Maybe you just shouldn't punt!

After last night's disaster by the Indianapolis Colts (represented here, including a version by the Maine 1-AA team that shows how it might have meant to work), and the unbelievable last play of the Michigan/Michigan State game Saturday, perhaps we should all just go Pulaski Academy and never punt the ball again!

There's been a serious move in the "punt-less" direction over the last two years, where coaches "challenge the conventional wisdom" by going for it on fourth down around midfield, or even slightly on their own side of the field if it's short enough; but no somber commitment to the cause. I consider myself somewhat conservative in my approach, and here's the set of general rules I'd use as a head football coach if I were ever forced into the job...

Past midfield? Never punt.
Between your own 30 and midfield?Go for 4th and anything less than 3. Maybe 4-5, depending...
Behind your own 30? Go for 4th and 1 or less. Maybe 2...

(Subject to what kind of team I have, the opponent, the conditions, the time left in the game, etc.)

So, why don't more coaches punt less - like, WAY less? Here's the take of Paul Dalen, who wrote the piece for SB Nation about the math behind Pulaski's work linked above...

I don't think this kind of analysis would be a surprise to any decent coach. So, why do coaches "play it safe" (as if it weren't safer to make the choice to score more points)?

The answer to that, I think, lies in the way that we view errors of commission versus errors of omission. Or in other words, a coach that makes a choice to punt the ball from the 20-yard line would be viewed as making sound decisions, whereas one that chooses to go for it on the 20-yard line is considered a risk-taker. If the decision to punt turns out to be the decision that gives the ball back and the opponent then scores a TD, then the decision to punt is hardly considered as part of the evaluation of the sequence of events. If the decision to go for it fails and the opponent scores a TD, then the decision will be second-guessed ad nauseum. The result of both decisions is the same, but one would be criticized much more harshly than the other.

Humans are funny creatures.

We are indeed...we are indeed.

(Now, by the way, Kevin Kelley of Pulaski Academy also believes in onside kickoffs after almost every score - and they score a LOT; they're 10-0 this season - and now, he's planning on incorporating rugby style lateral passing into virtually every downfield play, something I've wondered about for years! WHY, if we think it'll work on the last play of the game, do we NEVER use downfield laterals the REST of the game? Wouldn't practicing it make it less dangerous by an order of magnitude or more?)