ADVERTISEMENT

4th and 1 at your own 39

bjm989

Well-Known Member
Sep 23, 2010
1,807
986
113
Just watching the replay. That was a huge play call by Fitz with about 2 minutes before the half. It completely surprised the game announcers, who thought for sure the Cats had no play call and were just trying to pull UNL offsides.

Cats very likely lose if they don’t execute this play. I think about the difference between Fitz going for this first down versus the Frost call to try an onside kick. Fitz made the smarter call based on the percentages, and additionally he said that his team had practiced receiving the onside kick in practice a couple weeks before. Game prep and aggressive but still smart play calling really changed the game with these two plays.
 
I've pointed out in other threads, but the 4th down calls on our own side of the field has happened a couple times in recent memory.

Fitz has really gotten a good sense of timing for when to be aggressive, which is what matters here.

Compare that to the boneheaded onsides kick that Nebraska did up 11 and it just shows the difference in the HCs.

Fitz is still in my mind a conservative coach in terms of how he wants the game to go: he really favors the "Tresselball style" of getting a lead and then bleeding the clock out with a power run game, but he's also added in an aggressive element where he does make gutsy calls here and there to try to swing the game.

It's worked a lot more than it hasn't in recent memory. It's a part of his growth as a HC that he's gotten to this point where he's comfortable making tough calls like that. Won't always work, but it makes sense these days.
 
Just watching the replay. That was a huge play call by Fitz with about 2 minutes before the half. It completely surprised the game announcers, who thought for sure the Cats had no play call and were just trying to pull UNL offsides.

Cats very likely lose if they don’t execute this play. I think about the difference between Fitz going for this first down versus the Frost call to try an onside kick. Fitz made the smarter call based on the percentages, and additionally he said that his team had practiced receiving the onside kick in practice a couple weeks before. Game prep and aggressive but still smart play calling really changed the game with these two plays.
The offensive line moved the interior LOS 2 yards on that play. It was beauteous. Anderson must be giddy.
 
Just watching the replay. That was a huge play call by Fitz with about 2 minutes before the half. It completely surprised the game announcers, who thought for sure the Cats had no play call and were just trying to pull UNL offsides.

Cats very likely lose if they don’t execute this play. I think about the difference between Fitz going for this first down versus the Frost call to try an onside kick. Fitz made the smarter call based on the percentages, and additionally he said that his team had practiced receiving the onside kick in practice a couple weeks before. Game prep and aggressive but still smart play calling really changed the game with these two plays.
Actually the risks were probably higher on the sneek. For the onside kick they were risking 25 yds of field position vs getting the ball about the 50 vs Fitz risking 40 to 50 yds of field position and potentially giving up the ball on our own 40 for the right to keep the ball vs NRB getting it inside their 20. The likelyhood that each would succeed was also probably similar about 65%. The fact that both ended up in TDs for NU is pretty unbelievable
 
  • Like
Reactions: rmndcat and drewjin
Actually the risks were probably higher on the sneek. For the onside kick they were risking 25 yds of field position vs getting the ball about the 50 vs Fitz risking 40 to 50 yds of field position for the right to keep the ball. The likelyhood that each would succeed was also probably similar about 65%
Aren’t the chances of recovering an onside kick quite a bit lower than 65%? I’m sure one of the stats gurus on the board can tell us this, but that’s why I made the comment about going for it on 4th being a smarter (higher percentage) call.
 
Aren’t the chances of recovering an onside kick quite a bit lower than 65%? I’m sure one of the stats gurus on the board can tell us this, but that’s why I made the comment about going for it on 4th being a smarter (higher percentage) call.
Generally thery are about 5% but that is because usually it is happening when it is expected and the other team is prepared (hands team etc 9 or 10 withing 10 yrds) But at the time it would have generally be so unexpected that people are getting ready to block etc and the odds of being successful go way up. I am suggesting to as high as 65-70%. If that ball does not go straight to Claire we are likely talking about a different outcome as there was no one else anywhere close and he would have been significantly outnumbered.

I think it was Michigan State that did something similar to us a number of years ago.
 
Interesting comments. I think the difference here is partly mental toughness. Because of the stability of the coaching staff, our coaches have been able to focus on mental toughness so if we take a calculated risk like going for it on 4th and it doesn't pan out, we don't risk a melt down. The downside of the onside kick is only about 25 yards of position, yet it was a huge momentum swing despite the Huskers being up 11 points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drewjin
Fitz said his team practiced for the onside kick and they had a hands team out there with Clair, so it wasn't totally unexpected. You'd think once Nebraska saw who was out there to field it, they might have decided to call it off..
 
I had the feeling that the go for it on fourth and one was designed as a "just call out signals and let's see if they jump and if they don't jump, then call a time out" play.

BUT - I think we told our guys that they can choose to go for it if they see the Nebraska players thinking "okay, we can chill out now, they are just faking trying to draw us off" and that is what I saw, some of the LBs sort of standing up and backing up, leaving it just a one on one pushing match - easy for the QB to get the yard.

I think it was a QB call. And the right one!
 
I think the 4th down call worked because the Nebraska players did not think we would really snap the ball. There were gaps in the line for a fourth and one play and it appeared the Neb sideline was warning them not to jump off-side. I think at that point, it is a QB option depending on what he saw. Later, on the next fourth and one that we took a delay of game, Nebraska had a defender on each offensive line person. I think if Neb had done the same on the first 4th and 1, we would not have snapped it.
 
I have a different view. I believe Nebraska’s timeout after the 3rd down play is what put the play on the table. If the clock continues to run, NU is happy to punt with about 1:15 in the half (UNL would still have had 2 TOs).

Nebraska’s timeout allowed Northwestern to communicate the play call, formation changes, and when (and how to identify the right defensive posture) to snap the ball. I’m not sure any of this happens with the clock rolling, or even if there had only been 1:15 left in the half instead of 1:53.

Frost taking the timeout makes sense if it’s 4th & 3 or more. Not, however, on 4th & 1.
 
I have a different view. I believe Nebraska’s timeout after the 3rd down play is what put the play on the table. If the clock continues to run, NU is happy to punt with about 1:15 in the half (UNL would still have had 2 TOs).

Nebraska’s timeout allowed Northwestern to communicate the play call, formation changes, and when (and how to identify the right defensive posture) to snap the ball. I’m not sure any of this happens with the clock rolling, or even if there had only been 1:15 left in the half instead of 1:53.

Frost taking the timeout makes sense if it’s 4th & 3 or more. Not, however, on 4th & 1.
Agree, but combined with Just Gary’s point, the Frost timeout also ensured us a full play clock, which gave us several apparent opportunities for a hard count to try to draw them offsides, and that may well have influenced Nebraska’s view of what our intentions really were.
 
Bad link?

Onside kicks in the NFL are successful 26% of the time. It’s true, but it’s also very misleading. Onside kick success rates are very dependent on whether the receiving team is expecting one.

As you can see in the chart below, a plot of the frequency of onside kicks by win probability (WP), teams don’t usually attempt onside kicks unless they’re pretty desperate. Teams typically attempt them when they have less than a 10% chance of winning. Even then, they only do it about 26% of the time.


The effect of surprise on the success of an onside kick is pretty big. The chart below plots success rate by WP. The less a team is expecting an onside kick, the more successful it is. When teams are expecting it, when WP is about 0.15 and below, the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%. (There are 103 onside kicks classified as 'surprise' in the data, which results in a standard error of +/- 4.8%.)


What does this mean for surprise onside kicks? Are they worth the risk given a 60% success rate? We can answer that question with an analysis based on Expected Points, the average of next points scored for first downs at each yard line on the field. In the following example, I’ll solve for what the break-even success rate would be for an unexpected onside kick.

The EP for a failed onside attempt is -2.1 pts, and the EP for a success is +1.2 pts. At first glance it appears onside kicks are always losing propositions. But don’t forget that you’ve always got to kickoff somehow, and a normal kickoff averages -0.7 pts for the kicking team.



EP(normal KO) = -0.7
EP(onside recovery) = +1.2
EP(onside failure) = -2.1

Let’s call the success rate ‘x’. Solving for the break-even success rate, where the combined expected points of an onside kick equal that of a normal kick, we get:

1.2x + (1-x)(-2.1) = -0.7
1.2x - 2.1 +2.1x = -0.7
3.3x = 1.4
x = 42.4%

So 60% is a lot more than the break even success rate of 42%, and as long as a team has the element of surprise, onside kicks are well worth the risk—at least under ‘normal’ football conditions. Late in games, however, depending on the score and time remaining, we can’t use the EP analysis anymore. We need to turn to win probability analysis, something I’ll look at in part 2 of this article.

The catch is that teams can’t do this very often. The key is that the onside attempt is unexpected. As soon as a team is known for sneaky onside kicks, its success rate will go down. But this isn’t such a bad thing. As opponents are forced to respect the threat of an onside kick, their normal kick return blocking will suffer, allowing overall net kickoff distance to improve. Ultimately, there would be an equilibrium, making life more difficult for the receiving team.
 
Copy and past job from a bad link disclaimer - I didn't pull all of the above together and type it just for this message board.

I'll add to it: Barnett's onside kick at the Rose Bowl falls into the "surprise" category and worked. Moreover, if the opposing team has a great return guy, it's worth a shot because it slows the opposing teams blocking schemes.

Different type of play, but Fitz's QB sneak last Saturday probably succeeded because it too was a surprise. And, down the line in the season, the fake fourth-down-play-to-draw-the-other-team-offsides stands a better chance of working, since there is now a degree of uncertainty whether NU will actually snap the ball.

Boring conclusion: the element of surprise, when properly executed, is useful and helps a team succeed.
 
Last edited:
Just watching the replay. That was a huge play call by Fitz with about 2 minutes before the half. It completely surprised the game announcers, who thought for sure the Cats had no play call and were just trying to pull UNL offsides.

Cats very likely lose if they don’t execute this play. I think about the difference between Fitz going for this first down versus the Frost call to try an onside kick. Fitz made the smarter call based on the percentages, and additionally he said that his team had practiced receiving the onside kick in practice a couple weeks before. Game prep and aggressive but still smart play calling really changed the game with these two plays.
Great acting job by the offense . Looked like it was going toe a no play right the sneak.
 
Bad link?
Worked for me as did the link to the 2nd article. The 2nd article did an analysis to see what effect an onside kick did on the probability of winning if you were tied (always a good move) and ahead 7 (generally a good move except with 3-19 minutes left in the game). I suspect that the same analysis for being 11 points ahead would show that it is generally a negative to do an onside kick.
 
Last edited:
Copy and past job from a bad link disclaimer - I didn't pull all of the above together and type it just for this message board.

I'll add to it: Barnett's onside kick at the Rose Bowl falls into the "surprise" category and worked. Moreover, if the opposing team has a great return guy, it's worth a shot because it slows the opposing teams blocking schemes.

Different type of play, but Fitz's QB sneak last Saturday probably succeeded because it too was a surprise. And, down the line in the season, the fake fourth-down-play-to-draw-the-other-team-offsides stands a better chance of working, since there is now a degree of uncertainty whether NU will actually snap the ball.

Boring conclusion: the element of surprise, when properly executed, is useful and helps a team succeed.
I predicted the onside kick at Rose Bowl. Was right there on the 35-yard line.
 
I believe I called this play call "borderline psychotic" in real time. I do agree it was almost definitely a read based on the presnap movement and defensive positioning. Still, a gamble that paid off brilliantly. The short yardage risk taking is one aspect of Fitz on offense that is borderline reckless in it's aggressiveness, and I appreciate it very much.

It seems like it should be obvious, but apparently you have to be a modern analytics person to understand: having the football is way way better than not having it, and voluntarily giving it back if you can remotely avoid doing so is very bad.
 
Actually the risks were probably higher on the sneek. For the onside kick they were risking 25 yds of field position vs getting the ball about the 50 vs Fitz risking 40 to 50 yds of field position and potentially giving up the ball on our own 40 for the right to keep the ball vs NRB getting it inside their 20. The likelyhood that each would succeed was also probably similar about 65%. The fact that both ended up in TDs for NU is pretty unbelievable
The probability of onside recovery is less than 10%.

NU converts well over half of its 4th and 1s on sneaks (likely more than 75%). And the OL was dominant. Trickery involved too, making Neb think the play would be dead.
 
The probability of onside recovery is less than 10%.

NU converts well over half of its 4th and 1s on sneaks (likely more than 75%). And the OL was dominant. Trickery involved too, making Neb think the play would be dead.
The chart indicates that the chance of recovery was 60%. Nebraska wasn't behind needing to get possession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hdhntr1 and drewjin
I believe I called this play call "borderline psychotic" in real time. I do agree it was almost definitely a read based on the presnap movement and defensive positioning. Still, a gamble that paid off brilliantly. The short yardage risk taking is one aspect of Fitz on offense that is borderline reckless in it's aggressiveness, and I appreciate it very much.

