FiatSlug;841952649 said:

---

A very simple argument:

• 4:25 remaining is more than enough time for Ohio State to score a FG or TD; a 3-point lead is very tenuous.
  
• You have the weapons to not only make the first down, you have the weapons to get closer, burn more clock and possibly score a TD.
  
• If you make the first down, you should be able to burn two more minutes off the clock at least before attempting a FG.
  
• Even if you miss with 2:30 remaining, presumably it's a tougher deal for Ohio State to march far enough to kick an FG to tie, or score a TD for the win.
  

---

First off, I'm in the "we should have gone for it" camp, but based on the fact that D'Amato was likely considerably shaken by then, and also that the defense had been playing well. However, I would have been fine with the kicking the field goal call on 4th and 1 IF THE TIMEOUT HAD NOT BEEN CALLED. At 4+ minutes in the game, burning the clock does not make any sense to me, even if you think you're going to make the field goal. It's too much time left to take 35 seconds off the clock, and if you're going to get the ball back (you would have to assume that, given your defense), you still want a timeout to have at your disposal. The problem I have is that if the decision was to kick the FG, then the team should have been sent out to kick immediately without the timeout call. They should have been prepared with a sideline coaching scenario of -"If we don't make it on 3rd and 2, we're kicking, so be ready", but the way it came off, it seemed like we decided to kick as the clock was ticking down, and then decided to take the time out since we wouldn't have enough time to get the team on the field.

It did not really feel like things were thought out in advance - "if this happens, then this" - and that is a critical component of what good coaching is supposed to do. I haven't heard any explanations of why the timeout was called there, only about why the field goal was kicked and the timeout call seems to be a bit more perplexing to me.

freshfunk;841953018 said:

---

I'm pretty sure that's because both of the prior 4th down attempts were past the 40 and out of FG range.

---

i.e. situations where Tedford previously would have punted. So yes, I am glad that he went for it there instead, even if we didn't convert.

I still think it was a bad decision as was calling timeout to decide it. I thought so at the time and certainly nothing that transpired after changed my mind.

That does not negate the fact that Tedford had a great game plan, had the kids prepared, called a pretty good game and it was only some really bad calls by the refs that even make this decision or D'Amato's misses an issue.

CALiforniALUM;841952983 said:

---

I look down all the people who responded to my initial post and a few things stand out. For the most part, the individuals who are the most vocal against kicking the field goal or hating on Tedford have post counts in the tens and hundreds (I'm not picking on you SFBear2012 or GoBearsBert :p). Then there seem to be the more reasoned and seasoned posters (Phantomfan, calumnus etc) who as evidenced by their post counts in the multiple thousands have had a regular voice on BI.

All I can conclude is there must be a few trolls on this board who have an agenda. I've been a member of this community for longer than this particular board has been around. I've celebrated the winning field goals, and celebrated the converted 4th and 1s, and I've also lamented on many that went wide right and came up short. I think the negativity coming from some of the young posters, measured by post count, is what results in some players publicly saying this venue sucks. I have to agree with CJ Anderson that there are some fair weather fans amongst us.

We missed a damn field goal. Hindsight is always 20/20. You can't say with any certainty that CAL would have won if....if....if....if.... Can you argue against the fact that the players competed and left it out on the field? I'm proud of our players. They deserve better from their fans regardless of the result on the scoreboard or the decisions made, or not made, on the field.

---

What I conclude is that older bears are more likely to accept mediocrity from Tedford because they're used to having shit teams.

SoCalBear323;841953035 said:

---

What I conclude is that older bears are more likely to accept mediocrity from Tedford because they're used to having shit teams.

---

See that is where you have it wrong. The years I was at CAL we had some pretty good teams and I will be the first to say that I think it is time for a new coach. I just don't think a 4th and 1 call is the play through which to base a decision on whether to fire the man, or not.

First learn the math, but since some here have difficulty with the concept I'll use an easier model

Imagine you are playing Texas Hold'em

You have a pair of aces in your hand and your opponent has a pair of Kings with the board showing

a rainbow flop of let's say 10 diamonds 4 of clubs and 2 of hearts then turn is 7 of spades.

