Punting the Punt

Last week we talked about redefining the turnover and realizing that when punts and kickoffs were considered turnovers, they had a negative effect on the game.  Now let us consider what a football team would look like if they didn’t punt and chose to onside kick after every touchdown.

Traditionally, football coaches choose to punt the ball to the opposing team on fourth down.  This is not the case in every situation, but it is on average the one coaches pursue.  They choose to do this because they would rather surrender possession of the ball than to risk giving it to the opposing team on downs in better field position.  Additionally, coaching strategy has been to kick-off deep after a score and reserve the onside kick for late in the game situations when a team needs to score to either tie or win the game.  These decisions are seen as the best practices if you want to win.

But what if they aren’t?  What if punting on fourth down and kicking deep is really a terrible decision and actually costs the team points.  I know, I know this is crazy talk.  Some of you may

http://tinyurl.com/hshynp6

even be giving me the “Wathcoo you talkin ‘bout Willis” face.  On the surface it does seem like I’m crazy for suggesting that coaches forego the punt and onside kick, but I promise it’s not as crazy as it sounds.  Remember, the point of the game of football is to score more points than your opponent and we are now looking at punts and deep kicks as turnovers.  Don’t take my word for it let’s look at a very successful high school coach named Kevin Kelley.  You can watch this story about him here:  http://tinyurl.com/hjlmbha.  Kelley has been very successful with this strategy.  His team even snapped Highland Park’s 84 game home winning streak this past fall.1  His strategy isn’t just a gimmick that he uses to get over on opponents, but a sound, well thought out game plan that is rooted in mathematics.  This great article on footballstudyhall.com, http://tinyurl.com/h99auhp, illustrates the math involved in Kelley’s philosophy.  

If going for it on fourth down and kicking onside is such a sure thing then why do so many coaches avoid it?  Dalen sums up the psychology of fourth down thinking like this:

I don't think this kind of analysis would be a surprise to any decent coach. So, why do coaches "play it safe" (as if it weren't safer to make the choice to score more points)?  The answer to that, I think, lies in the way that we view errors of commission versus errors of omission. Or in other words, a coach that makes a choice to punt the ball from the 20-yard line would be viewed as making sound decisions, whereas one that chooses to go for it on the 20-yard line is considered a risk-taker. If the decision to punt turns out to be the decision that gives the ball back and the opponent then scores a TD, then the decision to punt is hardly considered as part of the evaluation of the sequence of events. If the decision to go for it fails and the opponent scores a TD, then the decision will be second-guessed  ad nauseum. The result of both decisions is the same, but one would be criticized much more harshly than the other.2

Generally, speaking most coaches make the safe, conventional call instead of making the best call to win the game.

http://tinyurl.com/z7plxew

References

1.  Why a college football coach should adopt the no-punt, always-onside-kick philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.campusrush.com/kevin-kelley-pulaski-academy-power-of-not-punting-1338619200.html

2.  Conventional Wisdom be Damned: The Math Behind Pulaski Academy's Offense. (2013). Retrieved February 21, 2016, from http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/11/15/5105958/fourth-down-pulaski-academy-kevin-kelley