The CardBoard
Looking ahead to Week 3 games - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Looking ahead to Week 3 games (/thread-12608.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - Spiny_Norman - 09-18-2016

(09-17-2016, 04:21 PM)82 Card link Wrote:Ducks lose by 3, which is the number of points they left on the field by always going for 2.

Oregon's kicker is the most accurate kicker in Oregon's history and was 3rd team All American last season.  Yet, the coaches decided not to use him vs. Nebraska.

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - stupac2 - 09-18-2016

I was talking about Oregon's 2-point thing with the guy behind me at our game yesterday, and I think it's actually pretty reasonable. You should convert on ~half of them if you don't suck at it, but apparently Oregon sucks at it because 20% is abysmal.

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - Roberton3 - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 10:52 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:You should convert on ~half of them if you don't suck at it, but apparently Oregon sucks at it because 20% is abysmal.

Or they were just unlucky.  It's a small sample.  If you have a 50% chance of converting and you have five attempts every game, then in roughly one in five games (18.75% of the time) you'll do as badly as the Ducks did or worse. 

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - fullmetal - 09-18-2016

Then there was the incorrectly ruled catch...!  But no matter, Texas's hype train has been derailed, which is a good second-order thing for Stanford, I guess.  It is sad times here around here though.  And the locals are becoming increasingly disgruntled with Vance Bedford's defensive coaching after letting Hansen run free through the Texas secondary.

Meanwhile, I'm loving Duane Akina's genius.  Nothing to see here folks, move along.  (Thanks Charlie!)

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - stupac2 - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 11:03 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15645.msg171720#msg171720 date=1474221172]
You should convert on ~half of them if you don't suck at it, but apparently Oregon sucks at it because 20% is abysmal.

Or they were just unlucky.  It's a small sample.  If you have a 50% chance of converting and you have five attempts every game, then in roughly one in five games (18.75% of the time) you'll do as badly as the Ducks did or worse.
[/quote]

Well, right, but if you're going to go for it literally every time then you probably don't think your true chance of making it is ~50%, because then it's barely better on average but the variance is unacceptably high. I don't really know what the true percentage should be, but you'd probably want something where the odds of losing points compared to PATs on ~4 TDs are <10%. The Ducks still could've gotten unlucky, it's really impossible to ever rule it out, but I think going 1/5 is bad enough to make it seem like a terrible idea.

Also, wasn't Freeman injured early in the game? You'd think with him out the odds would change significantly enough to reconsider the idea.

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - OutsiderFan - 09-18-2016

Eh, Texas should have lost to ND and beaten Cal.  Just like Cal should have beaten SDSU and lost to Texas.  Instead, they did the opposite.  I'm sure both fan bases are actually happy with starting 2-1. 

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - CornFed - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 10:31 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=82 Card link=topic=15645.msg171461#msg171461 date=1474154502]
Ducks lose by 3, which is the number of points they left on the field by always going for 2.

Oregon's kicker is the most accurate kicker in Oregon's history and was 3rd team All American last season.  Yet, the coaches decided not to use him vs. Nebraska.
[/quote]

I feel his pain.  lol

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - BostonCard - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 12:00 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=15645.msg171724#msg171724 date=1474221800]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15645.msg171720#msg171720 date=1474221172]
You should convert on ~half of them if you don't suck at it, but apparently Oregon sucks at it because 20% is abysmal.

Or they were just unlucky.  It's a small sample.  If you have a 50% chance of converting and you have five attempts every game, then in roughly one in five games (18.75% of the time) you'll do as badly as the Ducks did or worse.
[/quote]

Well, right, but if you're going to go for it literally every time then you probably don't think your true chance of making it is ~50%, because then it's barely better on average but the variance is unacceptably high. I don't really know what the true percentage should be, but you'd probably want something where the odds of losing points compared to PATs on ~4 TDs are <10%. The Ducks still could've gotten unlucky, it's really impossible to ever rule it out, but I think going 1/5 is bad enough to make it seem like a terrible idea.

Also, wasn't Freeman injured early in the game? You'd think with him out the odds would change significantly enough to reconsider the idea.
[/quote]

Depends.  IF you are supposed to be the better team, then you will want to decrease the variance.  If you are not supposed to beat your opponent, then you will want to increase the variance.

Also, theoretically, if you always go for 2, over time you should get better at it with practice (while your opponents will not be especially good at defending the 2 pt conversion), so you ought to be better than an average expected number of points.

BC

Re: Looking ahead to Week 3 games - BostonCard - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 10:24 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15645.msg171681#msg171681 date=1474208784]
I didn't see the play, but the refs who are active on /r/cfb say it was correctly ruled. Apparently the Texas player didn't jump on the ball immediately, just sort of strolled over and picked it up, and because the field refs ruled TD the play was dead, so you can't award possession without the immediate action thingy. Sounds kind of like the McCaffrey fumble against WSU last year where the unwashed hoards think it was wrong but it was actually the correct ruling.

Kyle Bonagura got an explanation from the official after the game:

Quote:  There wasn't an inadvertent whistle. The ruling on the field was a touchdown, which replay determined that there was a fumble at the 1-yard line. The ball rolled into the end zone, came to rest, ןɐɔ players ran past it and many Texas players ran past it. I think it was 14 [Texas DB Dylan Haines] that picked up the ball and handed the ball to the official. Replay determined that there was no immediate recovery and that is replay's sole responsibility. We ruled touchdown. He has video evidence that the ball was fumbled short of the goal line. Once he determines there was no immediate recovery, by rule, the ball is returned to the team last in possession at the spot of the fumble, which is the 1-yard line.

http://www.espn.com/espn/now?nowId=21-0569066253860216748-4
[/quote]

I get the logic, but this was a funny retort:

https://twitter.com/tomfornelli/status/777395686442725376

BC