Did Frost know the onside success rate is 21%?
- Thread starter BoSolich
- Start date
84HuskerLaw
New member
Not gonna be 50 yrds. 20-25 maybe net. Odds are likely higher for a on side kick when it’s done when opponent is not expecting it. Most occur when it’s fairly well expected which likely reduces the success odds quite abit presumably. Add in the fact that Frost saw an alignment opening which presented an opportunity as well.
Im not saying it was a good idea but the risks were probably more like 50-50 in this case. Roughly maybe.
And if you thot your team was getting worn down and or likely to struggle the rest of the game, and your desperate to find a must have win, I can see how he took the gamble.
Just suggesting it’s not quite as open and shut case as first glance might be.
Mavric already posted this another thread but the success rate is actually 60% when a team with a lead kicks an onside. (Basically when it’s a surprise). In all honesty it just wasn’t a great kick. He didn’t get any air and kicked it right to the northwestern player. Was is still a questionable call yes. But Frost has seen us lose enough of these close games he tried to take control right then and there. I don’t hate it I just hate that it didn’t work for us.
The issue I have with the onside kick, is that even a surprise onside kick should be based on your circumstances. The circumstances didn't match the move in my opinion. To perform an onside kick as a surprise, our defense needed to be playing a much tighter game and the offense would have needed that extra possession to seal the deal. If we just boot the ball downfield , we give Northwestern the whole field to string together a drive, which they proved they really couldn't do consistently. NW did have success moving the ball 25-40 yards each possession, so we gave them a touchdown on that drive.
My other reasoning is that if we lose to NW and we never tried the onside up 28-17, you would not have heard one fan say, "If we would have done an onside kick after that last score we would have won! Frost is dumb for not trying that". Frost made a decision that put the little momentum and positives we had going for us in jeopardy, and it bit us in the a$$.
My other reasoning is that if we lose to NW and we never tried the onside up 28-17, you would not have heard one fan say, "If we would have done an onside kick after that last score we would have won! Frost is dumb for not trying that". Frost made a decision that put the little momentum and positives we had going for us in jeopardy, and it bit us in the a$$.
Dogs In A Pile
Active member
Even if it is a 60% success rate it is still way too big a risk IMHO. You've just gone up 11 and have regained the momentum you lost at the end of the 1st half. And knowing how HCSF's teams have self destructed in the face of adversity on an almost weekly basis putting them in this position was almost guaranteed to change the outcome of the game. But maybe Frost saw the team was already fading from the seeing the second half of the 2nd quarter and knew it was only a matter of time until NW wore them down completely so trying to put up more points by any means possible was his only hope.
Husker in WI
New member
gossamorharpy
New member
The onside kick was dumb. However, I'm not pinning that loss on 1 bad decision.
I'm pinning that loss on our piss poor defensive showing. Perhaps frosty's main driver in going for the onside kick was he realized our defense was porous as hell and might as well go for it seeing how we showed minimal ability to get a 3 and out
I'm pinning that loss on our piss poor defensive showing. Perhaps frosty's main driver in going for the onside kick was he realized our defense was porous as hell and might as well go for it seeing how we showed minimal ability to get a 3 and out
Here is also a link to a Harvard Research Articke where it states that from 2001-2010 Surprise onside kicks were successful 60% of the time.
https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/10/evaluating-the-surprise-onside-kick/
“Assuming that surprise onside kicks are as effective as they were between 2001 and 2010 as they are now, the stunt is successful 60% of the time.”
https://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/10/evaluating-the-surprise-onside-kick/
“Assuming that surprise onside kicks are as effective as they were between 2001 and 2010 as they are now, the stunt is successful 60% of the time.”
suh_fan93
New member
^Sportsdataverse. With a whole 1,357 subscribers... I bet that's where the 'SLATE' article got it's information from.
The success rate could be 70% but the onside kick decision against NW was easily the stupidest decision play calling wise in SFs career without question.
The success rate could be 70% but the onside kick decision against NW was easily the stupidest decision play calling wise in SFs career without question.
Last edited by a moderator:
