[msqueri]

Matt, what source/analysis do you use to determine whether going for it on 4th down is analytically sound, tossup, or riverboat gambling? Not disagreeing, interested to know.

The best public source I know is CFB4TH (cfb4th.com), which is specifically a college-football fourth-down decision model. It evaluates decisions in terms of win probability, incorporating down and distance, field position, score, clock, timeouts, pregame spread, etc. My characterizations are my own shorthand based on trying to apply the kind of framework that website lays out, accounting for the specific kicking situation. Analytical approaches try to assess the probability of converting vs. the probability of making the kick (or effect of the likely outcome of punting or whatever) and the win probability after each possible outcome. The basic question is whether decisions produce a higher expected chance of winning. As analytical as I tend to be, my own bias is along the lines of what Pritchard purports to be, analytics-guided rather than analytics-driven. If I were a coach (I have no interest and don't think I'd be any good), I don't think I'd go strictly by the book.

[msqueri]

Matt, what source/analysis do you use to determine whether going for it on 4th down is analytically sound, tossup, or riverboat gambling? Not disagreeing, interested to know.

The best public source I know is CFB4TH (cfb4th.com), which is specifically a college-football fourth-down decision model. It evaluates decisions in terms of win probability, incorporating down and distance, field position, score, clock, timeouts, pregame spread, etc. My characterizations are my own shorthand based on trying to apply the kind of framework that website lays out, accounting for the specific kicking situation. Analytical approaches try to assess the probability of converting vs. the probability of making the kick (or effect of the likely outcome of punting or whatever) and the win probability after each possible outcome. The basic question is whether decisions produce a higher expected chance of winning. As analytical as I tend to be, my own bias is along the lines of what Pritchard purports to be, analytics-guided rather than analytics-driven. If I were a coach (I have no interest and don't think I'd be any good), I don't think I'd go strictly by the book.