It seems like it should be obvious, but apparently you have to be a modern analytics person to understand: having the football is way way better than not having it, and voluntarily giving it back if you can remotely avoid doing so is very bad.
The key was the performance by Hilinski. He pretended that he was trying to draw them offsides and then snapped the ball. It was the element of surprise. I loved the call but mostly because Hilinkski waited until the LBs were walking away from the line of scrimmage because they thought he was just trying to get them to jump.

Every other team they face won't fall for it but it was perfectly executed at the time.
 
I have a different view. I believe Nebraska’s timeout after the 3rd down play is what put the play on the table. If the clock continues to run, NU is happy to punt with about 1:15 in the half (UNL would still have had 2 TOs).

Nebraska’s timeout allowed Northwestern to communicate the play call, formation changes, and when (and how to identify the right defensive posture) to snap the ball. I’m not sure any of this happens with the clock rolling, or even if there had only been 1:15 left in the half instead of 1:53.

Frost taking the timeout makes sense if it’s 4th & 3 or more. Not, however, on 4th & 1.
It was a good, aggressive call to call timeout after second down. Get the ball back and score again. Aggressive.

But calling time the moment that NU was short on third down, without consideration for distance, was foolish. Just a case of Frost not understanding NU’s tendencies, and Fitz’s controlled aggression on fourth down.
 
As much as I like sports research, it is always a good idea to point out issues with the study that is being discussed.

1. The study involves the NFL only. NFL kickers are much more skilled at executing onsides kicks.
2. The study is from 2009. The NCAA has made several kickoff rules changes since then.
3. Expected points analysis varies between NCAA and NFL and has likely changed since 2009.
4. The article doesn't describe the dataset. What seasons, how many kicks, what types of kicks, etc.

A more recent study of college games from 2014-2020 had the overall success rate at 23.8%
Of course, thats just overall, without digging into the "surprise" factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoralSpringsCat
Onside kicks in the NFL are successful 26% of the time. It’s true, but it’s also very misleading. Onside kick success rates are very dependent on whether the receiving team is expecting one.

As you can see in the chart below, a plot of the frequency of onside kicks by win probability (WP), teams don’t usually attempt onside kicks unless they’re pretty desperate. Teams typically attempt them when they have less than a 10% chance of winning. Even then, they only do it about 26% of the time.


The effect of surprise on the success of an onside kick is pretty big. The chart below plots success rate by WP. The less a team is expecting an onside kick, the more successful it is. When teams are expecting it, when WP is about 0.15 and below, the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%. (There are 103 onside kicks classified as 'surprise' in the data, which results in a standard error of +/- 4.8%.)


What does this mean for surprise onside kicks? Are they worth the risk given a 60% success rate? We can answer that question with an analysis based on Expected Points, the average of next points scored for first downs at each yard line on the field. In the following example, I’ll solve for what the break-even success rate would be for an unexpected onside kick.

The EP for a failed onside attempt is -2.1 pts, and the EP for a success is +1.2 pts. At first glance it appears onside kicks are always losing propositions. But don’t forget that you’ve always got to kickoff somehow, and a normal kickoff averages -0.7 pts for the kicking team.



EP(normal KO) = -0.7
EP(onside recovery) = +1.2
EP(onside failure) = -2.1

Let’s call the success rate ‘x’. Solving for the break-even success rate, where the combined expected points of an onside kick equal that of a normal kick, we get:

1.2x + (1-x)(-2.1) = -0.7
1.2x - 2.1 +2.1x = -0.7
3.3x = 1.4
x = 42.4%

So 60% is a lot more than the break even success rate of 42%, and as long as a team has the element of surprise, onside kicks are well worth the risk—at least under ‘normal’ football conditions. Late in games, however, depending on the score and time remaining, we can’t use the EP analysis anymore. We need to turn to win probability analysis, something I’ll look at in part 2 of this article.

The catch is that teams can’t do this very often. The key is that the onside attempt is unexpected. As soon as a team is known for sneaky onside kicks, its success rate will go down. But this isn’t such a bad thing. As opponents are forced to respect the threat of an onside kick, their normal kick return blocking will suffer, allowing overall net kickoff distance to improve. Ultimately, there would be an equilibrium, making life more difficult for the receiving team.
Somewhere inside all that math lies the Turk Coefficient.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cat In The Cradle
After converting the 4th and 1, Fitz be all like

bigballs-nuts.gif
 
As much as I like sports research, it is always a good idea to point out issues with the study that is being discussed.

