Unqualified Offerings

We return to an evergreen obsession of Unqualified Offerings.

Nobody doesn’t hate Greg Easterbrook! Even I stopped reading him somewhere after he first moved to ESPN from Slate. The great Slate columns represented an intelligent man looking at the game with his eyes rather than his preconceptions. And he was right far more often than he was wrong, pretty much independently re-deriving the truths contained in Carroll, Palmer and Thorn’s landmark Hidden Game of Football. By early in the Slate period, he had codified his own dogma and began cutting games to fit his own schema. Plus, the “cheerbabe” tic was, in a middle-aged married man, just embarrassing.

But the football gods choose their messengers, not us. And it was in a recent Easterbrook TMQ column that RGB Bill tipped me to that I learned about Pulaski High School in Arkansas, which has - stopped punting. Completely. As well, we all say, they should. Gist:

Pulaski Academy does not punt.

I first heard about Pulaski from Peter Giovannini of Morrilton, Ark., a high school football official who wrote me to report in astonishment that he had just worked a conference championship game in which the winning team never punted, even going for a first down on fourth-and-6 from its own 5-yard line early in the game. “As a devotee of TMQ, I thought you might like to know at least one coach in the vast football universe has experienced the epiphany and refuses to punt the ball away,” Giovannini wrote.

That team was Pulaski — 9-1-1 after having just won its opening-round game in the Arkansas 5A playoffs. Coach Kevin Kelley reports that he stopped punting in 2005 — after reading an academic study on the statistical consequences of going for the first down versus handing possession to the other team, plus reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback’s relentless examples of when punting backfires but going for the first down works. In 2005, Pulaski reached the state quarterfinals by rarely punting. In 2006, Pulaski reached the state championship game, losing by one point — and in the state championship game, Pulaski never punted, converting nine of 10 fourth-down attempts. Since the start of the 2006 season, Pulaski has had no punting unit and never practices punts. This year, Pulaski has punted just twice, both times when leading by a large margin and trying to hold down the final score. In its playoff victory Friday night, Pulaski did not punt, converting three of four fourth-down tries.

“They give you four downs, not three,” Kelley told TMQ. “You should take advantage. Suppose we had punted from our own 5. The odds are the opposition will take over at about the 35, and from there the stats say they have an 80 percent chance of scoring. So even if you only have a 50 percent chance of converting the first down, isn’t that better than giving the other side an 80 percent chance of scoring?” For fourth-and-short attempts, the odds of converting are a lot better than 50 percent.

Later:

For the 2007 edition of my anti-punting column, the stats service AccuScore did thousands of computer simulations based on 2006 NFL games and found that, on average, rarely punting added one point per game to the score of the teams that didn’t punt, while not adding any points to their opponents’ final scores. Computer simulations showed that rarely punting amounted to roughly one additional victory per season at the NFL level. At the college and high school levels, the bonus might be even higher.

Why do coaches punt on fourth-and-short — and worse, when trailing or in opposition territory? “Most punting is so the coach can avoid criticism,” says Kelley, who has coached Pulaski for five years and got his start in high school coaching in football-crazed Texas. “If you go for it and fail, the first question in the postgame press conference will be, ‘Aren’t you to blame for losing the game because you didn’t punt?’ If the coach orders a punt, the media will blame the defense.” TMQ has always speculated that the desire to shift blame explains why big-college and NFL coaches send in the punting team. But take note, these days, the media and the postgame news conference are factors even at the high school level.

Pulaski Academy is providing real-world evidence of the future of football. The most important innovation in years is being field-tested by the Pulaski Bruins, and the test is going quite well. But don’t just take Kelley’s word for it. The decisive snap of Illinois’ upset of No. 1 Ohio State on Saturday came when the Illini, leading 28-21 with six minutes remaining, went for it on fourth-and-1 in their own territory. Sports radio generally called this a huge gamble. Actually, it was playing the percentages; Illinois converted and held the ball for the remainder of the game. Had Illinois boomed a punt, the Buckeyes would have been in business. On Sunday, while trailing at Washington, Philadelphia went for it on fourth-and-1 in its own territory in the second half — Fox television announcer Daryl Johnston called this “a huge gamble!” It was playing the percentages; the Eagles converted, and they scored a touchdown on the possession, igniting a comeback. Trailing 10-2, Buffalo went for it on fourth-and-1 from the Dolphins’ 24 in the fourth quarter: a conversion, followed by a touchdown on the possession, keyed the Bills’ comeback. Leading defending champion Indianapolis 16-0, San Diego went for it on fourth-and-2 at the Indianapolis 37, converted and scored a touchdown on the possession, going on to win by two points. Three times Jacksonville went for it on fourth-and-short in Tennessee territory, all three times converting and going on to score touchdowns; the Titans went for it on fourth-and-short twice in return, once failing and once scoring a touchdown. As noted by reader Rene Derken of Leuth, the Netherlands, Green Bay went for it twice on fourth-and-short in Minnesota territory, both times scoring on the possession — but Minnesota punted from the Green Bay 42. Carolina went for it on fourth-and-1 from the Atlanta 20, and the play reached the Falcons’ 2 before the Panthers’ runner fumbled. Yes, New Orleans failed on a fourth-and-1 attempt in its own territory and went on to lose, and San Francisco failed on a fourth-and-1 on the Seattle 2-yard line when trailing big. But of the high-profile fourth-down tries in the NFL and in the Illinois-Ohio State game this past weekend, 10 were a total success, one a qualified success and three a failure. Not too shabby, compared with passively punting the ball.

And consider the punts that boomed when a play should have been run. Trailing 10-0, San Francisco (2-6) punted on fourth-and-1 from their 48-yard line and several minutes later was trailing 17-0. When the game was still tied, the Giants punted on fourth-and-2 from the Dallas 45. Not coincidentally, by game’s end they were desperate for points.

See the legendary Romer paper (via Freakonomics blog). As a reminder, Romer was not even the first rigorous argument against kicking. Carroll, Palmer and Thorn ran their own numbers based on a classic analysis of field-position value by pro-quarterback-turned-mathematician Virgil Carter. (We pass lightly over Carter’s unfortunate . . . Bengalness.)

So unlike when Easterbrook natters on about, say, Intelligent Design, he’s drawing on some real science with this issue.

In previous entries on the subject over the years, I’ve wondered about the “What if everybody does it?” question. That is, if your opponent also abjures kicking, does that create some situations where you would be better off kicking after all? From memory: Carroll, Palmer and Thorn’s numbers suggested it was worth going for it for any position beyond Fourth and Seven at your own ten, or some such. Now let’s say it’s Fourth and Six at your own 11. If your opponent will definitely try to convert every fourth down, is it worth your punting after all? Probably not. But I haven’t seen the question formally addressed.