Wake Forest in 1 possession games the past 10 years

by RAJohnston on Nov 15, 2011 3:32 PM EST in Wake Forest Football

There has been a lot of talk recently among Wake Forest fans that Wake blows an excessive amount of leads in the 4th quarter. I believe that it is more "prisoner of the moment" disease, and have gone through the trouble of looking up all games that Wake Forest won or lost by 7 points or less in the past 10 years.

It took a fair amount of work, and I haven't really dug through the numbers to break them down as much as I could have, but I did get a basic summary of the numbers and the bottom line. I have listed the margin that Wake was either winning or losing by entering the 4th quarter, followed by the result. Of course these numbers don't take into consideration the status of the game at the point of the 4th quarter beginning (for example, a team might have been at the 1 and down 14 entering the 4th, and then scored on the first play, that is much different than being up 14 and driving with the ball at the end of the 3rd quarter).

I hope you will take time to look through the jump and what the numbers really show.

Since 2002, Wake Forest has done the following in games decided by a possession or less

Overall: 25-28 (53 games)

Led after 3 (lost): 12 times (23% overall) (46%)
Led after 3 (won): 14 times (26% overall) (54%)
Led after 3: 14-12 (49% overall) (54% winning percentage)

Trailed after 3 (lost): 15 times (28% overall) (60%)
Trailed after 3 (won): 10 times (19% overall) (40%)
Trailed after 3: 10-15 (47% overall) (40% winning percentage)

Tied after 3 (won): 1 time (2% overall) (50%)
Tied after 3 (lost):1 time (2% overall) (50%)
Tied after 3: 1-1 (4% overall) (50% winning percentage)

Season-by-Season Record

2002 (4-2)

1.NIU +11 (L 42-41) Led after 3 (lost)
2.ECU +4 (W 27-22) Led after 3 (won)
3.Purdue +3 (W 24-21) Led after 3 (won)
4.UVA +10 (L 38-34) Led after 3 (lost)
5.GT -1 (W 24-21) Trailed after 3 (won)
6.Navy -1 (W 30-27) Trailed after 3 (won)

2003 (1-2)

7.BC -8 (W 32-38) Trailed after 3 (won)
8.Purdue -3 (L 16-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
9.UVA +8 (L 27-24) Led after 3 (lost)

2004 (2-6)

10.Clemson +1 (L 37-30 2OT) Led after 3 (lost)
11.BC +3 (W 17-14) Led after 3 (won)
12.NCSU -7 (L 27-21) Trailed after 3 (lost)
13.VT -3 (L 17-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
14.FSU +4 (L 20-17) Led after 3 (lost)
15.Wake +9 (W 24-22) Led after 3 (won)
16.UNC -14 (L 31-24) Trailed after 3 (lost)
17.Maryland -6 (L 13-7) Trailed after 3 (lost)

2005 (1-2)

18.Vandy -4 (L 24-20) Trailed after 3 (lost)
19.Clemson -8 (W 31-27) Trailed after 3 (won)
20.BC -1 (L 35-30) Trailed after 3 (lost)

2006 (5-0)

21.Duke -6 (W 14-13) Trailed after 3 (won)
22.NCSU +8 (W 25-23) Led after 3 (won)
23.UNC -3 (W 24-17) Trailed after 3 (won)
24.BC +7 (W 21-14) Led after 3 (won)
25.GT -3 (W 9-6) Trailed after 3 (won)

2007 (3-2)

26.Nebraska -3 (L 20-17) Trailed after 3 (lost)
27.Maryland -14 (W 31-24 OT) Trailed after 3 (won)
28.Duke +11 (W 41-36) Led after 3 (won)
29.FSU Tied (W 24-21) Tied after 3 (won)
30.UVA +3 (L 17-16) Led after 3 (lost)

2008 (3-4)

31.Ole Miss +7 (W 30-28) Led after 3 (won)
32.Navy -7 (L 24-17) Trailed after 3 (lost)
33.Clemson -9 (W 12-7) Trailed after 3 (won)
34.Miami -3 (L 16-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
35.Duke +2 (W 33-30) Led after 3 (won)
36.NCSU +3 (L 21-17) Led after 3 (lost)
37.BC -2 (L 24-21) Trailed after 3 (lost)

2009 (2-5)

38.Baylor -10 (L 24-21) Trailed after 3 (lost)
39.Stanford -7 (W 24-17) Trailed after 3 (won)
40.BC -7 (L 27-24 OT) Trailed after 3 (lost)
41.NCSU +3 (W 30-24) Led after 3 (won)
42.Navy -10 (L 13-10) Trailed after 3 (lost)
43.Miami +13 (L 28-27) Led after 3 (lost)
44.GT Tied (L 30-27 OT) Tied after 3 (lost)

2010 (1-2)

45.Duke +3 (W 54-48) Led after 3 (won)
46.GT +11 (L 24-20) Led after 3 (lost)
47.Navy +3 (L 28-27) Led after 3 (lost)

2011 (3-3)

48.Syracuse +12 (L 36-29 OT) Led after 3 (lost)
49.NCSU +7 (W 34-27) Led after 3 (won)
50.FSU +8 (W 35-30) Led after 3 (won)
51.Duke +4 (W 24-21) Led after 3 (won)
52.ND -7 (L 24-17) Trailed after 3 (lost)
53.Clemson +7 (L 31-28) Led after 3 (lost)

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like the idea...

To me, it shows a couple of things.

First, just how much of a fluke 2006 really was. If we project Wake to have a 50/50 shot at winning such a game after three quarters (close enough given the overall sample size), then that’s a 1 in 32 chance of going undefeated in five such games. Now, that’s just a rough idea, but we lived a charmed life in those games (and this list doesn’t even count the Clemson debacle).

Second, we play a LOT of these games. 53 (and counting) in the past 10 years – that’s nearly half our games every year that qualify for this, particularly if we throw out the DI-AA games that don’t crop up on this list at all. Historically, Wake wouldn’t even be in most of these games to begin the fourth quarter – that speaks a lot to Grobe’s staff(s) over the years. He has stated numerous times over his career that he wants a chance to win in the fourth quarter – these stats bear that out.

However, part of my problem, particularly this year, is that we’re playing these games when we should be keeping the pedal down. You alluded to this in your post (what with the fan griping – who ever thought Wake would have a sense of entitlement towards football?), but I think it also deserves a look. In five of the games this year (Syracuse, State, FSU, Duke, Clemson), we came out strong and took a double digit lead at some point. In most of those cases, we actually significantly outplayed our opponent for decent chunks of the game. In each case, we softened up our pass coverage defensively (to protect against the big play) and became more conservative on offense (running the ball, which we have largely done unsuccessfully this year) in attempts to play the clock. