What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official OHIO STATE-MICHIGAN Thread*** (3 Viewers)

No dog in the fight but I thought M got jobbed on a few non-calls/calls.  The face mask on the screen was an eye-roller.  OSU gets the pass interference on a critic 3rd down, then later on a huge M play, same situation, no such call against OSU when the defender did the exact same thing.  Drive killer.  

That said, I thought the 4th down spot was correct.  Looked like he may have been short but they could never overturn the call on the field.  First down.  M had their chance to stop them out of FG range on the 3rd down and blew it.  

And how do you not spot Barrett in the 4th quarter?  He carried the ball 30 times!  He isn't going to pitch that ball.. everyone knows he's going to keep it.  Well, everyone except the M linebackers and, perhaps, Harbough.  

But the tale of the game was the terrible INTs and the QB fumble on OSU's one yard line.  Michigan's defense played great.  The QB blew it with turnovers, in some the worst spots possible. 

 
Jayrok said:
No dog in the fight but I thought M got jobbed on a few non-calls/calls.  The face mask on the screen was an eye-roller.  OSU gets the pass interference on a critic 3rd down, then later on a huge M play, same situation, no such call against OSU when the defender did the exact same thing.  Drive killer.  

That said, I thought the 4th down spot was correct.  Looked like he may have been short but they could never overturn the call on the field.  First down.  M had their chance to stop them out of FG range on the 3rd down and blew it.  

And how do you not spot Barrett in the 4th quarter?  He carried the ball 30 times!  He isn't going to pitch that ball.. everyone knows he's going to keep it.  Well, everyone except the M linebackers and, perhaps, Harbough.  

But the tale of the game was the terrible INTs and the QB fumble on OSU's one yard line.  Michigan's defense played great.  The QB blew it with turnovers, in some the worst spots possible. 
Click to expand...
The face mask on the screen seemed pretty clear on replay. And despite Harbaugh's complaints, the PI on Samuel seems legit to me. Contact was made before the ball arrived. Yes the ball was poorly thrown, but Samuel might have gotten to it without the contact.

 
ChopMeat said:
The face mask on the screen seemed pretty clear on replay. And despite Harbaugh's complaints, the PI on Samuel seems legit to me. Contact was made before the ball arrived. Yes the ball was poorly thrown, but Samuel might have gotten to it without the contact.
Click to expand...
The face mask was just a stupid play by the lineman.  It was the correct call to make.

The PI on Samuel is fair, but Jayrok said it a few posts back.  If you make that call, then you have to make the same PI call on OSU on the next Michigan drive - yet no flag is thrown.  That's where thing start to look one-sided with the penalties.

 
ChopMeat said:
The face mask on the screen seemed pretty clear on replay. And despite Harbaugh's complaints, the PI on Samuel seems legit to me. Contact was made before the ball arrived. Yes the ball was poorly thrown, but Samuel might have gotten to it without the contact.
Click to expand...
Then why no call on the Perry call? I agree with the Cole face mask, but if your gonna call the PI on Samuel it needs to be called on Perry and the long pass to Debroah

 
WhatDoIKnow said:
Fowler said during the broadcast that the playsheet landed in the "middle" of the field.  Doesn't matter how far out it was if it was anywhere close to a ref.  That's a penalty.

I don't think it was intentional.  Looked like Harbaugh threw it straight up in the air and it kind of frisbeed out onto the field.
Click to expand...
Then why no flag on Urban Liar when he threw his headset after the botched fake punt?

 
Knucklebabies said:
Then why no flag on Urban Liar when he threw his headset after the botched fake punt?
Click to expand...
He threw it ONTO the field? Harbaugh didn't get penalized for destroying his headset on the sideline, he got it for throwing his play sheet onto the field. Tough break really, it was unintentional, but he shouldn't do it. I'm sure he preaches composure to his players, yet he has none.

 
PlayaHata said:
The face mask was just a stupid play by the lineman.  It was the correct call to make.

The PI on Samuel is fair, but Jayrok said it a few posts back.  If you make that call, then you have to make the same PI call on OSU on the next Michigan drive - yet no flag is thrown.  That's where thing start to look one-sided with the penalties.
Click to expand...
I have no argument against the claim things were looking one-sided by the refs.... but let's not ignore that it's Harbaugh's fault that it was one sided. The refs were getting sick of his #### even in the first half. If you want the refs to call a fair game, don't treat them like ####. The fact that he willingly accepted a fine to disrespect them on camera after the game shows just how little respect he was giving them during the game. Ultimately that 4th down spot could have gone either way, and it probably went OSU's way because the refs were sick of his ####. They probably gave OSU's defense more leeway too. And it's not going to get any better for Harbaugh unless he learns how to be less of a ####. 

 
Dedfin said:
The flag was about the play sheets that landed 15 feet into the field of play.  That's a penalty.
Click to expand...
There's that, plus the offsides call that Harbaugh went ballistic about wasn't even close or debateable.

Without Harbaugh's unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, who knows if OSU gets in the endzone or has to settle for another FG attempt.

And short FGs were not a given for OSU yesterday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bobcat10 said:
Is there video of this? I don't remember them showing a replay during the game.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the complaint was the OSU player that went in motion took a step forward first then lateral and that is illegal motion that drew the defender off.

 
ChopMeat said:
The face mask on the screen seemed pretty clear on replay. And despite Harbaugh's complaints, the PI on Samuel seems legit to me. Contact was made before the ball arrived. Yes the ball was poorly thrown, but Samuel might have gotten to it without the contact.
Click to expand...
I thought the PI on the Michigan player was a good call.  But it should have also been called on the OSU player a little later in the game.  Just felt it was inconsistent officiating.  

 
Da Guru said:
Pretty sure the complaint was the OSU player that went in motion took a step forward first then lateral and that is illegal motion that drew the defender off.
Click to expand...
Ok, just trying to find out how it wasn't close or debatable.

Or why it was worth costing your team another 15 yards over.

 
Bobcat10 said:
Ok, just trying to find out how it wasn't close or debatable.

Or why it was worth costing your team another 15 yards over.
Click to expand...
Who knows..the game was intense and that stuff happens. I thought Meyer was going to have a nervous breakdown a couple of times as well. Both coaches were into it and that makes it that much better.

 
I know the spot was controversial, but why isn't anyone talking about Michigan's decision to kick and XP instead of going for two at the end of the first OT? 

Here's how I see it: If M goes for two, chances of winning the game are somewhere around 40%.  Just a guesstimate- rate of conversion in college game historically is around 42%, I'm deducting 2% for HFA and Ohio State's defense.

So are your chances of winning better than 40% if you kick the XP instead?  I say no.

1.  M needs to make the XP just to force the second OT.  Conversion rate is around 94% generally, but on the road with the game on the line maybe a little lower here.

2.  If they make the XP, M then gets the ball first in the second overtime, an obvious strategic disadvantage.  This analysis puts has the college OT difference between ball first/ball second at 38.5/61.5.  M was essentially in the former category if they made the XP in the first overtime. So already their chances of winning are under 40% just based on that variable.

3. Ohio State was also at home and presumably the slightly better team, given the six point spread pregame.  Yet another factor lowering M's chances of winning as the game continues.  Gotta be down below 35% at this point, definitely lower than the chances of a successful two point conversion.  Also I got the impression that Ohio State had the better kicker, although he was struggling Saturday so maybe this is a non-factor.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, and it seemed like Speight knew it too. Thoughts? Was Harbough asked about this?

 
TobiasFunke said:
I know the spot was controversial, but why isn't anyone talking about Michigan's decision to kick and XP instead of going for two at the end of the first OT? 

Here's how I see it: If M goes for two, chances of winning the game are somewhere around 40%.  Just a guesstimate- rate of conversion in college game historically is around 42%, I'm deducting 2% for HFA and Ohio State's defense.

