Good thing we had a man with cajones calling that play (Matt Leinart). If it was up to coaching staff we probably would have spiked it and settled for a field goal. Who knows what would have happened in OT? Pete Carroll needs to put the "ball"s back in football, and he needs to do it now.

No more playing not to lose. Let's play to win the game.

leinart 4 ever.

Carroll still plays to win a lot - USC goes for it on fourth down regularly still. But I think the big difference is personnel. You miss leaders like Ryan Kalil or the WRs, like Steve Smith, and RBs, like Bush. Teams can't just plug in 5-star recruits each year and hope to win. Look at Oklahoma, LSU, Florida, Michigan and even USC - they all still dominate but just not on top every year.

Since when did it ever become realistic to win every game possible. Teams are beating us after losing 4-5+ years in a row. Enjoy the PC era while we have him, because when hes gone, I can only imagine what Wolf's anti-SC journalism will be like . Frightening.

Since when did it ever become realistic to win every game possible. Teams are beating us after losing 4-5+ years in a row. Enjoy the PC era while we have him, because when hes gone, I can only imagine what Wolf's anti-SC journalism will be like. Frightening.

You know, Pete Carroll is a good coach and all, but now he is just putting the blame on others. I think what it comes down to, is coaching. USC has all the talent in the world, and the coaches cannot figure out a good enough gameplan to defeat teams anymore. Remember, USC hasn't been the same since Norm Chow left. No disrespect to Steve Sarkisian, though. I think the coaches need to make the change, not the players.

Scott: Why are you asking that question now? Are you trying to relate that issue to the issues the USC Trojans of 2007 are having?
I like your work and appreciate your insight but sometimes you totally miss the mark! Your continious use of words like woeful and awful when you describe the team the past few weeks is getting a little old. Sure I wish the team was playing better and not have lost those games and like so many I have enjoyed the past 5 years but you need to be more positive when reporting on this team. By no means will things ever return to the Paul Hackett era when you first started out covering the team! Pete Carroll has proven himself and I am very confident that the ship will be righted.

What are the odds of scoring from the one-yard line?-- I would say better than 50-50, so it was a good percentage play.

Let's go back to the Oregon 4th and 1, there being a lot of interest in this, and it is slightly more relevant than 2005 ND:

Kicking a field goal when the ball is at about the 10 yard-line is maybe 90% sure, so that is 2.7 points (90% times 3)
Going for the first down is approximately 70% sure. Fail to convert (30% of the time) and it is obviously zero points.
But if the first down is converted, you still have about an 80% chance of making the field goal (odds go down because there could be a turnover with your next 3 plays). That is 2.4 points (80% times 3);
Or a touchdown and extra point could be scored at say about 50% odds, or 2.5 points (70% times 50% times 7 points)

Thus, the odds of getting zero are 30%;
The odds of getting 3 points are 56%;
The odds of getting 7 points are 35%.
Add all those up and the odds are the team will score 3.1 points on average

So it is 3.1 if you go for it, or 2.4 if you kick the field goal. Still think Carroll is an idiot?

Oops, it is 3.1 vs 2.7. And of course this assumes probabilities that have never been determined, and could only be guessed or estimated. Still, 3.1 looks better than 2.7. And of course there are other factors that go into a decision such as this other than mathematics i.e. Oregon will probably score 30 points or more, so how much is 3 points going to help?

I think you might have messed up the probabilities a little...they don't add up to 100%.

Kick the field goal 90% x 3 =2.7 points

going for it yields as below

30% chance you get stopped on 4th down=0 points

70% (4th down converted) x 50% chance of a subsequent TD x 7= 2.45 plus

or 70% x 10% chance you end up with nothing by way of a turnover or missed FG later in the possession x 0=0 points again

or 70% x 40% you settle for and make a subsequent FG x 3= 0.84 points

total points going for it= 3.29 points which is greater than 2.7 settling for the FG

All of this is dependent on the data plugged in. I think your 70% 4th down conversion assumption is probably too optimistic. If you plug in 50% instead you get
50% x 50% TD rate x 7 = 1.75 points

50% x 40% subsequent FG x3 = 0.60 for a total of

2.35 which is less than the 2.7 for just kicking the FG.

I thought the right thing to do on the road is go for it. I think a surprise play call was gutsy on Sark's part...I like it. I just don't like the play design running horizontally like that with everybody in tight seems like a bad idea. I prefer a off tackle blast or play action to a tight end slipping off of a block or even the misdirection pitch they did later in the game.

Brilliant fanofusc. But of course we are using inexact data. And wouldn't it be fascinating if teams kept statistics like these so that coaches could make decisions similar to ones in baseball?

Great work, guys! I wonder if the team has a similar statistical scenario analyis. But, I think the hole in the rationale is that the statistics cannot factor in the intangible value of "momentum". You hear it all the time, and I believe it, that momentum is a huge component of a team's success or failure in the game. And, FGs, IMO, give you mini-momentum boosts. So, we were on the road in a hostile environment with an outstanding FG kicker on our team. We had an opportunity to put valuable points on the board in what we expected to be a tight game, giving ourselves a 90% probablity of seizing the early momentum. And, momentum more often than not leads to......more points! By going for it, we take a 50/50 gamble on whether we seize early momentum, or lose it. And, even if we make the 4th down, we still may end up with the FG. So, you are gambling quite a bit that you can convert the 4th down, then put it in the endzone. In a game expected to be that tight, I take the points and the sure momentum boost. And, in retrospect, it could have been the difference maker by giving us a shot at OT at the end. Now, with Matt, Reggie, and Lendale in the backfield, I go for it. I love the analysis, but the numbers don't tell the whole story, IMO. Thought provoking, though! You guys should probably check the following site, if you haven't already. http://trojanfootballanalysis.com/

I think it really depends on how explosive the offense is. In the Leinart era, we could afford to go for the first down, because the offense was capable of scoring from anywhere on the field.

However, when you are admittedly playing it close to the vest (as Pete and Sark stated was the case with Sanchez), then you need to take the sure 3 points whenever you can get them.

In this case, taking the three points would have maintained some momentum after recovering the fumble. I know Pete was going for the jugular by going for it on 4th down. But the play call was just horrible. You know the DL are going to be plugging the gaps (except over right guard apparently). The best call there, if you are going for it, is the QB sneak, especially with Sanchez.

In the end, we lost by 7 points, so it didn't directly affect the outcome like Stanford, Oregon State, and Texas. However, as others noted, there was a potential for going for 2 points after Ausberry's TD, which meant we would have been down by 3 pts on the final drive.

Someone above posted "Pete Carroll is a good coach and all, but now he is just putting the blame on others."

Do you actually listen to his interviews? He does take the blame. Should he commit hari kari everytime (although not possible of course) USC loses?

Hey come on don't rip on the Irish...they are in the same boat as we are now...

Good team with lots of athletes

AND A OC AND COACHING STAFF WITH HEADS UP THEIR ASS*S

the rule is: kick early, go for it late

Since the 2004 and 2005 seasons are toast now any ways, there is no more need to talk about the Bush Push! It looks like Oregon State will taking a 3 game winning streak against USC into this year's game!

3 consecutive wins against SC will give Dorrell a life time contract! Say it ain't so!

Forfeit Games On!