http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...ncaaf.html

San Diego State coach Rocky Long doesn’t want to punt in 2012

San Diego State coach Rocky Long has always been about doing things differently.

At New Mexico, he developed the innovative 3-3-5 defensive scheme and now he's debating on whether to do away with punting on fourth down — if the Aztecs are beyond the 50-yard line — for the 2012 season.

"It makes sense," Long told the San Diego Union-Tribune.

"Additional plays would allow you to score a lot more points," he said. "It also puts a whole lot of pressure on the defense."

Of course, Long isn't the innovator of this particular idea. That distinction belongs to Kevin Kelley, the head football coach of Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Ark., who, after months of statistical analysis, determined his team would have a higher chance of success if it always kicked the ball onside and never punted. In nine years, Pulaski Academy is 104-19 with three state titles.

And now Long wants to see if that statistical analysis will hold true in the college game.

"It's a day-to-day theory," Long told the paper. "I haven't decided because we're getting a feel for it out here. I just read about this guy, and I don't know if I can do that because everybody in the world is going to say this is not Football 101, right?

Kelley has long said that punting is a voluntary turnover, so by that logic, why would you want to give the ball away? While the idea might be unconventional, it might just be crazy enough to work.

"There's a reason why he's winning those games," Long said of Kelley. "Maybe he just has better players than everybody else; or maybe it's their team gets used to playing like that and the other teams don't get used to playing like that. It's fourth-and-seven — most defenses run off the field. And now they're going to stay out there. 'What? How come the punt team isn't coming out?'"

If San Diego State does decide to go with this plan, it might be the next big thing in college football. Long's 3-3-5 defense is used by multiple teams and the spread offense was an anomaly until everyone realized that speeding up the game led to more points. If not punting can give a team even the slightest bit of an advantage, punting might become the leather helmet by 2016.

High school coach in Arkansas has been doing that for years.

Eh, great way to lose fan support and AD support after a few crucial missed 4th down conversions. Nice knowing you Rocky.

(08-14-2012 09:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  High school coach in Arkansas has been doing that for years.

Which is exactly what the article says

(08-14-2012 09:33 AM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  Eh, great way to lose fan support and AD support after a few crucial missed 4th down conversions. Nice knowing you Rocky.

I was thinking the same thing.

In the long run, as in, over the entire season, you might be able to see an increase in points, but these days of CFB is played game by game, not season by season.

I can see it working in Highschool. Go watch a couple 1a or 2a (lowest/er division) games and you will never see a punt or a "legitimate" kickoff. They would rather take their chances on 4th down and on an onside kick because kids a. they are not talented enough to have a real punter/kicker b. most highschool kids are A LOT less disciplined than even the least disciplined CFB.

(08-14-2012 09:33 AM)warhawk09 Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 09:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  High school coach in Arkansas has been doing that for years.

Which is exactly what the article says

does it say stAte has the Parade All-America QB that ran the show at Pulaski Academy running a lot of 2nd team QB this fall?

onside kicks lead to 29-0 lead before opponent takes possession.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/17...66866.html

(08-14-2012 10:46 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  onside kicks lead to 29-0 lead before opponent takes possession.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/17...66866.html

As the opposing coach, I would pee-lay coach Kelley for basically taking away the joy of the game. At what point does playing to win just ruin the game for others?

(08-14-2012 11:03 AM)Complacent Cajun Wrote:  

(08-14-2012 10:46 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  onside kicks lead to 29-0 lead before opponent takes possession.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/17...66866.html

As the opposing coach, I would pee-lay coach Kelley for basically taking away the joy of the game. At what point does playing to win just ruin the game for others?

Just me but I would be seriously pissed if my coach wasn't playing to win. Sportmanship is important and all but lets remember why we play to begin with.... TO WIN. Win with class, but WIN.

This isnt running up the score in the 4th quarter, it's the beginning of the game and if the opposing coach has a problem with it, then his team should play defense.

Let's see, you're kicking off from your own 35 and at very best, recovering an on-side kick is a 25% favorable proposition. So three time out of four your giving your opponent the ball on your side of the field. One first down and your in field goal range.

So far, so dumb.

No punting. Ok, you've got 4th and 5 at your own 25, let's say 50% of the time you convert, again, a stretch. Half the time your giving your opponent the football deep in your territory where points are nearly assured.

If you have a superior football team and want to make the game close then perhaps you might want to employ this strategy, otherwise it goes straight to the trash recepticle.

The numbers don't lie. If it's more favorable, over time, to do something, like going for it on 4th down on your opponent's side of the field, it only works if you do that every single time. Of course, you have to deal with the successes and failures, but in the long run, it should be more beneficial. That's IF the numbers say so. I don't have them in front of me. The Arkansas head coach has a sheet with every down/distance scenario that shows him the correct call, if I remember correctly.

You can't be the guy at the casino who hits on 17 because the dealer shows a 10. You have to make the correct call consistently, even if it's not the most popular call. That's the only way it works. It takes a ton of mental discipline.

The HS I grad from punts maybe 2 times a game, if they don't make it passed the 35 yard line. Also they have not kicked an extra point since 1996. It's been a 2 point conversion everytime.

Man, I didn't know, but I've been an football innovator for years because I don't think my punter has ever been used in madden.

(08-14-2012 11:25 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Let's see, you're kicking off from your own 35 and at very best, recovering an on-side kick is a 25% favorable proposition. So three time out of four your giving your opponent the ball on your side of the field. One first down and your in field goal range.

So far, so dumb.

No punting. Ok, you've got 4th and 5 at your own 25, let's say 50% of the time you convert, again, a stretch. Half the time your giving your opponent the football deep in your territory where points are nearly assured.

If you have a superior football team and want to make the game close then perhaps you might want to employ this strategy, otherwise it goes straight to the trash recepticle.

The article did say they would only not punt when they are beyond the 50 yard line... I like it.

(08-14-2012 11:33 AM)MTowho Wrote:  The numbers don't lie. If it's more favorable, over time, to do something, like going for it on 4th down on your opponent's side of the field, it only works if you do that every single time. Of course, you have to deal with the successes and failures, but in the long run, it should be more beneficial. That's IF the numbers say so. I don't have them in front of me. The Arkansas head coach has a sheet with every down/distance scenario that shows him the correct call, if I remember correctly.

You can't be the guy at the casino who hits on 17 because the dealer shows a 10. You have to make the correct call consistently, even if it's not the most popular call. That's the only way it works. It takes a ton of mental discipline.

Yeah and I think part of the analysis would be the probability that you score a TD (not sure if they kick FGs or when) when you recover the ball @ midfield vs. the probability of the other team scoring a TD from where they recover the ball.

The better your offense - the more worth the risk it becomes.

Be cool to see that chart that lists probability to score from each start of possession yard line for each team.

Many articles on the subject. The math favors going for it at least almost all of the time but coaches know that we the fans and the media will crucify them for failed attempts so they go safe.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?sect...id=4622997

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...go-for-it/

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/...art-1.html

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/...art-2.html

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/...art-3.html

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/...art-4.html

Hal Mumme employed a similar philosophy while at NMSU, though not consistently. We ran many 4th and long plays from deep in our own territory. Didn't work out so well most of the time. But then, we had a mediocre offense and the world's worst defense.

(08-14-2012 04:10 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  Hal Mumme employed a similar philosophy while at NMSU, though not consistently. We ran many 4th and long plays from deep in our own territory. Didn't work out so well most of the time. But then, we had a mediocre offense and the world's worst defense.

Leach did it as well at Texas Tech. It keeps people on their toes, knowing that the defense has to muster four downs instead of three

The idea behind the philosophy is sound...Kelly proves that. Now he wins a lot of games because of superior talent, and the ability of the Arkansas private schools to recruit, and then turn around and compete against public schools without such advantages.

The one thing Kelly does, is he is consistent. A few years ago he went for it on fourth and 10 from his own 6 yard line...and failed to convert, costing his team an easy TD. He also goes for 2 after every TD, it cost him a state title a few years ago when he scored with a minute left to go up 7 points, and went for 2 and failed. Failed the onside kick, and the opposing team scored and made a 2 point conversion to win the game with less then 10 seconds left.

If you have a strong offense, it can work. A team like Oregon could kill with this strategy. But if your offense stinks...and your defense cant stop teams in bad field position...eh...

Southern goes for it just about every time if we are across the 50 (and sometimes when we aren't). It completely demoralizes their defense finally holding us to only 3 yards a play, 4th and 1 at midfield... and than they give up 3 more yards and have to start all over.

That whole onside kick every time thing... that's just stupid.

The 2pt conversion... it's not a bad idea if you can execute.