Onebuckfan said:

That’s now how this works. Swag is for children. Show me the money.

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

….”in lieu of pay, take these as a symbol of our sincere desire that you become a Buckeye..”



I kid.

Sort of.

Click to expand...

SEREbuckeye said:

Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

Agreed.

Problem is you can’t be all things all times. It’s hard to deviate from what you primarily do no matter what it is.

But in-game with the skill advantage I’d go faster at first build the lead, grab an “extra” possession before the half etc if my team could do it well. I’d consider the possibility of it failing and weigh the risk /reward.

In 2025 I don’t think Sayin could do it well. Kid just wasn’t ready to be that guy yet no matter what.

Click to expand...

sparcboxbuck said:

I totally agree. Pretty much on every point you made. I do, however, think that the strategy deployed is situational by game / opponent and potentially within a game depending on the score. I don’t think that you’re suggesting otherwise, but just to put it out there.

Click to expand...

ORD_Buckeye said:

Top 10 pick according to Kiper. He's earned this.

Click to expand...

Bill Lucas said:

JMHO, but Lowe and Moore need to step up and start as tackles next season. Sierveld back to guard along with Montgomery. Hopefully, Hintzmann returns As well.

Click to expand...

Gizmo said:

Why wouldn't kids play 4+ years at this point? More money from NIL than the NFL for the "good" ones, and everyone else isn't going to the NFL anyway.

Click to expand...

Onebuckfan said:

Remember Fleming.

Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:

Going back to my fundamental model of an outcome (skill + random variance = outcome)

My issue is (and this is what's changed for me as a football observer over the years), I don't care how good the defense is, RV/"luck" is asymmetrical on the defensive side of the ball. When that skinny tail variance expresses itself on defense, the opponent scores. Springs slips.

As a general strategy (not talking about in game tactical uses of tempo) therefore, I would always optimize to play as few defensive snaps as possible if I had the better team. The surest path to victory in football is to have the per play points advantage because of your skill and to have more offensive plays relative to your opponent...not just absolute, volume more plays because you are actually increasing your odds of winning by limiting their chance at luck.

In general, every offensive snap is a chance for you to express skill and suppress luck. Every defensive snap is an elevated chance for the lesser skilled team to get lucky. It's like giving them more lottery tickets or playing Russian Roulette with more bullets, not fewer.

So anyway, you clearly understand it so that's my only actual point on the risk mitigation/constraint/game theory side of it.

My main argument is that people are confusing the undesirable outcome with the approach and this is the real mistake. Not once have I seen anyone who says "go faster" give equal mind share to the very real possibility that you fail and just end up punting faster.

It's a very common cognitive bias buy essentially it's if they just did this we would have won.
they get x = desired outcome anchored and give zero credence to the possibility of failure of x

It's why the Spinal Tap bit on "these go to 11" is so funny, it hits close to the mark on the truth of the human existence.

NT: "If we sped up, we'd have more chances"
Marty: "What if you sped up and just punted faster?"
NT (long pause): "If we sped up we'd have more chances"

Click to expand...

BuckeyeNation27 said:

Conrad Birdie approves

Click to expand...