KF normally opts to receive if he wins the coin toss. Most teams defer though both Minny and Purdue won the toss and elected to receive. If sure seemed nice to be getting the opening kick off to start the second half. A quick search reveals 70% of NFL teams currently defer. This compares to 7.8% who deferred in 2008. 54.9% of teams that defer win the game vs 51.9% who elect to receive (Looks like it pays to win the toss). Should Kirk reconsider?
Opening Kickoff: Better to Receive or Defer?
- Thread starter StillGold
- Start date
I generally prefer to defer, but I do see some merit to taking the opening kick. Since Iowa does it every time, and since almost every other team defers, it make the game start in a predictable way about 90% of the time. There's something to be said for that. Also, if you can put together a TD drive to open the game, you establish momentum and demoralize the opponent right from the start. And even if you just pick up a couple of first downs, you put yourself in position to pin them deep and at least play some field position to start the game. Of course, the worst way to start a game outside of turning it over is to go 3-and-out on after taking the opening kickoff.
With Kirk, it's just a matter of routine to receive the opening kickoff. I've gotten used to it. Don't really have a problem with it, no matter the circumstances.
With Kirk, it's just a matter of routine to receive the opening kickoff. I've gotten used to it. Don't really have a problem with it, no matter the circumstances.
Great argument. Have long contended it's the "smart" thing to do (why almost all coaches do it). By "deferring", that means you get ball to start second half (where you kinda know what you need "to do" in regards to catching up (if way behind), or running clock (if way ahead)). This also means you get the wind in 4th qtr, unless the opponent decides to give you ball AND wind to start second half (which is dumb and coaches rarely do). Having wind in 4th qtr is huge b/c that is when rubber hits the road in regards to trying to make up a deficit.
Just my opinion
Just my opinion
In 17 seasons as Iowa’s head coach, Kirk Ferentz and the Hawkeyes received the opening kickoff in 170-of-210 games (103-67) .606 winning percentage. Iowa has started the game on defense in 40-of-210 games under Ferentz (22-18) .550 winning percentage.
I agree that wind is a major factor. If it's windy, I'll take the ball to start the game. That obviously forces the opponent to take the ball in the second half. If I'm kicking off in the second half with the lead, I'll go ahead and kick into the wind. It's a big advantage to go into the fourth quarter with the wind if/when you need to throw downfield and/or kick a long field goal. And if you're still in the lead, your opponent has to battle against the wind.
That is good information but doesn't tell the whole story as Iowa can receive the opening kickoff when they win the toss or if the other team defers. Wonder if there is a difference in winning percentage between the two scenarios as the wind in the 4th quarter may be crucial.
It would seem it would make more sense to defer if team was strong on defense (Wisconsin) and to receive if strong on offense (Baylor). It would be interesting to know what percentage of the time Iowa scores on opening drive and what is average yard line opponent take first possession if Iowa doesn't score..
I would agree that points in third quarter matter as much as in 4th quarter, but ask yourself this. Would KF have attempted a 57 yard field goal in the third quarter ? I doubt that he would yet he did in the 4th quarter (Pittsburgh). I don't think the wind was a factor in that game, but I doubt he would have attempted that field goal against the wind and I doubt he would have attempted it in the third quarter with the wind. My point is that wind can matter more in the 4th quarter than the third.
No casual fan is going to have the statistics you have, but I would argue your hard evidence is incomplete.
No casual fan is going to have the statistics you have, but I would argue your hard evidence is incomplete.
Yes, please rework these stats assuming many more scenarios. For example, if its windy to start the game, but the forecast is for the wind to die down, or shift to another direction. Also, if its a late afternoon game that starts in daylight but ends under the lights. And, please consider if our quarterback is banged up a little, or if our opponents QB is banged up. You should consider home v away for each of these scenarios as well.
Thank you.
The team that wins the initial coin toss should be allowed to flip more coins to decide what they want to do.
Anything less is a scam.
Anything less is a scam.
Last edited:
Didn't KF defer early in his career and started to take the ball in 2002 on?
I think if so, that's about all you need to know to say this statistic is moot.
Or, phrased differently, look at the stat without 1999 and 2000. So start from 2001 perhaps?
As long as we don't kneel it or run the clock out if we have the ball at the end of the first half when there is still time to push down field and score. I always hated when we just ran out the clock and gave the opponent the ball to start the second half. It is like a turnover or intentional 3 and out in my opinion. More possessions equals more opportunities to score...