Your opponent goes all in you call his hand.

You see his kings and you realize that there are only 2 cards out of thirty remaining meaning there's just under 7% chance of him winning.

The river comes and it's one of the two kings and you lose. Does that mean from now on when you have an opponent dominated with a 7% chance of them winning you just fold?

Of course not.

The math shows that kicking at the 42 gives you expected points outcome of 1.5 points. 50% chance of making a 3 pt field goal = 1.5 pts

The math of going for it on 4th and 1 gives you an expected points outcome of around 3pts.

It's not even a close decision.

The math doesn't even address psychological impact of going for it, going for it and making it, or time taken off of the clock in either scenario.

That's why it's so unfathomable that Tedford made his decision. If you don't believe me ask any mathematician in the world to show you and explain the mathematics behind the choices. They'll tell you that not only is going for it the only correct choice, but kicking is an indefensible mathematical position which dramatically decreased Cal's chances of winning.

RaphaelAglietti;841953133 said:

---

First learn the math, but since some here have difficulty with the concept I'll use an easier model

---

Thanks for the math lesson, cute little poker analogy and healthy dose of condescension. You do realize that most here went to Cal, right?

NYCGOBEARS;841953136 said:

---

Thanks for the math lesson, cute little poker analogy and healthy dose of condescension. You do realize that most here went to Cal, right?

---

I would guess yes, but with many seemingly unable to grasp the simple mathematics behind the decision, I begin to question ...

Kicking a field goal at that stage of the game, and doubly because we had "Mo" with us, too, at that point...

...is a form of SURRENDER.

RaphaelAglietti;841953143 said:

---

I would guess yes, but with many seemingly unable to grasp the simple mathematics behind the decision, I begin to question ...

---

If it were only about statistics and probability, we'd have one hell of a football team. We'd just hire an Econ professor.

NYCGOBEARS;841953147 said:

---

If it were only about statistics and probability, we'd have one hell of a football team. We'd just hire an Econ professor.

---

If you don't get it that's fine just admit it and learn more about it. Hell, one of the forerunners in this area of research is a Cal professor ....

RaphaelAglietti;841953169 said:

---

If you don't get it that's fine just admit it and learn more about it. Hell, one of the forerunners in this area of research is a Cal professor ....

---

Oh, I get it. I know who David Romer is and I've read it. It's just that your tone is so damn petty and tiresome.

NYCGOBEARS;841953147 said:

---

If it were only about statistics and probability, we'd have one hell of a football team. We'd just hire an Econ professor.

---

And I'll work for cheap too!

calumnus;841953176 said:

---

And I'll work for cheap too!

---

You'd better win calumnus! 😜

freshfunk;841953018 said:

---

I'm pretty sure that's because both of the prior 4th down attempts were past the 40 and out of FG range.

---

I'm pretty sure that's not it. Tedford could have punted both times. He has before. He didn't this time. He made the right call both times and it didn't work out. Hence little or no criticism.

I can guarantee you that if JT had gone for it on 4th and 1 and Cal lost the game (entirely possible), I would not be criticizing him for it, and would in fact be defending that decision against criticism. I think others have said the same thing. Conversely, I would still be criticizing the decision he did make even had D'Amato made the kick and Cal gone on to win 31-28. Just as I criticize the decision to center the ball (on 3rd down) and kick a FG (on 4th) to go up 34-28 in the 2009 Big Game where the Prophet's pick saved the day (to my euphoric relief).

I don't think it makes sense to try to read the minds of those who disagree with you or assume they are being intellectually dishonest or hypocritical. Of course the board is so polarized now that everyone (on both sides) seems to be doing it.

freshfunk;841953012 said:

---

I call BS.... Especially if we ended up losing by a FG. Everybody would be screaming bloody murder about why we didn't just take the FG.

---

Could not disagree more. A few extremists maybe, but most of us in the moderate anti-JT group would be either silent or would be defending him for going for it even if Cal wound up losing (by a FG, by a TD, whatever). Because the right decision there was to go for it.

Point me to someone criticizing JT for going for it on the previous 2 4th downs when he could have punted. I'll gladly defend JT for those two correct decisions which did not pay off.

Phantomfan;841952930 said:

---

Really?

Lets do a refresher on the game:

Cal was only 40% on Third down
Cal was 0 for 2 on 4th down
Cal was 0 for 2 on Field Goals


Now that we have that settled:
What you are saying is that if Cal is 0 for 2, Tedford should learn and not take that option, instead opting to trust that the team can accomplish something it is 0 for 2 doing?

That is opposed to the idea that if Cal is 0 for 2, Tedford should learn and not take that option, instead opting to trust that the team can accomplish something it is 0 for 2 doing?

Awesome.

Glad to have you around.

Honestly, he "should" have tried for the first down at that point, BUT NOT because Cal had missed two field goals. He should have done it because of the clock and the lost potential for 4 extra points.

OTOH, CLEARLY give our inability to convert, I would say 90%+ coaches would have opted to kick the FG. Remember, he gave the ball away at mid-field twice going for it on 4th. This is not a coach who was calling a risk adverse game as some have claimed. There are arguments for both going for it and kicking it.

---

The reality in that situation is that the coach was screwed, no matter what he did, if it didn't work. This loss was on the players, on the kicker who flat out yanked three kicks, on the safety who blew the zone coverage on the winning touchdown, and on the left side of the offensive line that gave up most of the sacks. I'm sure they're fine young men, and they tried hard, but they were put in to make plays, and they didn't make them. That's on them, not on the coach.

Frankly, the attitude of the team, and the level of its play, other than what I just stated, is the first bit of hope I've had in the last several years. The players came out and played with some emotion, and they played crisply. I hope they can take that forward into LA on Saturday.

NYCGOBEARS;841953180 said:

---

You'd better win calumnus! 😜

---

I don't have to know football, I'll hire the best assistants and give really good motivational speeches! Don't worry, if I do lose, my buyout will be only a $1,000,000 or so. Peanuts.

NYCGOBEARS;841953174 said:

---

Oh, I get it. I know who David Romer is and I've read it. It's just that your tone is so damn petty and tiresome.

---

If you get it then why are you arguing with me? My tone? Well excuse me? If anyone has an issue it's you. It does get tiresome having to explain why Cal's head coach is an idiot because he makes insane mathematical decisions and people are still supporting his inanity.

You don't need a degree from Cal to figure that out ... plenty of the Ohio St folks got it just fine ...

calumnus;841953032 said:

---

i.e. situations where Tedford previously would have punted. So yes, I am glad that he went for it there instead, even if we didn't convert.

I still think it was a bad decision as was calling timeout to decide it. I thought so at the time and certainly nothing that transpired after changed my mind.

That does not negate the fact that Tedford had a great game plan, had the kids prepared, called a pretty good game and it was only some really bad calls by the refs that even make this decision or D'Amato's misses an issue.

---

Exactly.

As far as the timeout goes, I think it's much ado about nothing. For all we know, we might've had the wrong number of players on the field and JT had to call a TO before a penalty was given. Given the pressure D'Amato was under, I doubt a TO makes a big difference.

NYCGOBEARS;841953136 said:

---

Thanks for the math lesson, cute little poker analogy and healthy dose of condescension. You do realize that most here went to Cal, right?

---

RaphaelAglietti <= Master of irrelevant and meaningless analogies.

OneKeg;841953264 said:

---

Could not disagree more. A few extremists maybe, but most of us in the moderate anti-JT group would be either silent or would be defending him for going for it even if Cal wound up losing (by a FG, by a TD, whatever). Because the right decision there was to go for it.

Point me to someone criticizing JT for going for it on the previous 2 4th downs when he could have punted. I'll gladly defend JT for those two correct decisions which did not pay off.

---

FG vs going for 1st down is different than Punting vs going for 1st down. The situations are not comparable.

