With 1.15 left and 2 timeouts.
This guy is funny. If you are not an Illini backer.
![]()
he has made many of these moronic decisions in his coaching career...not sure what was worse, this call, or the michigan call on 4th and inches earlier today.
![]()
he has made many of these moronic decisions in his coaching career...not sure what was worse, this call, or the michigan call on 4th and inches earlier today.
![]()
With 1.15 left and 2 timeouts.
This guy is funny. If you are not an Illini backer.
![]()
I'm sort of surprised you say that. You were on my side on the whole Belichick 4th and 2 call a couple years ago.
I'm a math guy and I actually think that Zook did the right thing here. The problem is that all coaches up and down football are trained to make the wrong (overconservative) call routinely. When coaches occasionally make the right call, they get attacked.
With 1.15 left and 2 timeouts.
This guy is funny. If you are not an Illini backer.
![]()
I'm sort of surprised you say that. You were on my side on the whole Belichick 4th and 2 call a couple years ago.
I'm a math guy and I actually think that Zook did the right thing here. The problem is that all coaches up and down football are trained to make the wrong (overconservative) call routinely. When coaches occasionally make the right call, they get attacked.
I'm sort of surprised you say that. You were on my side on the whole Belichick 4th and 2 call a couple years ago.
I'm a math guy and I actually think that Zook did the right thing here. The problem is that all coaches up and down football are trained to make the wrong (overconservative) call routinely. When coaches occasionally make the right call, they get attacked.
This was not the right call though.
You kick the FG to make it a 7 point deficit, and you go onsides kick it.
How would you even remotely say that down 10 you shouldnt kick the FG on 4th down? I would argue that you should kick it on 1st down, but that is an entirely different discussion.
![]()
I'm sort of surprised you say that. You were on my side on the whole Belichick 4th and 2 call a couple years ago.
I'm a math guy and I actually think that Zook did the right thing here. The problem is that all coaches up and down football are trained to make the wrong (overconservative) call routinely. When coaches occasionally make the right call, they get attacked.
This was not the right call though.
You kick the FG to make it a 7 point deficit, and you go onsides kick it.
How would you even remotely say that down 10 you shouldnt kick the FG on 4th down? I would argue that you should kick it on 1st down, but that is an entirely different discussion.
![]()
This was not the right call though.
You kick the FG to make it a 7 point deficit, and you go onsides kick it.
How would you even remotely say that down 10 you shouldnt kick the FG on 4th down? I would argue that you should kick it on 1st down, but that is an entirely different discussion.
![]()
I'll admit that the conventional wisdom is far closer to being right in this situation than it was in the Belichick case but I still think Zook made the right call. Here is what it boils down to: Assume you get the ball twice (at the 40 yard line and at the 10 yard line). Are your odds better getting a short field goal and a long touchdown or a long field goal and a short touchdown?
The football establishment seems to love the "one score" shorthand but all scores are not created equally. If Illinois got an onside kick down 3, they'd have a very realistic chance at winning the game. If they got it down 7, they'd still need a miracle very low probability play to win.
Remember that Illinois' overall win probability was already very low. They needed quite a few breaks. Oftentimes you are better off gambling on a break early instead of late. The analysis doesn't make a whole lot of sense either way unless you assume that they would get an onside kick and also make a field goal. You then have one play to get a touchdown.
Do you want that play to occur from the 10 yard line or from the 40?
This was not the right call though.
You kick the FG to make it a 7 point deficit, and you go onsides kick it.
How would you even remotely say that down 10 you shouldnt kick the FG on 4th down? I would argue that you should kick it on 1st down, but that is an entirely different discussion.
![]()
I'll admit that the conventional wisdom is far closer to being right in this situation than it was in the Belichick case but I still think Zook made the right call. Here is what it boils down to: Assume you get the ball twice (at the 40 yard line and at the 10 yard line). Are your odds better getting a short field goal and a long touchdown or a long field goal and a short touchdown?
The football establishment seems to love the "one score" shorthand but all scores are not created equally. If Illinois got an onside kick down 3, they'd have a very realistic chance at winning the game. If they got it down 7, they'd still need a miracle very low probability play to win.
Remember that Illinois' overall win probability was already very low. They needed quite a few breaks. Oftentimes you are better off gambling on a break early instead of late. The analysis doesn't make a whole lot of sense either way unless you assume that they would get an onside kick and also make a field goal. You then have one play to get a touchdown.
Do you want that play to occur from the 10 yard line or from the 40?

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.