hoke's words are peculiar

“I anticipate the staff (returning),”

Probably nothing. He can't really speak with certainly about what everyone else is going to do - someone on the staff might get offered a better job between now and next season.a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...