If we lost by 3 point and had the opportunity to get 3 and didn't go for it, there would be major amounts of criticism.

The major source of criticism isn't the the attempt at the FG per se. The major source is the fact that we were so close and that we lost. People want to rationalize this loss and have someone to blame.

If we get that first down but then turn it over and then they win with an FG, then people will rationalize the loss that JT didn't go for 3. Defenders would say that D'Amato was already 0/2. Roles would be reversed but you'd have the same outcry. Just different arguments.

freshfunk;841953326 said:

---

FG vs going for 1st down is different than Punting vs going for 1st down. The situations are not comparable.

If we lost by 3 point and had the opportunity to get 3 and didn't go for it, there would be major amounts of criticism.

The major source of criticism isn't the the attempt at the FG per se. The major source is the fact that we were so close and that we lost. People want to rationalize this loss and have someone to blame.

If we get that first down but then turn it over and then they win with an FG, then people will rationalize the loss that JT didn't go for 3. Defenders would say that D'Amato was already 0/2. Roles would be reversed but you'd have the same outcry. Just different arguments.

---

Freshfunk, you are wrong. I already explained the mathematics several posts ago. Going for the FG is a mathematically indefensible decision given the distance of the FG the chance of making the FG (50%), versus converting the 4th and 1 (72%)

Expected points from kicking the FG = 1.5 pts
Expected points from going for it = 3.0 pts

It's not even remotely close.

freshfunk;841953326 said:

---

FG vs going for 1st down is different than Punting vs going for 1st down. The situations are not comparable.

If we lost by 3 point and had the opportunity to get 3 and didn't go for it, there would be major amounts of criticism.

The major source of criticism isn't the the attempt at the FG per se. The major source is the fact that we were so close and that we lost. People want to rationalize this loss and have someone to blame.

If we get that first down but then turn it over and then they win with an FG, then people will rationalize the loss that JT didn't go for 3. Defenders would say that D'Amato was already 0/2. Roles would be reversed but you'd have the same outcry. Just different arguments.

---

Again, you are reading minds of people that disagree with you. Not advisable. Believe it or not, there are plenty of Cal grads capable of holding intellectually honest, consistent positions (Cal should have gone for it on 4th and 1) and not switching stories based on circumstance (i.e. bashing JT if it didn't work out).

Some extreme posters here might choose whatever didn't work to criticize JT, and their voices might be the most strident, but please do not lump us all in with them. Just like people shouldn't lump all JT supporters in with those few who would defend his game decisions no matter what they were.

I'll raise again the example of the 2009 Furd win. I think JT blew the calls to center it on 3rd and kick the FG on 4th to go up 34-28. It was the wrong call, whether or not the Prophet made the pick or Gerhart instead punched it in for a 35-34 loss.

RaphaelAglietti;841953330 said:

---

Freshfunk, you are wrong. I already explained the mathematics several posts ago. Going for the FG is a mathematically indefensible decision given the distance of the FG the chance of making the FG (50%), versus converting the 4th and 1 (72%)

Expected points from kicking the FG = 1.5 pts
Expected points from going for it = 3.0 pts

It's not even remotely close.

---

Where are you getting that it was a 50% chance of making the field goal? It wasn't remotely close to that. Ergo, it was an even dumber decision to try it.

This game reminded me a lot of the 2010 game at Arizona, we were driving the field at will running Vereen and Sofele outside, and Riley passing to Jones, then when we got into FG range, would just keep running it up the middle on 1st, 2nd and 3rd downs. Tavecchio missed two and a PAT, but after JT once again played for the FG with time running out in the 4th, Tavecchio actually made his third attempt putting us up 9-3. Arizona then went down the field and scored a TD leaving little time on the clock...with little time remaining and no timeouts our last desperate attempt to get into FG range ended on a Riley interception.... we lose 10-9.

SkyBear;841953421 said:

---

Pointing to people's post counts instead of tackling the logic of their argument. That's where. You might want to read up on basic logic skills.

---

You might want to grow up and learn some basic communication skills.

