<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Go For It, Please</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 21:29:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Hansen</title>
		<link>http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/#comment-200</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger Hansen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 16:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=560#comment-200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On New Year&#039;s Day morning I watched the Florida Citrus Bowl from Orlando.  It was raining and the field was in terrible shape.  It was in embarassingly bad shape.  As the players tried to play, large chunks of grass would move under their feet making for a muddy mess.  After a short time, it looked as if the field had been invaded by a herd of moles.  In this day and age, this in inexcusable.  To make matter worse, the officiating was bad.  The group of officials at the game were the definition of incompetance.

But worst of all, JoPa is so conservative that he deserved to lose.  Unfortunately he won.  On a 4th-and-a-yard (in the first half) on the LSU forty, he punted.  The Penn State kicker punted it into the endzone, for a net of 21 yards.  Big deal.  In the second half, near his own 40 with less than a yard to go, JoPa again decided to punt.  This time the punt netted less than 10 yards as the LSU kick-return man made a nifty run.  And of course, let&#039;s always settle for 3-pointers when the opportunity presents itself.  JoPa please hire a real statistician, and quit listening to the stupid pundits.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On New Year&#8217;s Day morning I watched the Florida Citrus Bowl from Orlando.  It was raining and the field was in terrible shape.  It was in embarassingly bad shape.  As the players tried to play, large chunks of grass would move under their feet making for a muddy mess.  After a short time, it looked as if the field had been invaded by a herd of moles.  In this day and age, this in inexcusable.  To make matter worse, the officiating was bad.  The group of officials at the game were the definition of incompetance.</p>
<p>But worst of all, JoPa is so conservative that he deserved to lose.  Unfortunately he won.  On a 4th-and-a-yard (in the first half) on the LSU forty, he punted.  The Penn State kicker punted it into the endzone, for a net of 21 yards.  Big deal.  In the second half, near his own 40 with less than a yard to go, JoPa again decided to punt.  This time the punt netted less than 10 yards as the LSU kick-return man made a nifty run.  And of course, let&#8217;s always settle for 3-pointers when the opportunity presents itself.  JoPa please hire a real statistician, and quit listening to the stupid pundits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Hansen</title>
		<link>http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/#comment-199</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger Hansen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=560#comment-199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Over the last two weeks, the NFL has had three good examples of the pathetic situation surrounding punting or not punting on fourth down.  On all three examples the pundits were wrong, dead wrong.  The one example eight days ago provided fodder for the arm-chair pundits for an entire week.  It involved the Pats going for a 4th and 2 (Patriots vs Colts) on their own 40 with just a few minutes to go.  The Pats were ahead, but still decided to go for it.  After the play was over, they got a bad ball placement, and turned the ball over.  The Colts then went down and scored.  The Pats lost the game and had to live with 24-hour damning from everybody for an entire week.  The Pats probably deserved criticism, but it was not for not punting, it was for the way they handled the clock and the previous plays.  They were correct for not punting.  If they had made the 4th down and two, the game would have been over.  By punting they would have merely made the Colts&#039; drive longer.  And Payton Manning is very adept at last minute scores, whether over short or long distances.

The next example was during the Viking-Bears game yesterday.  It was halfway thru the 3rd Quarter, the Bears punted on a 4th and 1 near midfield.  The Vikings welre killing them, running and passing them into the ground.  The Bears needed to give their defense a rest.  They needed to change the momentum of the game.  Why the hell would you punt?  Yet the announcers praised the Bears&#039; coach for making the right decision.  The Viking, after getting the ball, went down and scored a TD.  The Bears ended up getting hammered.  Any pundits second-guessing this decision?   Of course not, and that is why coaches are so conservative.

The last example is perhaps the strangest.  The Steelers were playing the Ravens.  The Steelers, who were playing with their 3rd-string inexperienced quarterback, were surprisingly ahead by 3.  There was 4 minutes left in the game.  The Ravens were just inside Steeler territory.  Fourth and 4, they decided to go for it.  The announcers were predictably apalled.  Baltimore didn&#039;t make 4, they made 20 plus.  Their drive then stalled and they kicked a field goal, tying the game.  They went on to win in overtime.

