Thoughts?

I love guys like this: out of the box thinkers who, like he says, think out of the box to be more successful not to just be an out of the box thinker. He questions everything. Exactly what you'd like to see in a young coach. Bravo for him.

When Coach Kelley says that folks punt because everybody else does it, he's saying that they haven't examined why they choose to punt on 4th down. This is probably true. But I also know that if you think about not punting on 4th down, you come to the inevitable conclusion that you'll force your opponent to go more yards to score a TD than if you turn the ball over on downs at the current spot (worst case scenario). But that ignores all of the variables: punt return for a TD, turning the ball over while attempting to convert 4th down to a 1st down, successfully converting 4th down to 1st down, pinning the opponent deep in their territory due to an exceptional punt, etc.

Second, I assume that Pulaski Academy is a high school, not a college level school. Therefore, many of the odds cited will probably not hold at the college level, much less in FBS football. But I do think it would be a daring head coach at an FBS program who would adopt such a strategy. So daring, in fact, that there would be some fans who would question the coach's sanity.

Benefits: A special teams unit that practices on-side kicks as often as Pulaski Academy must is better prepared to run the on-side kick late in the game and is much more likely to have it succeed.

Same thing with the offense that routinely practices 4th down conversions.

Would it positively impact the win-loss results over the course of a season? I don't know. I don't know that anyone knows, even if a Harvard professor has come to the conclusion that punting happens too often.

Something to ponder: when the two-point conversion was introduced in 1958, Cal attempted 2-point conversions after all but two of their touchdowns that year. The team was successful in exactly 50% of those attempts (14 for 28). On kicking PATs, Cal was 1 for 2.

Great video, and awesome that he sticks with it even on his own 5 yard line. I was hopeful that the NFL would make the 15 yard extra point permanent in the hopes that it gives greater incentive to go for two.

This would be great for Cal when the play Whoregon....

The game is evolving, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a more conservative approach that adapts this extreme measure, where going for 4th downs will occur more frequently and onside kicks be used more often.

Another added benefit - having no punters on the roster opens up at least one scholarship for another position of need!

Impressive.

I think this coach makes the same mistake as the overly conservative coaches who always punt on 4th down, always going for it on 4th down is not an optimal strategy, but going for it more often than is usually done is best.

robohobo;842353462 said:

---

The game is evolving, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a more conservative approach that adapts this extreme measure, where going for 4th downs will occur more frequently and onside kicks be used more often.

---

I've been hearing studies like this since I was at Cal... Including from a Cal professor!

I remember a study showing distance/yard line what to do vs what you statistically should do... it really tells you what we are doing wrong.

Finally, an interesting scholastic paper on the topic.

tbischel;842353631 said:

---

I've been hearing studies like this since I was at Cal... Including from a Cal professor!

I remember a study showing distance/yard line what to do vs what you statistically should do... it really tells you what we are doing wrong.

Finally, an interesting scholastic paper on the topic.

---

Interesting, just like with the extremity of sabermetrics in baseball (infield shifts to prevent ground balls from rolling through to the outfield for players) and advanced stats in basketball (3 pointers are more efficient than 2 pointers), football is becoming a much more strategically statistical game. Won't be long until coaches realize that the mathematical community has some viable points. I think the main problem is that it is hard for a football coach to have credibility if they do not have a football background, and the football background is cermented upon tradition of hard-nose, running, and ultimately punting on 4th down. Anyone remember Tedford :cheer people on this board would get absolutely pissed about not going for it at times on 4th down, don't blame them either.

FiatSlug;842353274 said:

---

Second, I assume that Pulaski Academy is a high school, not a college level school. Therefore, many of the odds cited will probably not hold at the college level, much less in FBS football. But I do think it would be a daring head coach at an FBS program who would adopt such a strategy. So daring, in fact, that there would be some fans who would question the coach's sanity.

---

Yes, I'd bet the math is different at the FBS college level: kickers and punters are better, defenses are tougher to score on, etc. So the difference between a standard kickoff and an onside kick in terms of field position is probably greater and thus does not skew in favor of onside kicking every time.

That said, I've thought for a long time that coaches punt way more often than they should. This guy's logic is right on in that regard: you have to consider the average result of punting vs. going for it and how much that affects your chances of winning. What are the average chances that the opposition scores from where they receive the punt? What are the average chances that you score if you go for it (including the failure rate)? Except in extreme circumstances (4th and very long, backed up on your own goal line) I think the odds overwhelmingly favor going for it.