AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
New Kickoff Rule
- Thread starter Bison
- Start date
I have never been one of the "eliminate the kickoff" group. Part of that is that we still call the game football.
In this system it would still be football, we would just be replacing an uncontested place kick with a punt from formation. I could support that.
The safety argument for this is strong. Touchbacks are dull but the kickoff return involves guys with a running start piling into each other, the huge impacts are greatly reduced on a punt return vs. a KO return.
If you have a high punt with solid coverage the returner simply takes a fair catch normally between the 20 and 30, similar position to the touchback but safer and the element of catching the punt adds some excitement.
Another element this would give would be the potential for the receiving team to block a punt creating a huge momentum shift.
I don’t follow this logic at all. Are you suggesting colleges would add women to their football rosters? Or are you suggesting they would voluntarily trim their rosters of males?
I don’t see either happening, so I’m wondering what I’m missing.
I do question whether an 85 man roster is necessary, though. If you need 85, why is the max travel roster 70? Could we go down to 75, especially with the new redshirt rule that allows guys to play in 4 games without losing any eligibility?
Ok, but that’s a separate discussion, I think.
Reducing the scholarship limit would immediately help a team like CU. Probably not a bad idea. But again, that’s a different discussion.
FCS schools have 63 scholarships...we can cut the number of players down and level the playing field even more.
I'm going to be curious to see how AAF handles the roster numbers since they won't be having kickoffs. The XFL is going to "re-imagine" football as well. There are going to be a lot of changes to football in the next five years for sure. @Not Sure this is where football is going and the NFL & College football will certainly be different games in the next five years.
I'm going to be curious to see how AAF handles the roster numbers since they won't be having kickoffs. The XFL is going to "re-imagine" football as well. There are going to be a lot of changes to football in the next five years for sure. @Not Sure this is where football is going and the NFL & College football will certainly be different games in the next five years.
With teams like Alabama, OSU, Clemson and Oklahoma seemingly separating themselves from the rest of college football, a reduction in scholarships would help level the playing field a bit. Those teams will still get theirs, of course. But those extra 10-15 players that Alabama would have on their roster will have to go somewhere else. This might be the thing that keeps college football viable for a while longer.
FIFY.
More seriously though: it's very, very unlikely that any coach would ever pursue that strategy.
Tl;dr reason: math
Reason:
The 12.5% 4th and 15 conversion rate calculation actually came from college. Or, in other words, 4th and 15 is converted less often than traditional on-sides kicks (before all the rules changes).
Maybe with the current disparity between and offense and defense that conversion rate goes up to 20%. It's still a low percentage play with a big downside if you don't convert: the other team gets the ball in field goal range of many kickers, and a first down away from most kickers' range.
Let's do some back of the envelope math on what it would take to go up 21-0 without the other team even getting the ball on offense:
Start with a coin flip (this would make beginning of game strategy really interesting btw) 50% chance you start with 4th & 15 scenario and 50% chance the other team does (we won't count this "possession" as a possession for them, because we're assuming the other team just punts).
Assume that if the offense converts the 4th & 15 (or receives the opening punt) that they end up scoring on the drive 90% of the time (that seems high, but we'll go with it)
Let's also assume that if they score, they get a touchdown (also a ridiculously high estimate)
Finally, this high powered offense converts the 4th & 15 50% of the time (again, that's probably really, really high)
0.5 (chance you start by receiving opening punt) x 0.9 (chance you get a touchdown) x 0.5 (chance you convert 4th & 15) x 0.9 (chance you get a touchdown) x 0.5 (chance you convert 4th & 15) x 0.9 (chance you get a touchdown) + 0.5 (chance you start in 4th & 15) x 0.5 (chance you convert 4th & 15) x 0.9 (chance you get a touchdown) x 0.5 (chance you convert 4th & 15) x 0.9 (chance you get a touchdown) x 0.5 (chance you convert 4th & 15) x 0.9 (chance you get a touchdown)
= 13.7 % chance you can go up by 21 - 0.
Now, weigh that estimate against the cumulative chances that you'll give the other team's offense the ball somewhere between your own 30 and 45 (assumes no tackles for loss or turnovers):
0.5 (chance you start in 4th & 15) x 0.5 (chance you fail to convert) = 25% chance when the game is still 0 - 0.
Not going to show all the work, but 33.75 % chance they get the ball when you're only up 7 - 0.
And 15.2% chance they get the ball on your side of the field when you're up 14-0.
So, even with ridiculously high estimates of the efficiency at which a team can convert both the 4th & 15s and turn those conversions into touchdowns, your chances of a team going up 21-0 without the other team's offense ever seeing the ball are only 14%, compared against the 74% chance that their offense would get the ball on your side of the field before that happens.
If you put more realistic conversion odds in there, the odds of success vs the downside risk become even more disparate.
So no, no sane person would actually pursue that strategy, and the crazy ones that did would get burned almost every time they tried it.
I agree with your reasoning....but context is everything. When do teams historically go for it on 4th and 15? When you're losing (sometimes badly), and it's late in the game and the defense has a very good sense of what the offense has been running all game....there are typically no real surprises when a play is being run at that down and distance historically speaking....and the teams are evenly matched at best in data used to derive that statistic.
Okay, now using your correction (which is a fair correction by the way
). We have a great game plan against Air Force....a number of new wrinkles. Montez comes out and drives the offense down the field for a TD in 3 plays in the opening drive. AFA has only seen 3 plays so far, and our receivers outmatch their DB's....it would make sense to take the ball, and run a different concept that they haven't seen yet. At that point in the game, a 15 yd completion is probably a 50/50 proposition in my opinion. We're successful on our attempt, and score again....and score again after that. I think it's totally plausible in that scenario. There is also the idea that there are many games that the favorite completely outmatches the opponent....and a 4th and 15 attempt would have never been attempted in that game historically anyway, because it would have never been that close. Example #2 Bama vs any G5 cupcake. They know its going to be a blowout anyway....but they have a chance to keep their Defense off the field and rest their starters after the first qtr? Why even play the game at all? At least it was mildly entertaining when it was somewhat close until halftime.