Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

For awhile now, blogger Matt Yglesias has been harping on (PDF) the statistical case against punting. In yesterday's U.Va. - Texas Tech game, I got to see how it worked out in practice, because Tech went for it in all five of their fourth-down situations in the second half.

So how did it work? Damned well, actually. While Tech only succeeded on three out of five 4th-down conversions, those three successes led to two Texas Tech TDs, while turning the ball over on downs twice led to zero U.Va. scores. They did pass up a sure FG, but it was when they were down 14 with just over 8 minutes left in the game, and a FG would have left them still needing two scores.

Since U.Va. led 21-7 at the half, and scored one more TD later on, it's hard to envision that Tech would have come from behind (which they did, winning 31-28) if they'd handled fourth downs as a normal team would.

Here's the situations where they went for it on fourth down:

1) Down 21-7, 4th and 5 on the U.Va. 41. They picked up the first, and the drive ended in a TD.

2) Down 21-14, 4th and 4 on the U.Va. 36. They didn't make it, turning the ball over on downs. U.Va's subsequent possession ended in a punt.

3) Down 28-14, 4th and 4 on their own 32. They picked up the first, and drove all the way to the U.Va. 1.

4) Down 28-14, 4th and goal on the U.Va. 1. (Later that same drive.) Went for it, didn't make the TD, turned the ball over on downs. U.Va's subsequent possession ended in a punt.

5) Down 28-14, 4th and 3 on the U.Va. 34. Picked up the first, and ended the drive with a TD.

U.Va. should have still won, but if Texas Tech hadn't played like that, U.Va. wouldn't have even been given the opportunity to blow it.

As entertainment, it was great. As strategy, I think it makes a lot of sense when you're behind and don't have a lot to lose. And it's always made sense in that part of the field where your punter's likely to put it in the end zone, but you're too far out for your FG kicker.

What's weird about the latter situation is that on occasion, a coach will clearly realize this - on fourth down. But he seemingly won't have realized on third down that he's in 2-down territory, as evidenced by his calling a pass play for the first-down yards, rather than using third down on the running play that the defense is completely not expecting, that will still get stopped short of the first down 75% of the time, but has an excellent chance of getting most of the first-down yardage. If you're going to go for it on fourth, it's important to know that at least one play ahead.

Anyway, it was such fun to see a coach try that approach that I didn't mind seeing my team lose as a result.

Warthog wrote:If you have ever read TMQ (Gregg Easterbrook) on ESPN.com, he too is a proponent of the 'never punt in any situation' philosophy. Personally, I love it. It seems so simple. If you can get into the mental attitude that you get four plays to make a first down instead of three, it seems pretty simple. Puts more pressure on the opponents defense as well.

hammb wrote:Bingo. I'm with ya on the don't punt on 4th down thing.

Statistically you are better off going for it in almost all 4th and less than 5 situations. I'll never understand why most football coaches are still so darn conservative. They always think in the mindset that how terrible it will be if they fail, they never consider the fact that the benefits outweigh the costs in many of those situations.