Stewart Mandel is not the last word on college football, but he is a reasonably astute observer and analyst of the scene.
THE ATHLETIC: Mandel’s Forward Pass: Despite little movement atop the polls, the pool of national title contenders is growing
By Stewart Mandel Sep 30, 2019
. . . Within seconds of his team scoring a touchdown with 1:17 remaining to cut its deficit against Clemson to 21-20, the camera caught Mack Brown on the sideline holding up two fingers. At that moment, you knew the UNC coach was one play from either being lauded as a national hero or ripped as if it were 2013 and he was back at Texas.
Sure enough, when an ill-advised speed-option play went nowhere, the game broadcasters, Twitter and armchair QBs everywhere wondered why he didn’t just opt for the game-tying extra point. “Our best chance to win was to go for two,” Brown said afterward.
Earlier Saturday, Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald elicited near-universal bewilderment by unsuccessfully going for two twice in the fourth quarter against Wisconsin, first when his team cut the score to 24-9 with 8:45 remaining and then again at 24-15 with 4:10 left. Had he just kicked both times, the Wildcats could have been down just a touchdown by then rather than nine points.
Fitzgerald came to his postgame news conference ready to explain/lecture — complete with a chart.
“When you’re down 15, you go for two because those are the analytics that we pull to try and shorten the game and have less possessions to win the game,” he said. “… You can’t ever know what’s going to happen next, but you have to assume that we have to score as many points right here, right now. That’s the thought process behind that.”
Fitzgerald might be one of the first major college coaches to openly cite game-management analytics, but he won’t be the last. Many NFL coaches already subscribe to it, resulting in a notable increase in that league in the past few years in attempted two-pointers. In fact, in his comments, Fitzgerald cited a video of Baltimore Ravens coach John Harbaugh from last week explaining the math behind going for two down 11 points in the fourth quarter against the Chiefs.
In general, coaches embracing modern analytics is a good thing. But there’s one flaw with going strictly by probabilities: They’re not tailored to the specific game being played.
Fitzgerald is correct that going for two down 15 gets the analytics seal of approval; however, his offense, which is currently tied for last in all of FBS in yards per play (3.9), had managed just 99 yards through three quarters Saturday. When it finally scored a touchdown, it came after Wisconsin muffed a punt at its own 32. The idea that the Cats would suddenly overpower the Badgers’ defense from 2 yards out seems … improbable.
Brown, on the other hand, absolutely made the right decision. Not because of the math, which says UNC’s win probability would be the same either way, but because Clemson was the far more talented team. While the Tigers struggled to sustain drives Saturday, their chances of winning a series of 25-yard chess matches when they have Lawrence, Tee Higgins, Justyn Ross and Travis Etienne would seemingly be much higher than UNC’s.
“We had been out there a lot on defense and were worn down, and they had more depth than we had,” Brown said. “I just felt like it was our chance.”
Unfortunately, OC Phil Longo’s play call, which Clemson apparently saw coming, did not help his boss look smart for it. But perhaps they and coaches everywhere will have an opportunity to get better educated about these decisions very soon.
“I’d love to (teach) a class at Northwestern on analytics,” Fitzgerald said.
