OT: Was BYU End Game The Best Call

[CaliforniaCat]

Been wondering about this from BYU - UCLA game last night.

BYU up 20 to 17 with about 5 minutes left. Have outplayed UCLA most of the game. UCLA has never had the lead. BYU drive stalls deep in UCLA territory with 4th and 7. If you kick a FG, which they did, you're up by 6. If UCLA can score a TD and pretty much run out the clock, you lose. That's what happened.

OTOH, if you go for 1st down and can score at TD, you're up by 10 points and probably have the game. If you don't make the 1st down, it's still 20 to 17. If UCLA can't score at all, you win. If UCLA only makes a FG you would be into OT and still have a chance. If they can get a TD you lose, but lose anyhow even if you make your FG.

I know you shouldn't leave easy points off the board, but ......

 

[thewildcat2011]

Been wondering about this from BYU - UCLA game last night.

BYU up 20 to 17 with about 5 minutes left. Have outplayed UCLA most of the game. UCLA has never had the lead. BYU drive stalls deep in UCLA territory with 4th and 7. If you kick a FG, which they did, you're up by 6. If UCLA can score a TD and pretty much run out the clock, you lose. That's what happened.

OTOH, if you go for 1st down and can score at TD, you're up by 10 points and probably have the game. If you don't make the 1st down, it's still 20 to 17. If UCLA can't score at all, you win. If UCLA only makes a FG you would be into OT and still have a chance. If they can get a TD you lose, but lose anyhow even if you make your FG.

I know you shouldn't leave easy points off the board, but ......

It's the right call in my opinion. Forcing a team to have to get into the end zone is much preferred to being in a situation where they can extend that game with a FG. You just have to trust your defense to stop them at that point.

 

[Deeringfish]

Been wondering about this from BYU - UCLA game last night.

BYU up 20 to 17 with about 5 minutes left. Have outplayed UCLA most of the game. UCLA has never had the lead. BYU drive stalls deep in UCLA territory with 4th and 7. If you kick a FG, which they did, you're up by 6. If UCLA can score a TD and pretty much run out the clock, you lose. That's what happened.

OTOH, if you go for 1st down and can score at TD, you're up by 10 points and probably have the game. If you don't make the 1st down, it's still 20 to 17. If UCLA can't score at all, you win. If UCLA only makes a FG you would be into OT and still have a chance. If they can get a TD you lose, but lose anyhow even if you make your FG.

I know you shouldn't leave easy points off the board, but ......

I thought it was the right call. There was a lot of time left and you leave it to your D to keep them out of the End zone as the same time allowing your D to give up a FG. I don't think you can go for it on 4th and 7 with that much time left.

 

[SmellyCat]

Well not everyone has a D they can trust.

It's a nice feeling that NU is in a position now that they can make decisions knowing the D will do what they have to do.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

I thought it was the right call. There was a lot of time left and you leave it to your D to keep them out of the End zone as the same time allowing your D to give up a FG. I don't think you can go for it on 4th and 7 with that much time left.

I know that's the conventional thinking, but I'm still not convinced those 3 points do you that much good. At best they can force an OT if UCLA manages a FG. And then you still have a chance to win in OT.

The two other outcomes are much more definite. If UCLA gets a TD, you probably lose, as happened. And if they don't score at all you win even without the 3 extra points. I like the odds better of going for the 1st down even with 7 yards. BYU was doing pretty well in the air, although they did get slowed down on the last drive. Also, their defense was tiring as was evident when UCLA mounted a rushing attach to get the final TD.

 

[Hungry Jack]

I know that's the conventional thinking, but I'm still not convinced those 3 points do you that much good. At best they can force an OT if UCLA manages a FG. And then you still have a chance to win in OT.

The two other outcomes are much more definite. If UCLA gets a TD, you probably lose, as happened. And if they don't score at all you win even without the 3 extra points. I like the odds better of going for the 1st down even with 7 yards. BYU was doing pretty well in the air, although they did get slowed down on the last drive. Also, their defense was tiring as was evident when UCLA mounted a rushing attach to get the final TD.

The difference between 3 points and >3 points is as much as 30 yards and the time and downs to make that yardage. Going up by 6 is definitely the right call.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

The difference between 3 points and >3 points is as much as 30 yards and the time and downs to make that yardage. Going up by 6 is definitely the right call.

I don't agree. I know there are studies and statistics and charts that support taking the FG, but it didn't work out very well for BYU in this game. And I think that was predictable. It's the difference between playing to win and playing not to lose. So they played not to lose and lost anyhow.

 

[thewildcat2011]

I don't agree. I know there are studies and statistics and charts that support taking the FG, but it didn't work out very well for BYU in this game. And I think that was predictable. It's the difference between playing to win and playing not to lose. So they played not to lose and lost anyhow.

So why did you even ask?

 

[CaliforniaCat]

So why did you even ask?

I didn't really ask. I introduced what I thought was an interesting point for discussion. All the responses were the same --- do what everyone always does and get the points.

I still think it's not the best way to go in this situation. And BYU lost when they might have won. People constantly criticize Fitz for being too conservative and not playing to win. Yet when I show an alternative, more aggressive way of thinking I'm told it's not the way things are done. Maybe people should open up their own thinking a little bit.

 

[GlideCat]

I didn't really ask. I introduced what I thought was an interesting point for discussion. All the responses were the same --- do what everyone always does and get the points.

I still think it's not the best way to go in this situation. And BYU lost when they might have won. People constantly criticize Fitz for being too conservative and not playing to win. Yet when I show an alternative, more aggressive way of thinking I'm told it's not the way things are done. Maybe people should open up their own thinking a little bit.

The answer is simple. Make whatever decision that you want to make at the time and, if it does not work out, get in your time machine and go back and try the other one. That is the only way to avoid Monday morning second guessing.

 

[thewildcat2011]

I didn't really ask. I introduced what I thought was an interesting point for discussion. All the responses were the same --- do what everyone always does and get the points.

I still think it's not the best way to go in this situation. And BYU lost when they might have won. People constantly criticize Fitz for being too conservative and not playing to win. Yet when I show an alternative, more aggressive way of thinking I'm told it's not the way things are done. Maybe people should open up their own thinking a little bit.

Well, you're building up a pretty false dichotomy here. People's responses were all the same because in this case, every single statistical model and probability of winning analysis you could do would tell you to kick the FG, kick the ball through the end zone, and force the team to go 75yards for the TD, and convert the point after.

You're not talking about a 4th and 1 on the opponent's 35 where you would have a pretty good case to go for it rather than kick a long FG or punt.

Yes, BYU lost, but they were statistically more favored to win after that FG than if they fail to get it and turn the ball over. That's a fact even you don't deny. Sometimes it doesn't work out in your favor...that's the point of probability. For every BYU loss in that case there are dozens upon dozens os scenarios where BYU wins.

I don't see any of the coaching geniuses who criticize Fitz posting in this thread, if I'm being honest. And if anything, that should tell you to take a lot of posts here made out of pure emotion and anger after a loss with a giant grain of salt.

 

[CaliforniaCat]

The answer is simple. Make whatever decision that you want to make at the time and, if it does not work out, get in your time machine and go back and try the other one. That is the only way to avoid Monday morning second guessing.

Actually at the time of the game I was giving verbal advice to my TV set to go for the first down. The only one that really heard me though was my wife who mostly asleep. The TV almost never listens to my advice. For that matter, neither does my wife. Such is life.

 

[ricko654321]

Actually at the time of the game I was giving verbal advice to my TV set to go for the first down. The only one that really heard me though was my wife who mostly asleep. The TV almost never listens to my advice. For that matter, neither does my wife. Such is life.

Do you read Bill Barnwell? He likes to talk about this scenario and he probably would advise going for it. In part because (most) coaches get much more conservative when down 3 and don't really try to score a TD much and settle for a tie to "keep their chances alive", thereby underestimating the fact that a FG only gives them a 50% chance of winning. So for those talking about "every single statistical model" would say kick the 3, here's how the math might work...

For simplicity let's assume 90% chance you make the short FG, that there's just one drive afterward, and take it from there.

Option 1 kick 3 pts, UCLA will go for it as long as they can so either get TD or nothing
A) UCLA Touchdown - realize it is 4 down territory the whole way, so let's say it's 45% chance, and you lose
B) Your defense stops them you win 55%
(Note this is if you make the FG. If you miss then we will refer to the bottom probabilities to see what your chance of winning is.)

Option 2 go for it. it was actually 4th and 3 from the 14. Let's say 55% they convert, and ultimately a 30% chance they score a TD on the next series. For simplicity sake let's just say they maintain same strategy on the next series and go for it for 4 downs. For the other 70% where UCLA gets the ball if you fail, here is the decision tree.
- important to note that they are down 3, so this is where the game theory comes into play some- whereas in a normal drive maybe it is 35% TD, 30% FG, 35% stop, because they are down 3 they're probably more conservative once they get into FG range to avoid turning it over, so let's call it 20% TD, 50% FG, 30% stop.
A) Touchdown 20%, you lose (same as before)
B) FG 50% let's call it a 50/ 50 split as to who wins from there or in OT, probably more realistically BYU is slightly higher because they probably get a last ditch drive before OT but we can ignore that
C) stop 30% you win.
20% plus half of 50% is a 45% lose / 55% win split

So in option 1 you win 55%*90% plus 55%*10% (if you miss FG) = 55% Win
In option 2 you win 30% if you score, plus 55%*70% if you don't score = 68.5% Win

And for the record I didn't pre calculate the probabilities win the intention of making them equal at 55% I just made what I thought were reasonable estimates.

You can plug in your own inputs and draw your own conclusions...

 

[hdhntr1]

I know that's the conventional thinking, but I'm still not convinced those 3 points do you that much good. At best they can force an OT if UCLA manages a FG. And then you still have a chance to win in OT.

The two other outcomes are much more definite. If UCLA gets a TD, you probably lose, as happened. And if they don't score at all you win even without the 3 extra points. I like the odds better of going for the 1st down even with 7 yards. BYU was doing pretty well in the air, although they did get slowed down on the last drive. Also, their defense was tiring as was evident when UCLA mounted a rushing attach to get the final TD.

I did not see the end. It would depend on field position as well as amount of time left on the clock and TO remaining but in general, it is best to go for the FG. If you would leave the ball with them starting on their oun 3 yd line if you failed with very limited time on the clock and no timeouts, might be better to go for it but in this case they were on the 15. Tough to get 7 yds in that case. Also too much time on the clock. UCLA go ahead TD was with 3.25 on the clock. Much, much better to go for the FG as even after UCLA scored the go ahead TD, BYU still had plenty of time to go for go ahead FG. If they had gone for the TD and failed, BYU would have been down by 4 and would have needed a TD rather than a FG .

 

[hdhntr1]

Do you read Bill Barnwell? He likes to talk about this scenario and he probably would advise going for it. In part because (most) coaches get much more conservative when down 3 and don't really try to score a TD much and settle for a tie to "keep their chances alive", thereby underestimating the fact that a FG only gives them a 50% chance of winning. So for those talking about "every single statistical model" would say kick the 3, here's how the math might work...

For simplicity let's assume 90% chance you make the short FG, that there's just one drive afterward, and take it from there.

Option 1 kick 3 pts, UCLA will go for it as long as they can so either get TD or nothing
A) UCLA Touchdown - realize it is 4 down territory the whole way, so let's say it's 45% chance, and you lose
B) Your defense stops them you win 55%
(Note this is if you make the FG. If you miss then we will refer to the bottom probabilities to see what your chance of winning is.)

Option 2 go for it. it was actually 4th and 3 from the 14. Let's say 55% they convert, and ultimately a 30% chance they score a TD on the next series. For simplicity sake let's just say they maintain same strategy on the next series and go for it for 4 downs. For the other 70% where UCLA gets the ball if you fail, here is the decision tree.
- important to note that they are down 3, so this is where the game theory comes into play some- whereas in a normal drive maybe it is 35% TD, 30% FG, 35% stop, because they are down 3 they're probably more conservative once they get into FG range to avoid turning it over, so let's call it 20% TD, 50% FG, 30% stop.
A) Touchdown 20%, you lose (same as before)
B) FG 50% let's call it a 50/ 50 split as to who wins from there or in OT, probably more realistically BYU is slightly higher because they probably get a last ditch drive before OT but we can ignore that
C) stop 30% you win.
20% plus half of 50% is a 45% lose / 55% win split

So in option 1 you win 55%*90% plus 55%*10% (if you miss FG) = 55% Win
In option 2 you win 30% if you score, plus 55%*70% if you don't score = 68.5% Win

And for the record I didn't pre calculate the probabilities win the intention of making them equal at 55% I just made what I thought were reasonable estimates.

You can plug in your own inputs and draw your own conclusions...

There was way too much time on the clock for your approach. You also said 4th and 7 and the field position was wrong. Better to go for FG. If UCLA still had timeouts, it is highly likely they could get the ball twice or maybe even three times rather than the go for it on 4th down each time. Even after UCLA scored, BYU still had almost 3 1/2 minutes to try to score the go ahead FG. THey did not get the job done

 

[Alaskawildkat]

An added question though from getting a chance to see the 60 minute version of the game was whether the BYU QB Magnum should have just focused on getting set up for the field goal on the final drive where his throw was intercepted.

He was having success moving down the field and had enough time to not have to try for the risky throw that I assume would have been less risky if he was just trying to get enough yards to get into solid field goal range. Obviously hind sight, but a run play would have at least taken the prospect of an interception out of the equation or alternatively a short pass to the sideline would also have likely minimized that risk. On that errant throw I assume his mindset was to go the distance and get into the end zone rather than to set it up for the kicker even though all BYU needed was a field goal to win it.

 

[hdhntr1]

Do you read Bill Barnwell? He likes to talk about this scenario and he probably would advise going for it. In part because (most) coaches get much more conservative when down 3 and don't really try to score a TD much and settle for a tie to "keep their chances alive", thereby underestimating the fact that a FG only gives them a 50% chance of winning. So for those talking about "every single statistical model" would say kick the 3, here's how the math might work...

For simplicity let's assume 90% chance you make the short FG, that there's just one drive afterward, and take it from there.

Option 1 kick 3 pts, UCLA will go for it as long as they can so either get TD or nothing
A) UCLA Touchdown - realize it is 4 down territory the whole way, so let's say it's 45% chance, and you lose
B) Your defense stops them you win 55%
(Note this is if you make the FG. If you miss then we will refer to the bottom probabilities to see what your chance of winning is.)

Option 2 go for it. it was actually 4th and 3 from the 14. Let's say 55% they convert, and ultimately a 30% chance they score a TD on the next series. For simplicity sake let's just say they maintain same strategy on the next series and go for it for 4 downs. For the other 70% where UCLA gets the ball if you fail, here is the decision tree.
- important to note that they are down 3, so this is where the game theory comes into play some- whereas in a normal drive maybe it is 35% TD, 30% FG, 35% stop, because they are down 3 they're probably more conservative once they get into FG range to avoid turning it over, so let's call it 20% TD, 50% FG, 30% stop.
A) Touchdown 20%, you lose (same as before)
B) FG 50% let's call it a 50/ 50 split as to who wins from there or in OT, probably more realistically BYU is slightly higher because they probably get a last ditch drive before OT but we can ignore that
C) stop 30% you win.
20% plus half of 50% is a 45% lose / 55% win split

So in option 1 you win 55%*90% plus 55%*10% (if you miss FG) = 55% Win
In option 2 you win 30% if you score, plus 55%*70% if you don't score = 68.5% Win

And for the record I didn't pre calculate the probabilities win the intention of making them equal at 55% I just made what I thought were reasonable estimates.

You can plug in your own inputs and draw your own conclusions...

Your probabilities are messed up. Same probability of winning win 3 pt or 6 pt lead? Chance of UCLA getting to try to score a TD 15-20% so with 6 pt lead, probability of winning 80-85% straight up. But even if they get TD, BYU still has 45% chance of GW FG or a 90-95% overall probability of winning. With only a 3 pt lead, probability of winning probably 60-65%. 50% greater chance of winning by kicking FG. Now if time remaining is less than 1 minute and UCLA has limited TOs, reasonable to go for it as kicking off gives them better field position. But with 5 minutes to go. Just too much time.

 

[Just Gary]

Do you read Bill Barnwell? He likes to talk about this scenario and he probably would advise going for it. In part because (most) coaches get much more conservative when down 3 and don't really try to score a TD much and settle for a tie to "keep their chances alive", thereby underestimating the fact that a FG only gives them a 50% chance of winning. So for those talking about "every single statistical model" would say kick the 3, here's how the math might work...

For simplicity let's assume 90% chance you make the short FG, that there's just one drive afterward, and take it from there.

Option 1 kick 3 pts, UCLA will go for it as long as they can so either get TD or nothing
A) UCLA Touchdown - realize it is 4 down territory the whole way, so let's say it's 45% chance, and you lose
B) Your defense stops them you win 55%
(Note this is if you make the FG. If you miss then we will refer to the bottom probabilities to see what your chance of winning is.)

Option 2 go for it. it was actually 4th and 3 from the 14. Let's say 55% they convert, and ultimately a 30% chance they score a TD on the next series. For simplicity sake let's just say they maintain same strategy on the next series and go for it for 4 downs. For the other 70% where UCLA gets the ball if you fail, here is the decision tree.
- important to note that they are down 3, so this is where the game theory comes into play some- whereas in a normal drive maybe it is 35% TD, 30% FG, 35% stop, because they are down 3 they're probably more conservative once they get into FG range to avoid turning it over, so let's call it 20% TD, 50% FG, 30% stop.
A) Touchdown 20%, you lose (same as before)
B) FG 50% let's call it a 50/ 50 split as to who wins from there or in OT, probably more realistically BYU is slightly higher because they probably get a last ditch drive before OT but we can ignore that
C) stop 30% you win.
20% plus half of 50% is a 45% lose / 55% win split

So in option 1 you win 55%*90% plus 55%*10% (if you miss FG) = 55% Win
In option 2 you win 30% if you score, plus 55%*70% if you don't score = 68.5% Win

And for the record I didn't pre calculate the probabilities win the intention of making them equal at 55% I just made what I thought were reasonable estimates.

You can plug in your own inputs and draw your own conclusions...

So, I started out my post to show you how wrong you are!!! I pulled the actual statistics for scoring (although some from NFL) using percentages from yard lines and success rates and real probabilities; surely kicking a field goal made more sense. So, here are calcs using real statistical values.

The assumption that there is a 45% chance that UCLA would get a TD is way too much. If that was true, no coach in their right mind would ever kick a field goal because it is almost a flip of the coin. Also, if the chances of scoring a touchdown is 45% because a team has four downs, every team in the country would do that all game long. So given a must score situation for UCLA, I used 25% (1 out of 4) as the chances of them scoring.

So, let's use some real numbers. First, let's talk about actually getting a first down.

At 4th and 3, BYU had a 59% chance of making a first down, while they had a 95% chance of making the field goal from the 14 yard line. Now, if you go for it and fail or miss the field goal, UCLA has a 25% chance for a FG but 15% for TD and 60% of neither. If they get the FG then it is 50% for a win in OT.

If you get the first down, you have a 51% chance getting a TD, 35% chance of getting a FG, 14% chance of a stop or turnover (this is NFL stats but we will use them for now). A FG will get you the same result as before. a TD is a win. A stop or turnover means UCLA needs only a FG.

So kicking FG: 95% (75%) + 5% ((60%+ 25% * 50%)) = 74.88% chance of BYU winning

Going for it: 40.9% ((60% + 25% * 50%)) + 59.1 ((35% (75%) + 14% ((60%+ 25% * 50%)) + .51 * 100%) = 81.31% chance of BYU winning

The fact is both numbers go up and down with the probability of UCLA scoring a TD. If you give UCLA a 50% chance of scoring a TD or a 10% chance, the odds still says going for the first down isn't a bad choice. So it does show that it makes sense to go for it.

However, a few factors not taken into account. There were 6 minutes left when BYU kicked that field goal. UCLA scored and left plenty of time on the clock for BYU to score again. BYU was driving and threw an interception that killed their final drive. So, it wasn't necessarily a situation where BYU thought it would be the end of the game if UCLA scored.

 

[ricko654321]

So, I started out my post to show you how wrong you are!!! I pulled the actual statistics for scoring (although some from NFL) using percentages from yard lines and success rates and real probabilities; surely kicking a field goal made more sense. So, here are calcs using real statistical values.

The assumption that there is a 45% chance that UCLA would get a TD is way too much. If that was true, no coach in their right mind would ever kick a field goal because it is almost a flip of the coin. Also, if the chances of scoring a touchdown is 45% because a team has four downs, every team in the country would do that all game long. So given a must score situation for UCLA, I used 25% (1 out of 4) as the chances of them scoring.

So, let's use some real numbers. First, let's talk about actually getting a first down.

At 4th and 3, BYU had a 59% chance of making a first down, while they had a 95% chance of making the field goal from the 14 yard line. Now, if you go for it and fail or miss the field goal, UCLA has a 25% chance for a FG but 15% for TD and 60% of neither. If they get the FG then it is 50% for a win in OT.

If you get the first down, you have a 51% chance getting a TD, 35% chance of getting a FG, 14% chance of a stop or turnover (this is NFL stats but we will use them for now). A FG will get you the same result as before. a TD is a win. A stop or turnover means UCLA needs only a FG.

