This was what the metrics we’re saying.
View attachment 19646
While I’ll never fault aggressiveness (not foolhardy aggressiveness like never punting) I would have kicked for the points. And I said that real time as well, not just in hindsight.
We had just gotten to the 6th utilizing a a DPI when we were looking at 3rd and 13. We had gashed them for big yardage (16 or so yards per play) until we got to the red zone where IU got stiff and started to block up the running lanes.
When we got to the 6 and couldn’t put up more than 5 yards in 3 plays, my brain would say, “their D isn’t on their heals, they are locked in. I’m taking points since they are so hard to come by in this game”. It was 17-16 at that moment.
Stats and metrics are important and should be a factor but they are built with algorithms that utilize massive amounts of big data from thousands of teams/plays throughout many years. They don’t define our game/momentum/flow…they are simply numbers.
I would have looked at the above metric and instead of using the red numbers on the left, I would have used the black ones on the far right.
With how things had been going (5 yards in 3 plays) I would have assumed the IU D was going to get a stop regardless of our play call and chosen the FG. With that mentality, a FG puts our win % at 69 above a failure when going for it which is at 65.
But, that’s just me. I don’t fault the aggressiveness , like I said. And the real sin may be Lunney’s play calling. Seeing how he does in the red zone may be something to watch.
And just so nobody thinks I’m an anti-stats guy, I was 100% with the metrics last year when they said go for it against Maryland and Purdue. It’s a situation by situation thing.