The results from the 4th quarter of the KState game had me thinking about how often we go for it on 4th down, specifically on our side of the field. That game got away from us, if I remember correctly after a fumble and then turnover on downs. Those happened in rapid succession and led to 10 points, an insurmountable deficit with the time we had left.
Every game has its own flow, and every coach could go back and rethink a decision here and there. I actually really like JM's aggressiveness and the fight that this team has. I think that is going to make the difference positively more times than not. However, I don't think blind acceptance of analytics is always a winning strategy. Mainly because some of the conversions happen in games where the match-ups are different and the team going for it has a real advantage or the benefit of momentum, or the sun is in the other teams eye, or the spiking of the other teams Gatorade is finally taking effect.
Risk management, on the other hand, could eliminate faulty data in the decision making process. It is all centered around the Principle of Large Loss. That's why we choose to buy insurance of any kind. It states that "the downside of a negative income is more relevant than the likelihood of the occurrence of that outcome." Basically...if we go for it and don't make it, are we giving the other team too short of a field? And if they score could it put the game out of reach? Old school game management shouldn't be over-looked when using analytics, in my opinion.
TLDR: Should we really go for it on our side of the field? Analytics isn't fool-proof.
Every game has its own flow, and every coach could go back and rethink a decision here and there. I actually really like JM's aggressiveness and the fight that this team has. I think that is going to make the difference positively more times than not. However, I don't think blind acceptance of analytics is always a winning strategy. Mainly because some of the conversions happen in games where the match-ups are different and the team going for it has a real advantage or the benefit of momentum, or the sun is in the other teams eye, or the spiking of the other teams Gatorade is finally taking effect.
Risk management, on the other hand, could eliminate faulty data in the decision making process. It is all centered around the Principle of Large Loss. That's why we choose to buy insurance of any kind. It states that "the downside of a negative income is more relevant than the likelihood of the occurrence of that outcome." Basically...if we go for it and don't make it, are we giving the other team too short of a field? And if they score could it put the game out of reach? Old school game management shouldn't be over-looked when using analytics, in my opinion.
TLDR: Should we really go for it on our side of the field? Analytics isn't fool-proof.