1. The study involves the NFL only. NFL kickers are much more skilled at executing onsides kicks.
2. The study is from 2009. The NCAA has made several kickoff rules changes since then.
3. Expected points analysis varies between NCAA and NFL and has likely changed since 2009.
4. The article doesn't describe the dataset. What seasons, how many kicks, what types of kicks, etc.

A more recent study of college games from 2014-2020 had the overall success rate at 23.8%
Of course, thats just overall, without digging into the "surprise" factor.
I think the "surprise factor" explains the difference:
The Huskers D was surprised.​
The 'Cats on the return team were not. They were alert and ready to respond.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: drewjin
I have a different view. I believe Nebraska’s timeout after the 3rd down play is what put the play on the table. If the clock continues to run, NU is happy to punt with about 1:15 in the half (UNL would still have had 2 TOs).

Nebraska’s timeout allowed Northwestern to communicate the play call, formation changes, and when (and how to identify the right defensive posture) to snap the ball. I’m not sure any of this happens with the clock rolling, or even if there had only been 1:15 left in the half instead of 1:53.

Frost taking the timeout makes sense if it’s 4th & 3 or more. Not, however, on 4th & 1.
It looked more like they were just trying to save some time on the clock. The likelyhood of actually going for it from our own 39 is generally pretty low. If they were going to get the ball on their own 20, it would be helpful to have the extra time on the clock
 
Here's a comprehensive study (using NFL data):

Thanks for supporting my thought that under the circumstances that odds were close to 65%. Only thing I am not sure of is that the potential for success when expected is still close to 20% which seems much higher than what I have seen. But some of this might be the difference between pro game and college game
 
The probability of onside recovery is less than 10%.

NU converts well over half of its 4th and 1s on sneaks (likely more than 75%). And the OL was dominant. Trickery involved too, making Neb think the play would be dead.
In a surprise situation, the potential for recovery of the onside kick was way higher. Probably more in the range of 60-70%.

Both plays worked out well for NU and NU scored touchdowns on both
 
I think the "surprise factor" explains the difference:
The Huskers D was surprised.​
The 'Cats on the return team were not. They were alert and ready to respond.​
In the onside kickodd, the ball bounced right to Claire. No one else on NU was involved. So if you say that once it bounced Claire was ready to respond then yes but did not really see that others were ready to respond. No one else was around. If it had not gone directly into his hands, the outcome would very likely been different
 
The probability of onside recovery is less than 10%.

NU converts well over half of its 4th and 1s on sneaks (likely more than 75%). And the OL was dominant. Trickery involved too, making Neb think the play would be dead.
 
In a surprise situation, the potential for recovery of the onside kick was way higher. Probably more in the range of 60-70%.

Both plays worked out well for NU and NU scored touchdowns on both
I’m sure the element of surprise does raise the success ratio over when it is expected. I doubt it gets up anywhere near 60-70% in anything above PeeWee football.
“According to data from the football think tank The 33rd Team, onside kicks were successfully recovered by the kicking team 23.8% of the time in college football games between 2014-2020.
 
I’m sure the element of surprise does raise the success ratio over when it is expected. I doubt it gets up anywhere near 60-70% in anything above PeeWee football.
“According to data from the football think tank The 33rd Team, onside kicks were successfully recovered by the kicking team 23.8% of the time in college football games between 2014-2020.
And most of them were when expected when the average is significantly less. Think of it. How often have we been successful when it was expected. But when unexpected the odds are far higher. Others have posted data that showed that even in the NFL it is 60% or even more. And at a 5 EP for a successful onside kick, doing it at unexpected times would be considered a winning bet. At the same time, if you did it all the time, it is no longer unexpected
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: drewjin
In the onside kickodd, the ball bounced right to Claire. No one else on NU was involved. So if you say that once it bounced Claire was ready to respond then yes but did not really see that others were ready to respond. No one else was around. If it had not gone directly into his hands, the outcome would very likely been different
Normally, those surprise onside kicks work because the front line of the receiving team immediately turn and start sprinting back to set up the blocking wall. In this case, it looked like NU's front line stood perfectly still awaiting something like that. Of course, we almost never return a kick, so maybe this is part of their strategy. We don't have to worry about sprinting back to block, because we have no intention of setting up a return. Maybe we do that all the time, in which case it was terrible scouting by Nebraska.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hdhntr1
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT