BTN had the Iowa game condensed to an hour and so I watched it. A couple things, with a slight ISU bent, struck me:
1. Going for it on 4th down: Iowa has seemed, over the last two years, to greatly increase the times they go for it on fourth down - it isn't just a lack of trust in the FG kicker anymore as it appears to be a deliberate strategy. While we were debating going for it near midfield against Iowa, Iowa went for it, and made it, on their own end in the fourth quarter (they fumbled the next play). Iowa does seem to do the qb sneak quite well. I remember reading about some high school coach that never punts who had some statistical support for that approach. Given the efficiency of offenses in the Big12, might it make more sense for us to go for more 4th down plays?
2. QB under center near the goal line. This basically cost Wisc the game as the QB got stepped on moving back from center and then just kind of chucked the ball towards the RB. Like anything, execution trumps any decision on where the QB ought to be on the goal line.
1. Going for it on 4th down: Iowa has seemed, over the last two years, to greatly increase the times they go for it on fourth down - it isn't just a lack of trust in the FG kicker anymore as it appears to be a deliberate strategy. While we were debating going for it near midfield against Iowa, Iowa went for it, and made it, on their own end in the fourth quarter (they fumbled the next play). Iowa does seem to do the qb sneak quite well. I remember reading about some high school coach that never punts who had some statistical support for that approach. Given the efficiency of offenses in the Big12, might it make more sense for us to go for more 4th down plays?
2. QB under center near the goal line. This basically cost Wisc the game as the QB got stepped on moving back from center and then just kind of chucked the ball towards the RB. Like anything, execution trumps any decision on where the QB ought to be on the goal line.
