It’s Tuesday of game week, but I had a couple good questions sent in and a thought I wanted to share before getting into the previews of the Arizona at Colorado game this week.
So let’s get October started with a little Mailbag.
From Twitter, @MikeScovil writes: Blog topic idea, save the timeout or ice the kicker? Worked out for Arizona last night but that would be a tough decision to make as a HC late in a game, especially w/a freshman QB starting his first ever college game.
This is a great question and I was curious to see what sort of research/data was out there on this topic.
I’ll begin with the notion that three simple concepts affect these game management questions: score, time and situation. I think this holds true for essentially any sport (even in baseball, innings can be the equivalent of time).
In the UCLA-Arizona game, here was our scenario: Arizona leading, 20-17, with 40 seconds remaining. The situation was Kevin Sumlin had two timeouts to use either in icing the kicker or saving for the Wildcats’ possession if the Bruins tied the game. It’s important to consider that a made field goal in this scenario would only tie the game, meaning Sumlin and the Wildcats did not have to worry about falling behind and possibly needing the offense to go score again in regulation.
As Mike points out, Arizona had a true freshman quarterback in the game. How prepared was Grant Gunnell for a no-huddle end-game situation and would the Wildcats have taken the risk to move the ball offensively or settled for overtime?
The 40 seconds on the clock is probably in the range where it’s unlikely enough time is going to be left on the clock to mount a serious offensive threat, if it’s not necessary to prolong the game. If the clock is at a minute or more, then it’s more likely you may consider keeping a timeout for offensive use. In this situation, it was wise to consider how a timeout may increase the chances of the kicker missing.
But do the analytics actually show anything statistically significant when it comes to icing a kicker?
While it is a relatively new area of exploration, there seems to be enough data to suggest that icing the kicker can have an effect. A quick Google search turned up a story from earlier this year on www.sharpfootballanalysis.com by Nathan Cooper, who examined recent data from NFL and college football games.
The analysis found a pretty significant advantage in icing the kicker. From 2015-18, the study examined clutch kicks (inside three minutes of half or overtime) during NFL games. What it found was there was a slight decline in the made field goal percentage for all clutch kicks. However, there was a more significant decline when using a timeout to ice the kicker.
Looking at only the clutch kicks during that four-year span, there was a 12.8 percent average decline in the made field goal percentage when a timeout was called before the kick vs. not using a timeout.
In college, the study used data from the 2018 season only, but it found a very similar effect. There was a 12.7 percent decline for clutch kicks when a timeout was used.
As the study also notes, distance of the kick has an effect on the percentage of makes. For the 2018 collegiate games, the made field goal percentage of kicks outside of 30 yards was just 51.1 percent when icing the kicker. Thus, it was a coin flip whether the kick was going to be made if the kicker was iced on an attempt outside 30 yards.
The study also examined whether there was significance to calling a timeout before the kicking unit took the field or waiting until right before the snap of the ball to call a timeout. It also looked at the success rate of the NFL kickers if they took a practice kick after the timeout was called or not.
All of this said (and there is plenty more in the study if you want to read), the Arizona situation last Saturday night was perfectly executed, in my opinion. Sumlin had two timeouts to use and did not necessarily need to keep them for the offense to use because, worst case scenario, the game would be tied. The kick was from 39 yards, which statistically falls in that 50-50 range for college kickers after a timeout on a clutch kick.
So Sumlin used the timeout, while JJ Molson made the practice kick. To me, if a kicker makes that practice kick, there is now an advantage because one of his makes is out of the equation. Statistically, his chances of making the next declines. Fortunately for the Wildcats, his next one did miss.
Thus, Sumlin successfully used the icing strategy to lower the chances of the kicker making the actual kick. It doesn’t work every time, but some of the data suggests it will improve your chances by at least 12 percent, so it is a worthwhile strategy in some cases. It would be worth looking at other studies in the future, but this was a recent, relevant and thorough analysis that I dug up.
From Twitter, @EMOY_Problems writes: what would be your analysis on how the defense and Coach Yates have flipped this defense around the last two games compared to the first two. Thank you in advance. Love the blog.
It’s funny when things aren’t going well how quickly the criticism falls on the coaches, while when things go well so little attention is given to those same coaches. While not always fair, it comes with the job and the coaches understand that.
But it does not mean we shouldn’t praise coaches when it is deserved. For Arizona, defensive coordinator Marcel Yates and his staff deserve plenty of credit for the improvement the last two games. However, let’s not lose sight of the role the players have in this as well.
The coaches and players are in this together. Now in his fourth year, Yates has a roster full of mostly his players. These are guys that came here to play for him. He believed in them, and, in turn, they have believed in him from the time they were recruited to now when some of them are seniors.
So when things didn’t go well at Hawai’i or in the second half against NAU (let’s not forget that was a 51-13 game at halftime), all the criticism thrown at Yates was indirectly thrown at every player on defense. That was personal, for Yates and his staff, but also the players.
I think we have seen a renewed commitment to playing as a unit from the defense. These guys have bonded and know they all have to perform at a high level for this defense to improve and continue to be successful. So it really was a backs-against-the-wall moment following that NAU game, and to their credit they came out fighting these last two games.
The key going forward is to keep that chip on the shoulder. Two games is not “I told you so” for Yates or this defense. It will take more time and consistency to show what this defense is about. Taking the effort, intensity and execution of the past two games on the road is now the true test.
Road Woes
I am introducing my own topic here to address the elephant in the room this week for Arizona football.
The Wildcats have been awful on the road in recent seasons.
After Khalil Tate burst onto the scene in 2017 and led Arizona to a four-game win streak, two of which came on the road, the Wildcats have been a different team away from Arizona Stadium.
Since November 2017, Arizona is 1-8 playing away from home (includes Foster Farms Bowl). The lone win was a 35-14 victory last September at Oregon State. Otherwise, here’s what the eight losses have amounted to:
∙ At least 31 points allowed in each game
∙ Six games with at least 42 points allowed
∙ Only five games scoring 30 points (none more than 35)
∙ Outscored 364-214 (Average score: 45.5 to 26.8)
∙ Lost turnover battle 17-7
Suffice it to say, this is yet another measuring stick game for this Arizona football team to show that it is, indeed, improved.
I’ll conclude on a positive note with a great nugget tweeted out by the great Daniel Berk, who took over as the football Sports Information Director this year. Perhaps this is a sign of a maturing football team?
Get the latest content from Dry Heat Sports by following on Facebook (@DryHeatSportsAZ), Twitter (@DryHeatSportsAZ) and subscribing below.
You can also follow Blair’s personal Twitter account @BlairWillisUA.
0 comments on “The Mailbag: Oct. 1”