I wanted to toss up a quick note of congratulations to our women’s basketball team, which, in defeating 14th-seeded San Diego today, won their first NCAA tournament game in 15 years, and only their second ever.  A fantastic accomplishment, to be sure, but I know the team will not be satisfied without accomplishing even more, and I will be rooting them on as they take on George Washington on Monday.

I can’t comment on the game itself, as I only saw highlights on the local news this evening.  For various reasons, I couldn’t make it down to Maples myself, and, for some reason, ESPN2 declined to show the game to me, deciding for some reason that I would be more interested in watching Pittsburgh defeat Wyoming.  I was not.

Still, congratulations, ladies.  Go Bears!  Bear the Colonials!

Continuing on with my response to Avinash’s interesting analysis on the 2007 Cal vs. USC game. In case you missed it, here is Part I. 

In Avinash’s second analysis, he mentions that the formation used in this second play is the same as the first play. 

I must respectfully disagree.

Here are the pre-snap formation screen-grabs courtesy of BearsNecessity: 

First play

Second play

So are these the same formations?  No, they are not.  They are similar but not the same.  While Avinash is correct in saying that in both pictures there are two WRs on one side, and a TE and a 3rd WR on the other, the location of the runningback is different.  In the first play, the runningback is in a "strong" position - to the same side as the TE.  In the second play, the runningback is in a "weak" position - the opposite side of the TE.  

Am I nitpicking?  It may seem like it but no, I am not.  This is a significant difference.  I know that the runningbacks would surely get themselves in trouble if they positioned themselves on the wrong side of the QB.  Tedford and Coach Gould (runningbacks coach) would be all over the RB and possibly pull them from the game. 

Why is this difference significant?  Because on the first play, when the RB runs left, he does not have the benefit of added TE blocking.  In the second play, when the RB runs left, he has the added benefit of the TE blocking.   

My second respectful disagreement with Avinash’s analysis is the comment that USC was in a 5-2 formation in prior situations (3rd paragraph of his post).  I am a little unclear if Avinash is suggesting that in the first play USC was in a 5-2 defense, or if in most situations they are in a 5-2 formation defense.  Either way the comment was meant to be interpreted, I believe USC was not in a 5-2 formation.  In the first play, the USC defense appears to be in a 4-2 nickel with one of the LBs playing over the TE and at the LOS - but still nevertheless a 4-2 nickel.  And if it was meant to be said that USC is usually in a 5-2 defense, that is incorrect too.  USC’s base defense is a 4-3 Under which appears very much like a 5-2 defense because the SLB (strong side linebacker) plays on the LOS (but in a standing position) with the MLB and WLBs shifted over more towards center. 

However, I do agree with Avinash that in the second play, USC is in a conventional 4-3 defense to prevent the pass.

My third respectful disagreement with Avinash is that the second play was a bad playcall because it was repetitive.  Of course, Avinash premised this statement on the belief that the first play and the second play were the same.  Well, they’re both draws, but out of different formations.  So while an argument can be made that they are the same because they’re both draws [edit: see footnote], they are technically different.  But we’ll assume that they are similar enough to be the same. 

But is it really a bad playcall to call a play that has already been run?  No.  In fact, Tedford calls a few select plays up to as many as 3 times a game. 

The fact is, the first time Tedford called that play, it went for a long gain (and touchdown).  If it works once, why not try it again?  

If you look at the two pictures, the game situation is the same too.  Both 3rd and longs in the redzone.  Tedford is probably assuming that USC might come out in the same formation and if Tedford is really lucky, call the same defense as the first play which gave up a Cal touchdown.  But as Avinash said, the USC defense had made adjustments.  

But is it a bad playcall because Tedford tried a play which worked earlier for a second time?  No. 

One might argue that it was a bad playcall because Cal needed 9 yards for a touchdown and a draw play up the middle was not likely to achieve such a result.  This is a valid argument but a short-sighted one.  One needs to look at the big picture.  In the second play, the game is tied at 7 a piece.  Cal is on the 9 yard line facing a 3rd and goal.  Cal is also facing USC and its excellent defense.  Cal is facing USC and its excellent defense in the redzone where the excellent USC defense has less field to protect.  Passing into the endzone is dangerous!  Even passing short of the endzone is dangerous (but less dangerous), but certainly hazardous to a Cal WR’s health against USC’s hard-hitting LBs and safeties. 

Being conservative and calling a draw (even though it has a low probability of scoring) is not a bad playcall.  Cal can probably gain a few yards, and kick a field goal and take the lead.  Remember, big picture.  Don’t turn the ball over.  Get points.  In a slow low-scoring game, a field goal can be devastating.  The 2007 Cal vs. USC game was a slow low scoring game.  Take the points when you can get them, especially when they’re a sure thing (kicking a field goal from the 5 yard line).

So I must disagree with Avinash that the playcall on the second play was bad.  It wasn’t bad because it was repetitive.  Nor was it bad because it didn’t have a high enough probability of reaching the endzone for a touchdown.  I believe it was a good playcall.

[Footnote: I originally wrote this reponse to these plays from memory (without looking at the film).  I assumed both plays were draws.  But upon reviewing the plays from Tivo, the two plays are not the same.  They are not both draws.  The first play is a draw.  The second play is a zone-read.]