So kicking FG: 95% (75%) + 5% ((60%+ 25% * 50%)) = 74.88% chance of BYU winning

Going for it: 40.9% ((60% + 25% * 50%)) + 59.1 ((35% (75%) + 14% ((60%+ 25% * 50%)) + .51 * 100%) = 81.31% chance of BYU winning

The fact is both numbers go up and down with the probability of UCLA scoring a TD. If you give UCLA a 50% chance of scoring a TD or a 10% chance, the odds still says going for the first down isn't a bad choice. So it does show that it makes sense to go for it.

However, a few factors not taken into account. There were 6 minutes left when BYU kicked that field goal. UCLA scored and left plenty of time on the clock for BYU to score again. BYU was driving and threw an interception that killed their final drive. So, it wasn't necessarily a situation where BYU thought it would be the end of the game if UCLA scored.

Haha thanks good stuff. I admitted that I was just pulling probability numbers out of my head so thanks for getting some real ones. Yours are interesting - I would guess though that the chances of converting, and also of UCLA scoring a TD on the ensuing drive are a bit higher in college than in the NFL. Though that wasn't a hugely high scoring game I suppose.

And in any event, I totally agree with your premise that the fact that there was so much time left skews it more to a FG and actually makes kicking 3 about a tossup in this case - because it allows BYU to only need 3 on its potential comeback drive. I admitted in my original post that it was an oversimplification based on how the OP framed the question.

The only thing I would tweak from your analysis (and there isn't really good data on this) is my point that, if down 3, the opposing coach is more likely to be conservative and less likely to aggressively pursue a TD. Though I think that assumption only holds in a time constrained scenario, not in the case here where UCLA had more than enough time.

And hdhntr I was using 4th and 3 cause that's what they actually had in the game. And I'm not necessarily saying I would have gone for it (I think it's a tossup and would depend on how you felt about your offense / defense's capabilities in the flow of the game); I was mostly just refuting someone's point that "any analysis at all" would suggest that you always kick the FG in such a situation.

 

[hdhntr1]

Haha thanks good stuff. I admitted that I was just pulling probability numbers out of my head so thanks for getting some real ones. Yours are interesting - I would guess though that the chances of converting, and also of UCLA scoring a TD on the ensuing drive are a bit higher in college than in the NFL. Though that wasn't a hugely high scoring game I suppose.

And in any event, I totally agree with your premise that the fact that there was so much time left skews it more to a FG and actually makes kicking 3 about a tossup in this case - because it allows BYU to only need 3 on its potential comeback drive. I admitted in my original post that it was an oversimplification based on how the OP framed the question.

The only thing I would tweak from your analysis (and there isn't really good data on this) is my point that, if down 3, the opposing coach is more likely to be conservative and less likely to aggressively pursue a TD. Though I think that assumption only holds in a time constrained scenario, not in the case here where UCLA had more than enough time.

And hdhntr I was using 4th and 3 cause that's what they actually had in the game. And I'm not necessarily saying I would have gone for it (I think it's a tossup and would depend on how you felt about your offense / defense's capabilities in the flow of the game); I was mostly just refuting someone's point that "any analysis at all" would suggest that you always kick the FG in such a situation.

Originally he said 4th and 7 which by your stats are 33% or less. I would say far less as they were also in the red zone where Ds get compressed. Even at 4th and 3, I would suggest that chances of converting are less than 50% (probably 40%) based on the spot on the field.

If they kick the FG (which they did) the chance of UCLA scoring a TD was only about 20%. THus in 80% of situations, they win outright. Then if UCLA does score a TD (which the did) BYU still has about a 45 to 50% chance of going down and kicking FG and winning. That gives at least a 90% chance of winning in regulation.

If they go for it, they have a 60% chance of failure in getting the first down Even getting the first down, they have about a 40% chance go getting the TD and even that does not guarantee victory, 50% chance of getting FG and 10% chance of nothing. So going for it you have a 16% chance of getting the TD and 10% chance of still getting the FG but about a 70% chance of getting nothing. If you fail, UCLA has about a 20% of a TD (which puts you down 4 requiring a TD to win (20% chance). UCLA also has a 25% chance of getting a FG and taking the game to OT (though BYU still has a chance to go down and score again) where they would likely have an advantage as it was a home game. Does any coach who has control of a game want to rely on a coin flip (OT) being 50-50 to get their chance of winning to a similar level as they already have in regulation?

I still take the FG at that point. If there is less time, inside the 7 yd line etc, I might go for it but at that point, I am taking the FG