FB: American Rivers Conference

[Fannosaurus Rex]

And when I say, "Another served," I don't mean another, I mean Another. This feels like an old Abbott and Costello bit.

[DriftlessDuhawk]

The Duhawks, led by third-string QB Jacob Richtman, scored 4 fourth quarter TDs to provide a lot of excitement in Dubuque on Saturday. Unfortunately, a blocked PAT following the last score with 1:11 left in the game sent all of the Loras fans home with an unfortunate taste in their mouths...

I had three large takeaways from the game. The first being that Loras has not had a designated Special Teams Coordinator in at least 7 years. The staff breaks up who coaches which unit, and there is no unifying voice behind special teams. This has been apparent for years by subpar special teams play, but certainly showed in the biggest moments over the weekend with two PATs blocked. The next one is that the Loras offense always seems to start as a cookie-cutter offense that just struggles to move the ball, and then as the year evolves, it turns into a multidimensional offense that plays to its players' strengths. While it is always pleasing to see a team get better during the course of the year, the fact that it has consistently taken 6-7 weeks for the offense to best utilize its players strengths is concerning.

And the last point is one of math and just changing with the times. It has pretty much become common practice that if you are down 14 points late in a football game that upon scoring a TD you should go for two. If you get the two point conversion you are now down 6 points and can win the game with a TD and a PAT. If you do not get it then you will have to score another TD and get the two point conversion the second time. Because the data has shown over time that statistically two point conversion plays are a 50/50 chance, you are statistically probably to get at least one of these chances. If you get the first one you now have set yourself up to win, if you do not get the first one then you are "due" to get the second one. Does it work every time? No. But more often than not the teams you see do it benefit from it. Loras not taking advantage of this cost them the game, and it was something that was completely avoidable.

[doolittledog]

The Duhawks, led by third-string QB Jacob Richtman, scored 4 fourth quarter TDs to provide a lot of excitement in Dubuque on Saturday. Unfortunately, a blocked PAT following the last score with 1:11 left in the game sent all of the Loras fans home with an unfortunate taste in their mouths...

I had three large takeaways from the game. The first being that Loras has not had a designated Special Teams Coordinator in at least 7 years. The staff breaks up who coaches which unit, and there is no unifying voice behind special teams. This has been apparent for years by subpar special teams play, but certainly showed in the biggest moments over the weekend with two PATs blocked. The next one is that the Loras offense always seems to start as a cookie-cutter offense that just struggles to move the ball, and then as the year evolves, it turns into a multidimensional offense that plays to its players' strengths. While it is always pleasing to see a team get better during the course of the year, the fact that it has consistently taken 6-7 weeks for the offense to best utilize its players strengths is concerning.

And the last point is one of math and just changing with the times. It has pretty much become common practice that if you are down 14 points late in a football game that upon scoring a TD you should go for two. If you get the two point conversion you are now down 6 points and can win the game with a TD and a PAT. If you do not get it then you will have to score another TD and get the two point conversion the second time. Because the data has shown over time that statistically two point conversion plays are a 50/50 chance, you are statistically probably to get at least one of these chances. If you get the first one you now have set yourself up to win, if you do not get the first one then you are "due" to get the second one. Does it work every time? No. But more often than not the teams you see do it benefit from it. Loras not taking advantage of this cost them the game, and it was something that was completely avoidable.

I watched the end of that game.  Brutal way to end after the comeback that was made.  I've always been amazed how often I see a team score nothing over 3 quarters and then put up video game numbers once they are in the 4th quarter. 

[Schipper Strong]

If Central was down 14 points we would go for the PAT instead of z two point conversion every time in regular play. In OT we would go for the two point conversion if we were the second team up.

Maybe I am biased though as Central has been amazing on PAT's for probably decades now. We have had one miss this year and I think only one miss last year.

[HansenRatings]

Wartburg must have still been riding a high from beating Central last week. Clearly Coach Winter had a good halftime talk for that.

Coach Winter talked about this on the local radio show before going out to Lincoln this week, but Wartburg has started slow on the road all season, but they've been great in the first half at home. It's been even more apparent because most of the toughest opponents have been at home - you'd think jumping out to a great start against teams like Luther or NWU wouldn't be harder than Dubuque or Central

Scoring Margin on the Road
1st Half +22 | 2nd Half +85

Scoring Margin at Home
1st Half +59 | 2nd Half +6

[HansenRatings]

if you are down 14 points late in a football game that upon scoring a TD you should go for two.

Driftless gets it.

[MediaGuy]

https://share.google/images/K3B1Wrrp0ZpePoIAE

This is the generally accepted chart that most coaches follow.  Most staffs will have a non-play calling assistant coach take a look at this once they cross midfield during a drive and let the OC & HC know what the chart suggests.  It allows for a quick decision and the math is already done to give you the best win probability.

Also to the point about special teams...im not sure any team in the ARC has a dedicated Special Teams Coach and one of the reasons Wartburg in particular has had success in special teams is that they put more emphasis on it in practice, keep it relatively simple and make it a priority.  I've never seen a Wartburg practice where they dont spend at least 20 minutes on special teams and if you're tired or a little banged up, Wartburg will take a starter out for a play or 2 on offense or defense but they will stay on special teams.  A lot of teams use 4th down reps to give an O/D starter a breather.

[HansenRatings]

https://share.google/images/K3B1Wrrp0ZpePoIAE

This is the generally accepted chart that most coaches follow.

Man... I have some major issues with that chart. Other than the obvious ones - going for 2 if you're down by 5 or 2 (to either go down by a FG or to tie) or going for 2 if you're up by 1 or 5 (to go up by 3 or 7), going for 2 if you're down by 8 late is the clearest positive value decision you can make.

You don't need fancy math for this to make sense. Assume field goals are a 100% proposition, 2pt tries are 50-50, and winning in overtime is 50-50 (close enough to accurate for this to work, but it doesn't really matter). Assuming you score 2 TDs (otherwise none of this matters):

PAT + PAT = 50% to win, pending OT
PAT + 2PT = 50% to win, pending 2pt try
In either scenario, you have a 50% chance to win

2PT(convert) + PAT = 100% to win
2PT(fail) + 2PT(convert) = 50% to win, pending OT
2PT(fail) + 2PT(fail) = 0% to win
(50% convert x 100% win) + {50% fail x [(50% convert x 50% win) + (50% fail x 0% win)]} = 62.5% win

In the latter option, where you go for 2 first, you have the information advantage of knowing if you convert your 2 pt try earlier. If you only have time for 2 possessions, you want to get that information as soon as possible. You're playing with the goal of winning the game. Not with the goal of going to OT.

Here's a comparison of that chart from Tennessee and two charts made by fivethirtyeight and ESPN analytics. The latter two used different methodologies to come up with extremely similar results:



Here's the full chart and link to the 538 analysis:



Here's the chart and link for ESPN's analysis:

[Fannosaurus Rex]

I'm glad we are on to numbers because, this being rivalry week and all, I am reminded of the Simpson grad who wanted his son to follow in his footsteps. So, when the boy was 18 the dad took him to the Simpson admissions office. The admissions officer said, "we just have one test, what is two plus two?" The boy scratched his head and thought and counted on his fingers and finally he said, "uhhhh, four?" And the dad said, "Ah come on, give him a second chance."

[MediaGuy]

https://share.google/images/K3B1Wrrp0ZpePoIAE

This is the generally accepted chart that most coaches follow.

Man... I have some major issues with that chart. Other than the obvious ones - going for 2 if you're down by 5 or 2 (to either go down by a FG or to tie) or going for 2 if you're up by 1 or 5 (to go up by 3 or 7), going for 2 if you're down by 8 late is the clearest positive value decision you can make.

You don't need fancy math for this to make sense. Assume field goals are a 100% proposition, 2pt tries are 50-50, and winning in overtime is 50-50 (close enough to accurate for this to work, but it doesn't really matter). Assuming you score 2 TDs (otherwise none of this matters):

PAT + PAT = 50% to win, pending OT
PAT + 2PT = 50% to win, pending 2pt try
In either scenario, you have a 50% chance to win

2PT(convert) + PAT = 100% to win
2PT(fail) + 2PT(convert) = 50% to win, pending OT
2PT(fail) + 2PT(fail) = 0% to win
(50% convert x 100% win) + {50% fail x [(50% convert x 50% win) + (50% fail x 0% win)]} = 62.5% win

In the latter option, where you go for 2 first, you have the information advantage of knowing if you convert your 2 pt try earlier. If you only have time for 2 possessions, you want to get that information as soon as possible. You're playing with the goal of winning the game. Not with the goal of going to OT.

Here's a comparison of that chart from Tennessee and two charts made by fivethirtyeight and ESPN analytics. The latter two used different methodologies to come up with extremely similar results:



Here's the full chart and link to the 538 analysis:



Here's the chart and link for ESPN's analysis:

I didn't realize there were that many of these charts floating around, ive only seen charts from 2 teams in person and they were identical...I just grabbed the first one I saw on a Google search and assumed it was the same.

And anything you typed after "fancy math" was too fancy for me...I'm still mad at whoever started mixing letters into my math problems.

[Schipper Strong]

Wartburg must have still been riding a high from beating Central last week. Clearly Coach Winter had a good halftime talk for that.

Coach Winter talked about this on the local radio show before going out to Lincoln this week, but Wartburg has started slow on the road all season, but they've been great in the first half at home. It's been even more apparent because most of the toughest opponents have been at home - you'd think jumping out to a great start against teams like Luther or NWU wouldn't be harder than Dubuque or Central

Scoring Margin on the Road
1st Half +22 | 2nd Half +85

Scoring Margin at Home
1st Half +59 | 2nd Half +6

Central is the same way. I was so excited for the season after the RMC win, but we have not looked great since. The teams that you would think would be easier aren't.