Average play gains 5 yards anyway. Odds were in our favor, and no one would have complained.

OneKeg;841953347 said:

---

Again, you are reading minds of people that disagree with you. Not advisable. Believe it or not, there are plenty of Cal grads capable of holding intellectually honest, consistent positions (Cal should have gone for it on 4th and 1) and not switching stories based on circumstance (i.e. bashing JT if it didn't work out).

Some extreme posters here might choose whatever didn't work to criticize JT, and their voices might be the most strident, but please do not lump us all in with them. Just like people shouldn't lump all JT supporters in with those few who would defend his game decisions no matter what they were.

I'll raise again the example of the 2009 Furd win. I think JT blew the calls to center it on 3rd and kick the FG on 4th to go up 34-28. It was the wrong call, whether or not the Prophet made the pick or Gerhart instead punched it in for a 35-34 loss.

---

I think you're taking my point too literally.

Of course there will be people who will complain about a decision regardless of the outcome. But in terms of the sheer magnitude (wrt the number of threads regarding the 4th-and-1 decision and the degree of reaction) does depend on the outcome.

After all, think back to that game. How many threads did you see where people were super angry that JT went for the FG? Was there even close to the amount of uproar that you're seeing now? If not, then you're helping prove my point.

SonOfCalVa;841952982 said:

---

Tedford proved he is a WUSS.
Even if he wins negotiations that pay him about
THREE MILLION DOLLARS, he is a WUSS.

But, as the saying goes, he's better than Holmoe ... ha ... and on a level with Theder (maybe).

---

The old Tedford (the one that masterminded a win over Michigan State on the road in 2002, and almost got us to the RB twice) was the best modern era coach Cal ever had.

The new Tedford...playing safe instead of with abandon - probably about Theder level. (Anyone remember Theder calling the fake punt against U$C in 1979?) Or Gilbertson.

Kapp would have gone for it. He would have run an option to the short side of the field, but he would have gone for it.

My point continues to be we were a 17-point dog on the road. We had nothing to lose..why not go for it? Almost everyone wanted to. I think if we'd gone for it and failed people might criticize the play called, but not the decision.

freshfunk;841953476 said:

---

I think you're taking my point too literally.

Of course there will be people who will complain about a decision regardless of the outcome. But in terms of the sheer magnitude (wrt the number of threads regarding the 4th-and-1 decision and the degree of reaction) does depend on the outcome.

After all, think back to that game. How many threads did you see where people were super angry that JT went for the FG? Was there even close to the amount of uproar that you're seeing now? If not, then you're helping prove my point.

---

I think a lot of it is people defending the decision or saying the same people would have criticized him if he went for it and didn't get it. So people keep arguing the point.

I think there are 4 groups of people:

1. Those who would defend Tedford no matter what.

2. Those who thought he should attempt the FG.

3. Those who have no opinion on what was right or wrong and think having no opinion is the right opinion.

4. Those who thought he should go for it.

5. Those who will criticize Tedford no matter what.

I don't know how big each group is, but #4 should not be confused with #5

This thread goes on because people are defending their positions and fruitlessly trying to convince the others.

There are lots of plays where if the "wrong" call is made (goes against the percentages or the game situation), but it works, few people complain. So what? Yes, I complain about Isi up the middle on first down behind our makeshift line for one yard for three quarters, but when the same play goes for 10 in the 4th, I cheer. If it gets stuffed, I still complain. The good result doesn't make all those calls "good." You can't argue with success. If my friend mortgages his house to buy $500,000 in lotto tickets, I may think that is a bad decision, but if he wins the $100,000,000 jackpot what can I say?

TheBears;841953428 said:

---

Where are you getting that it was a 50% chance of making the field goal? It wasn't remotely close to that. Ergo, it was an even dumber decision to try it.

---

TheBears,

I was merely giving the national conversion averages give or take a couple of percentage points for the use in unconditional probability.

I agree that conditionally the 50% FG conversion rate would have been abdusrdly high and would have put it around 12.5% which would make the decision to go for the field goal even more mathematically insane.