Jump to content

StanfordAggie

Members
  • Posts

    3,847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Profile Information

  • Team
    Utah State
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,514 profile views
  1. No, you should basically always go for 2 in that situation. This doesn't require advanced statistics. It's just simple probability. If I remember correctly, in the NFL, the probability of a successful two-point conversion is about 0.45. The probability of a successful PAT is about 0.9. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the team successfully scores a second touchdown and that their opponent does not score again. We will also assume that the probability of winning if the game goes to OT is 0.5. Below I will outline each scenario where you win the game under each strategy (and the probability of winning for each scenario and strategy): If you go for 2 when down 8: Successful two-point conversion, successful PAT: (0.45)*(0.9) = 0.405 Successful two-point conversion, missed PAT, win in OT: (0.45)*(0.1)*(0.5) = 0.0225 Unsuccessful two-point conversion, successful two-point conversion, win in OT: (0.55)*(0.45)*(0.5) = 0.12375 The probability of winning is 0.405 + 0.0225 + 0.12375 = 0.55125 If you kick a PAT when down 8: Successful PAT, successful PAT, win in OT: (0.9)*(0.9)*(0.5) = 0.405 Unsuccessful PAT, successful two-point conversion, win in OT: (0.1)*(0.45)*(0.5) = 0.0225 The probability of winning is 0.405 + 0.0225 = 0.4275 In other words, your probability of winning is about 13% better if you go for two when down 8. Granted, these assumptions are based on NFL averages. In college football, a PAT is successful about 95% of the time. If your team is really bad at two-point conversions, then maybe it is better to kick a PAT. But if you have a halfway decent offense, going for two in that scenario is always the better option. I find it appalling that so many coaches who are paid millions of dollars don't seem to be able to do the basic math in this situation.
  2. For the record, going for two in that situation is objectively the correct decision: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/ https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28100383/going-2-8-points-why-nfl-teams-keep-doing-why-analytics-backs-up The numbers may be slightly different for college football given that the extra point is slightly harder to get in the NFL, but going for two in that situation is still almost certainly the best option. The only time going for two hurts you is if you score two touchdowns and miss the two-point conversion both times, which only happens about 20-25% of the time.
  3. #4 seed in the FCS playoffs. https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/football/fcs/2023 I wanted to insert a "best team in the state of Idaho" dig, but after last night, I think I need to keep my mouth shut.
  4. Clearly, no one on this board actually pays attention to MWC football. Because the Turd of the Week this week is USU, and it is not particularly close. Did anyone look at the box score? BSU averaged 7.3 yards per rush. That is not a typo. 352 rushing yards total. And that was despite the fact that BSU had basically pulled their starters by halftime. And our offense was equally putrid. We gave up 9 sacks and 13 tackles for loss. I believe that both of those are all-time records for BSU since they went FBS back in 1996. USU managed to play the worst BSU team in probably 20 years and make them look like the second coming of Kellen Moore. Even the Kellen Moore teams never put up numbers like BSU did on USU on last night. If you voted for a team other than USU for Turd of the Week, then you clearly know nothing about MWC football.
  5. It's a true story. If you go to the USU board, about half of the threads are complaining about the low quality of the KJZZ broadcasts.
  6. Caveat: I am not a lawyer. My wife is a lawyer who does some contract work, though, and I have asked her about this issue. She says that generally courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $20 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $20 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract. My guess is that CUSA never expected Marshall et al. to be in their conference next season. They just put them on the schedule to try to force the departing schools to pay some extra exit fees. They want to be able to tell the judge, "We planned on having them on our schedule next season. Since they breached the contract and left the conference early, we had to replace them on the schedule with the following crappy teams, which cost us ticket revenue." This is speculation on my part, but that's my best guess on why CUSA would do this.
  7. My point is that I think that I think it is 100% valid to take the stance of "We want to move up to FBS eventually, but only if we believe that we will be successful at the FBS level. If we don't think we think we will be successful in FBS, then we would rather stay in FCS." If that is what NDSU is thinking, it is perfectly reasonable not to join CUSA right now. That's probably not a good situation for them, so they'd rather wait until a better FBS opportunity presents itself. If it never does, continuing to dominate FCS would not be the end of the world, either.
  8. I think you are missing my point, which is that even if you do have aspirations of moving up to FBS some day, it is better to wait for a good situation where you are more likely to be successful than to take the first offer that comes along and potentially crash and burn. If I were NDSU and wanted to go FBS at some time in the future, I would absolutely wait and hope that an invite to the MWC or even the MAC comes some day rather than jumping into the current incarnation of CUSA.
  9. Well, I could slam the door on my fingers repeatedly, smoke meth, or listen to Tucker Carlson. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Making the jump to FBS is always going to be a risky move for a school like NDSU with a very small market/endowment. I can't fault them for whatever for the right situation before making the jump (or simply never making the jump at all). The Montana schools have had plenty of opportunities to move to FBS but haven't taken them because of concerns that they don't have the population and resources to be competitive at the FBS level. I am inclined to agree with the NDSU administration that joining CUSA right now is probably not the right move for their program.
  10. Some of the Bison fans on here are obnoxious, but come on. If you were NDSU, would you want to join the current incarnation of CUSA? They would be an extreme geographic outlier in a conference that is basically on life support. I can't blame them for not wanting to jump into an extremely bad situation.
  11. I can't repeat it enough times. The problem was never money. If Gonzaga just wanted more money, they would be in the MWC already. The MWC would gladly give them whatever they asked for. The issue is that Gonzaga is a small, private religious school. It is in a conference with other small, private, mostly religious schools that has been more stable than any conference in the country other than the Ivy League. That is a very natural fit for Gonzaga. The MWC, on the other hand, with the exception of Air Force, consists entirely of large public universities. And basically every one of them has dreams of joining a P5 conference some day. Culturally and institutionally Gonzaga would be a fish out of water in the MWC. It's just not happening. I would love to see a scheduling agreement with Gonzaga, but I'm virtually certain that bringing them in as a full member is a pipe dream.
  12. Gonzaga might make a little more money if they moved to the MWC, but I can't imagine any scenario where they would make enough extra money to justify a move from the ultra-stable WCC consisting of small, private schools to the potentially unstable MWC consisting of large public schools. The only real justification for a move to the MWC would be concerns about conference SOS when BYU is no longer in the WCC. That's another reason I say that a scheduling agreement is a far more realistic possibility than Gonzaga joining the MWC as a full member.
  13. I really hope this is true. I have always said that the idea of Gonzaga joining the MWC as a full member is a pipe dream for institutional reasons. They are a perfect fit among the small, private, mostly religious schools in the WCC. They would be an extremely strange fit among the large public universities in the MWC. It's just not happening. But some kind of basketball scheduling agreement, on the other hand, could be very advantageous for both sides. I'm not sure how the details of such an agreement would work, but I hope both sides can make it happen.
  14. Any B1G expansion comes from a position of strength. They aren't going the Big 12 route where they add any second-rate university who has had a couple decent seasons to desperately maintain their power conference status. They want schools that will bring value for decades in the future. Hence they are focusing on schools with strong academics, large endowments, broad fan support, and attractive/growing TV markets. Also, one of the concerns of the B1G is that most of their members are in midwestern states that are slowly losing population relative to the rest of the country. That's why UVA and UNC are at the top of their wish list. They are the most popular brands in two rapidly growing states, and they both have stellar academics and huge endowments. Even if both schools continue to be mediocre in football, getting the BTN on basic cable in Virginia and North Carolina would generate enough additional revenue to justify feeding two more mouths. And with the amount of money both schools have, they will probably field a competitive team some day. (They are already great additions for basketball even if their football programs have struggled.)
  15. Wow. Do you even know what a GOR is? If not, maybe you should go research the topic before you try to participate in this thread. Of course Oklahoma and Texas had a GOR. That's why they are not joining the SEC until 2025 after the GOR expires. If they joined before then, all of their TV rights would still belong to the Big 12, which would completely defeat the point of them joining the SEC. There's a slight question of whether or not a GOR is legally enforceable. Nobody has ever tested this question in court. But most attorneys think it is, and I don't think any conference is going to want to risk having to pay potentially 9 figures to another conference after a GOR is breached. So I think it is very unlikely that the ACC gets raided before its GOR expires in 2036.
×
×
  • Create New...