Coaches are way to &quot;conservative&quot; because of the Monday-morning backstabbers.  They punt way too often and they settle for 3-points way to often.  And I suspect they don&#039;t go for 2 often enough.  Please teams, hire real statisticians.  You will win more games if you forget the alleged pundits.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Over the last two weeks, the NFL has had three good examples of the pathetic situation surrounding punting or not punting on fourth down.  On all three examples the pundits were wrong, dead wrong.  The one example eight days ago provided fodder for the arm-chair pundits for an entire week.  It involved the Pats going for a 4th and 2 (Patriots vs Colts) on their own 40 with just a few minutes to go.  The Pats were ahead, but still decided to go for it.  After the play was over, they got a bad ball placement, and turned the ball over.  The Colts then went down and scored.  The Pats lost the game and had to live with 24-hour damning from everybody for an entire week.  The Pats probably deserved criticism, but it was not for not punting, it was for the way they handled the clock and the previous plays.  They were correct for not punting.  If they had made the 4th down and two, the game would have been over.  By punting they would have merely made the Colts&#8217; drive longer.  And Payton Manning is very adept at last minute scores, whether over short or long distances.</p>
<p>The next example was during the Viking-Bears game yesterday.  It was halfway thru the 3rd Quarter, the Bears punted on a 4th and 1 near midfield.  The Vikings welre killing them, running and passing them into the ground.  The Bears needed to give their defense a rest.  They needed to change the momentum of the game.  Why the hell would you punt?  Yet the announcers praised the Bears&#8217; coach for making the right decision.  The Viking, after getting the ball, went down and scored a TD.  The Bears ended up getting hammered.  Any pundits second-guessing this decision?   Of course not, and that is why coaches are so conservative.</p>
<p>The last example is perhaps the strangest.  The Steelers were playing the Ravens.  The Steelers, who were playing with their 3rd-string inexperienced quarterback, were surprisingly ahead by 3.  There was 4 minutes left in the game.  The Ravens were just inside Steeler territory.  Fourth and 4, they decided to go for it.  The announcers were predictably apalled.  Baltimore didn&#8217;t make 4, they made 20 plus.  Their drive then stalled and they kicked a field goal, tying the game.  They went on to win in overtime.</p>
<p>Coaches are way to &#8220;conservative&#8221; because of the Monday-morning backstabbers.  They punt way too often and they settle for 3-points way to often.  And I suspect they don&#8217;t go for 2 often enough.  Please teams, hire real statisticians.  You will win more games if you forget the alleged pundits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Hansen</title>
		<link>http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/#comment-198</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger Hansen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=560#comment-198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Time Magazine, the 33rd best invention of 2009 is &quot;The No-Punt Offense:&quot;

As Sports Illustrated explaned in a recent story, Kevin Kelley, coach of the Pulaski Academy football team in Little Rock, Ark., has called for only a single punt in the past two years.  Like a seasoned gambler, Kelley has figured out that punting on fourth and long near your own end zone decreases the odds of the other team&#039;s scoring by only a relatively slim amount.  So going for it will pay off in the long run:  Pulaski won a state championship last year and is in the hunt this year too.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Time Magazine, the 33rd best invention of 2009 is &#8220;The No-Punt Offense:&#8221;</p>
<p>As Sports Illustrated explaned in a recent story, Kevin Kelley, coach of the Pulaski Academy football team in Little Rock, Ark., has called for only a single punt in the past two years.  Like a seasoned gambler, Kelley has figured out that punting on fourth and long near your own end zone decreases the odds of the other team&#8217;s scoring by only a relatively slim amount.  So going for it will pay off in the long run:  Pulaski won a state championship last year and is in the hunt this year too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Hansen</title>
		<link>http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/#comment-197</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger Hansen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=560#comment-197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This page is a bit convoluted and I don&#039;t necessarily disagree with your point.  First, I think the game of football would be much more interesting if teams were not so quick to punt or kick.  They would also end up with higher scores and help keep their defenses off the field.  Second, if teams would ramdomize their play selection, they would do better.  The latter is not meant to demean the role of the quarterback, it is meant to help him with play selection.  But the quarterback would still have to read the defenses and react accordingly.

As for my brother&#039;s point:  he is just restating a way for teams in small markets to stay competitive using statistics.  But some of the same methodology could be used in other facets of sports.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This page is a bit convoluted and I don&#8217;t necessarily disagree with your point.  First, I think the game of football would be much more interesting if teams were not so quick to punt or kick.  They would also end up with higher scores and help keep their defenses off the field.  Second, if teams would ramdomize their play selection, they would do better.  The latter is not meant to demean the role of the quarterback, it is meant to help him with play selection.  But the quarterback would still have to read the defenses and react accordingly.</p>
<p>As for my brother&#8217;s point:  he is just restating a way for teams in small markets to stay competitive using statistics.  But some of the same methodology could be used in other facets of sports.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan</title>
		<link>http://rogerdhansen.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/go-for-it-please/#comment-196</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=560#comment-196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m a bit leery of running an entire football game on statistics. Especially high school ball. What about old fashioned play, gut instinct, going for the “play of the day”. Why does high school football now turn into a statistical nightmare? What am I missing? Sometimes we need to just go back to good old fashioned clipboards, plotting the plays in a sweaty, stinky lockerroom. Not high-tech computers that calculate each player and every move in the Sports Arena. I recently watched “Hoosiers” on TBS. One of the best sports movies made, in my opinion. I am confident that the majority of that scenario was based on good old fashioned teamwork and values. I’m starting to sound like a prude.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’m a bit leery of running an entire football game on statistics. Especially high school ball. What about old fashioned play, gut instinct, going for the “play of the day”. Why does high school football now turn into a statistical nightmare? What am I missing? Sometimes we need to just go back to good old fashioned clipboards, plotting the plays in a sweaty, stinky lockerroom. Not high-tech computers that calculate each player and every move in the Sports Arena. I recently watched “Hoosiers” on TBS. One of the best sports movies made, in my opinion. I am confident that the majority of that scenario was based on good old fashioned teamwork and values. I’m starting to sound like a prude.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