Defer. The crowd is always rowdy immediately after tailgating. If you're at home put your defense on the field so the crowd can stay jacked up! Nothing kills the energy like an 8 play, 5 minute, punt ending drive. Same if your the road team, defer. Make the opponents crowd have to quiet down right away.
I'm missing something simple I'm sure, but I don't understand.
The way our offense and defense are playing right now, I definitely want the ball to start out.
If you take the ball and dont go for the kill at the end of the first half you waste a possession. If you do make an attempt you are one up on them. If needed they will do the same at the end of the game because they have to. Bottom line is be prepared to runn 2 minute offense at end of half. If not, defer. I prefer taking the ball and going for thr throat.
It always used to bother me, what KF does, as I subscribed to the idea of starting the second half with the ball. But I've come around to wanting the ball first. If I'm coach, I plan on my team scoring, then you're on the back foot right from the start.
I think there are many factors to consider, and probably no right or wrong on this issue. My take is that if you are a solid defensive team, deferring makes the most sense, and the opposite if your strength is in the offense.
What used to drive me crazy, was back in the mid 60's and there was not the ability to defer, Frank Broyles at Arkansas when winning the toss, would select the wind and wound up kicking off to start both halves. It did often work, by pinning the other team early and forcing them to punt against the wind.
Broyles also would punt often on 3rd down. In 1964 the Hogs did finish the season with 5 consecutive shutouts.
What used to drive me crazy, was back in the mid 60's and there was not the ability to defer, Frank Broyles at Arkansas when winning the toss, would select the wind and wound up kicking off to start both halves. It did often work, by pinning the other team early and forcing them to punt against the wind.
Broyles also would punt often on 3rd down. In 1964 the Hogs did finish the season with 5 consecutive shutouts.
Last edited:
Potentially being the key word, one possession at the end of the first half, one possession to start to the second.
The potential for an extra possession is the same in each half. There is no way that I;m aware of to predict who will end up with the ball at the close of either half. Taking the ball at the start of the 1st vs 2nd half has no predictable bearing on who gets more possessions for the entire game.
I've always been a proponent of deferring, because potentially having 2 consecutive possessions could break open a tight game. For example...you are tied and have the ball with 2 minutes left in the half. You score a TD to go up by 7. You get the ball to start the second half, score a TD....now you are up 14 and in control of the game.
On the other hand...suppose you are tied and the opponent has the ball with 2 minutes left in the half. They score a TD to go up by 7. They get the ball to start the second half and score another TD to go up by 14. That can be very demoralizing, not to mention the opponent now has all the momentum. You are now in a 14 point hole without having a possession.
On the other hand...suppose you are tied and the opponent has the ball with 2 minutes left in the half. They score a TD to go up by 7. They get the ball to start the second half and score another TD to go up by 14. That can be very demoralizing, not to mention the opponent now has all the momentum. You are now in a 14 point hole without having a possession.
I want to add an addendum to my original post. When it is late in the season, it is cold and the wind is a factor, you take the option that gives you the wind advantage in the 4th quarter. Not sure how you guarantee that without giving them the ball to start both halves. If you defer to the second half and choose to defend an endzone, they should take the ball to start both halves. If you take the ball in the first half, they can choose to defend an endzone in the second half but then you get the ball to start both halves. I think its best to have the other team defer so you start off with the ball, then hope they take the ball to start the 2nd half and you get to choose the endzone you defend.
Agreed, pharmfd. If the wind is a significant factor on Friday, win the toss, take the wind. Play defense. Force Neb to pass and then punt into the wind. Get great field position. Score TD. Repeat. Repeat. Put game away in first quarter and give the Iowa defense a big ole cushion so they can relax a little and be more aggressive. Stuff Neb early and snuff their hope like an ant on the sidewalk so the Husker fans can get an early start for home.
Hey Dauminator. The answer is...both. Tight = conservative. Relaxed = more aggressive. Get it? Now that wasn't so difficult, was it? 
I'm pretty sure I get what you're trying to say, but I remain unconvinced that one relaxes into aggression.Hey Dauminator. The answer is...both. Tight = conservative. Relaxed = more aggressive. Get it? Now that wasn't so difficult, was it?