So are your chances of winning better than 40% if you kick the XP instead?  I say no.

1.  M needs to make the XP just to force the second OT.  Conversion rate is around 94% generally, but on the road with the game on the line maybe a little lower here.

2.  If they make the XP, M then gets the ball first in the second overtime, an obvious strategic disadvantage.  This analysis puts has the college OT difference between ball first/ball second at 38.5/61.5.  M was essentially in the former category if they made the XP in the first overtime. So already their chances of winning are under 40% just based on that variable.

3. Ohio State was also at home and presumably the slightly better team, given the six point spread pregame.  Yet another factor lowering M's chances of winning as the game continues.  Gotta be down below 35% at this point, definitely lower than the chances of a successful two point conversion.  Also I got the impression that Ohio State had the better kicker, although he was struggling Saturday so maybe this is a non-factor.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, and it seemed like Speight knew it too. Thoughts? Was Harbough asked about this?
Click to expand...
Dude, please take this crap to the excel help thread.   :kicksrock: math

 
D-Day said:
Dude, please take this crap to the excel help thread.   :kicksrock: math
Click to expand...
I'll make it simpler:  teams that get the ball first under the college OT rules are at a disadvantage, right?  Same goes for being on the road during OT.  Don't need any math to agree with those two things.

So if you're Michigan, and you're on the road and you're gonna have to be on offense first in the second OT, why not go for two after the first OT?  Doesn't that give you a better chance to win?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I know the spot was controversial, but why isn't anyone talking about Michigan's decision to kick and XP instead of going for two at the end of the first OT? 

Here's how I see it: If M goes for two, chances of winning the game are somewhere around 40%.  Just a guesstimate- rate of conversion in college game historically is around 42%, I'm deducting 2% for HFA and Ohio State's defense.

So are your chances of winning better than 40% if you kick the XP instead?  I say no.

1.  M needs to make the XP just to force the second OT.  Conversion rate is around 94% generally, but on the road with the game on the line maybe a little lower here.

2.  If they make the XP, M then gets the ball first in the second overtime, an obvious strategic disadvantage.  This analysis puts has the college OT difference between ball first/ball second at 38.5/61.5.  M was essentially in the former category if they made the XP in the first overtime. So already their chances of winning are under 40% just based on that variable.

3. Ohio State was also at home and presumably the slightly better team, given the six point spread pregame.  Yet another factor lowering M's chances of winning as the game continues.  Gotta be down below 35% at this point, definitely lower than the chances of a successful two point conversion.  Also I got the impression that Ohio State had the better kicker, although he was struggling Saturday so maybe this is a non-factor.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, and it seemed like Speight knew it too. Thoughts? Was Harbough asked about this?
Click to expand...
I was thinking they should have gone for two too, but mostly because Michigan's defense just looked gassed at the end of the game, including how easily they gave up a TD in the first OT.  I would not have had any confidence in stopping Ohio State in 2OT.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'll make it simpler:  teams that get the ball first under the college OT rules are at a disadvantage, right?  Same goes for being on the road during OT.  Don't need any math to agree with those two things.

So if you're Michigan, and you're on the road and you're gonna have to be on offense first in the second OT, why not go for two after the first OT?  Doesn't that give you a better chance to win?
Click to expand...
michigan actually did this against us after scoring the game tying TD at the end of regulation a couple years ago.  went for 2 instead of kicking the game tying XP.  they missed it, which obviously doesn't affect the analysis at all.  I think in a high leverage situation like this, most coaches aren't going to have the stones to go for it even though it's the optimal choice.  they're not going to want to have to answer to reporters, the AD, players, etc.  but yes, going for 2 is usually the correct choice in situations like these.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'll make it simpler:  teams that get the ball first under the college OT rules are at a disadvantage, right?  Same goes for being on the road during OT.  Don't need any math to agree with those two things.

So if you're Michigan, and you're on the road and you're gonna have to be on offense first in the second OT, why not go for two after the first OT?  Doesn't that give you a better chance to win?
Click to expand...
Without doing the math (whew) I would agree that Michigan should have gone for two.  

 
Don Quixote said:
I was thinking they should have gone for two too, but mostly because Michigan's defense just looked gassed at the end of the game, including how easily they gave up a TD in the first OT.  I would not have had any confidence in stopping Ohio State in 2OT.
Click to expand...
Yup, that too.

Peyton Marino said:
michigan actually did this against us after scoring the game tying TD at the end of regulation a couple years ago.  went for 2 instead of kicking the game tying XP.  they missed it, which obviously doesn't affect the analysis at all.  I think in a high leverage situation like this, most coaches aren't going to have the stones to go for it even though it's the optimal choice.  they're not going to want to have to answer to reporters, the AD, players, etc.  but yes, going for 2 is usually the correct choice in situations like these.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I assume this was the problem, risk aversion.  Football strategy decisions are often made based on extending the game instead of winning it. That way the coach can blame the players or something else (in the case the controversial spot) instead of taking the heat himself.

Anyway, sorry for :nerd: ing up the thread here, probably better for the generic college football thread.  I just found the decision particularly interesting here.  All the variables seemed to suggest they should go for two AND the QB wanted to do it.  But on the other hand, the massive stakes probably made the coach even more risk-averse than normal. Got overshadowed by the spot controversy, but it was a pretty fascinating decision.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the amount of time he spent complaining about the refs after the game, you would think he would have to chosen to end the game ASAP in OT.

 
Peyton Marino said:
michigan actually did this against us after scoring the game tying TD at the end of regulation a couple years ago.  went for 2 instead of kicking the game tying XP.  they missed it, which obviously doesn't affect the analysis at all.  I think in a high leverage situation like this, most coaches aren't going to have the stones to go for it even though it's the optimal choice.  they're not going to want to have to answer to reporters, the AD, players, etc.  but yes, going for 2 is usually the correct choice in situations like these.
Click to expand...
We were a pretty big dog that year though IIRC?  Made sense then but I can see playing it by the book of you're more evenly matched 

FWIW I wanted them to go for 2 though 

 
Bobcat10 said:
For the amount of time he spent complaining about the refs after the game, you would think he would have to chosen to end the game ASAP in OT.
Click to expand...
Yep, should have went for two.  I said go for two at the time it happened if you look back, I saw what was coming in subsequent OTs. 

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Yep, should have went for two.  I said go for two at the time it happened if you look back, I saw what was coming in subsequent OTs. 
Click to expand...
I remember you did.

So on BTN they are showing the game in a hour with some interviews.  Just turned it on for the "offsides" and subsequent playbook tossing.  That sure looked like offsides on Michigan.  Unless the center twitched or something, which you can't tell from the view they showed, the DT definitely went hard into the neutral zone and engaged the OG who didn't move until the DT was almost on him.

 
I am obviously not a fan of either team, but the game was on every television in the house where we were staying for Thanksgiving. It ended being a great game and I wouldn't mind seeing a rematch. Hoping Washington and Clemson lose this weekend. 

 
Knucklebabies said:
Why would you go for two? Your kicker was 10 for his last 10, you have a top defense and the Ohio kicker was 1 of 3 on the day
Click to expand...
After dominating the game for 3.5 quarters, Michigan's D was getting rolled the last few series and their offense was not playing all that well.  Best shot was to go for it, especially on the road.  Plus OSU had the hammer in the 2 OT. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yogibear
2023-2024 College Football Season
Replies
22
Views
994
Jayrod
Jayrod
Ministry of Pain
***CFP National Championship - Washington 14-0 vs Michigan 14-0*** (-5.5, 55.5) 7:45
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
playin4beer
Any real estate experts in the house?
Replies
11
Views
447
Ministry of Pain
Ministry of Pain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top