Game Thread: Sparty vs. the Buckeyes

I looked up numbers, I thought it over, I went over various scenarios. It was still an incredibly stupid thing to do. What he did was like trying to beat the house at a casino. The odds were rigged against him, the situation was rigged against him, and he still did it. Conventional wisdom says you never go for 2 until the fourth quarter, and even then you shouldn't do it unless the reward outweighs the risk. In this scenario, the reward and risk were of equal value at best.

Now, if there were 8 minutes to go in the game, despite it still being a bad bet, at least going for two would have been more defensible. In that scenario, at least he could have been fairly confident they got the ball back with enough time to score. If it was one minute remaining, in that scenario at least he could known the other team would have very little time left to score, and they could just kick an onsided kick if they failed the conversion. I wouldn't really applaud either of those choices, but at least I get the logic, at least there's some sort of thought process to defend them.

If he gets that conversion, they still are giving Ohio State the ball with plenty of time to score. They don't get the conversion, and well you see what happened. Michigan St. was lucky to have any chance at all, the idea that an Ohio State knowing full well they just had to milk the clock wasn't planning on giving them a lot of time to work with. It was just boneheaded. It was the sort of thing that would have gotten a coach on the hot seat fired in my opinion. I think people are giving him far too much credit by viewing it was just going for the win. No, it wasn't going for the win, it was going for the lead or going for the loss.

I have seen this sort of thing in sports before, I have seen coaches do it. It's when for what ever reason a coach decided win or lose, they do not want to go into overtime. That's the only truly justifiable reason a coach makes that call knowing full well the odds and that his team has a terrible offense.

So, to sum this up. This was a bad choice if he had an average offense vs. an average defense. In this case he lined up his 74th ranked offense against the 4th ranked defense, and the result was fairly predicable.

KrAzY3 said:

...

So, to sum this up. This was a bad choice if he had an average offense vs. an average defense. In this case he lined up his 74th ranked offense against the 4th ranked defense, and the result was fairly predicable.

Click to expand...

Looks like taking the chance of kicking the extra point and going to overtime would be fairly predictable as well. Going for 2 may not be the right choice but its closer to the right choice for inferior teams.

day-day said:

Looks like taking the chance of kicking the extra point and going to overtime would be fairly predictable as well. Going for 2 may not be the right choice but its closer to the right choice for inferior teams.

Click to expand...

I think that this is what folks are missing. If it gets to OT, OSU has a huge edge. FWIW, MSU fans generally support his decision, if not his play call.

day-day said:

Looks like taking the chance of kicking the extra point and going to overtime would be fairly predictable as well. Going for 2 may not be the right choice but its closer to the right choice for inferior teams.

Click to expand...

It wasn't, because Michigan State was having a lot of success on defense. They held OSU to 310 yards and Barrett to 86 yards passing. I'm not saying they would have won in overtime, but I am saying that two point there didn't even guarantee they win! All they did was guarantee the loss if he failed.

Now, to reiterate if there had been around 1 minute left, I could see the logic towards your point. Ok, fine we have a shot to win now. Even Dantonio pretty much knew it wasn't a call to win outright, he had to understand that if he had a chance to kick a field goal, Ohio State had an even better chance. Remember either way Ohio State gets the ball knowing either they just have to waste the clock, or they have to score a field goal. Either way they have 4 minutes and fourth downs to do what they have to do.

The call, with that much time left was basically a lose or take the lead call. He doubled down on bad odds, it was just stupid. No other way to put it. Like I said I looked up stats, assuming an average offense vs average defense that two point conversion was still not in his favor in terms of risk/reward (in other words after X number of attempts he'd have more points from extra points than two point conversions). Then you factor in the fact that this was a defensive battle and his offense was overmatched. And then, you factor in the fact that there were 4 minutes left and Ohio State had control of what happened next? Just... if Les Miles had done it he would have been crucified, lets put it that way.

KrAzY3 said:

The call, with that much time left was basically a lose or take the lead call.

Click to expand...

No, he trusted his defense. He decided to win or lose on the one play. In spite of what he actually said, he had to know that with only 4 minutes to play that the conversion attempt was for the game.

If you had told him and his players that they had a chance to win the game with one play from the 3 yard line before the game started, they would have gladly taken it.

B1GTide said:

No, he trusted his defense. He decided to win or lose on the one play. In spite of what he actually said, he had to know that with only 4 minutes to play that the conversion attempt was for the game.

If you had told him and his players that they had a chance to win the game with one play from the 3 yard line before the game started, they would have gladly taken it.

Click to expand...

He trusted his defense to do what? I don't know the exact numbers, but if a team both has time to play and knows they can go for it on fourth down... they become pretty darn hard to stop. Ohio State went out there knowing they just had to burn clock. You really think the odds were heavily in the favor of the Michigan State defense if Ohio State gets the ball back with 4 minutes and down by one point? On the other hand, no way Ohio State goes for it if the game is tied...

If that's the case, what is there to be afraid of in overtime? If your defense is that dominant and you have that much faith in them why not be willing to go to overtime?

Even your explanation is basically a team that didn't really care about the outcome that much. Just like hey, let's roll the dice, what happens happens. That's not sound logic though, like I said if a coach on the hot seat did that it would be viewed entirely differently. His call was a "I'm just happy to be here and I'll be real happy when I'm home" type of call. But, good for you guys, in the least it probably saved you from an overtime game and kept you better rested for the Michigan game. I'm betting the Big 10 office would like to thank Dantonio to, since Michigan's QB situation is a mess and Ohio State really holds the conferences hopes at this point.

A team with a lead and 4 minutes to go will take less chances on offense and should be easier to stop.

KrAzY3 said:

He trusted his defense to do what?

Click to expand...

Exactly what they did. A 4th down play would not have helped.

If you were watching the game you know that their defense was killing OSU at that point.

B1GTide said:

you know that their defense was killing OSU at that point.

Click to expand...

I already cited the stats. But, you and I both know Ohio State plays it differently if they are down by a point. They just had to burn off clock, which they did. They ran the ball like 6 times right? You and I both know they were just eating clock.

Then you have a guy who is 6/15 passing and only two minutes, that's a whole other scenario.

Anyway, we can go back and forth all we want. But I'd tell you my reaction once I found out Michigan St. was going for 2, but it was an expletive and I can't say it here. I'd also be willing to bet your reaction was a sigh of relief to. In either case it happened, but I'm a statistics guy and no matter how I look at it I can't find justification for that choice.

day-day said:

A team with a lead and 4 minutes to go will take less chances on offense and should be easier to stop.

Click to expand...

That is what happened, but a team that can't pass with only 2 minutes is in trouble... that's what I've been getting at all along. As I said from the start, with more time the choice is more justifiable. He just picked about the worst point of the game to make that choice. He stacked the odds against himself, and we can go in circles but I've said it the same way a few times no point in repeating. It was the wrong point to do what he did.

KrAzY3 said:

But I'd tell you my reaction once I found out Michigan St. was going for 2, but it was an expletive and I can't say it here. I'd also be willing to bet your reaction was a sigh of relief to.

Click to expand...

I knew that their only chance to beat us was to convert that attempt, so I was very concerned when they decided to try it. I would much preferred a tie at that point than have them try for 2.

We have the better team, coach and kicker. I like our chances in OT.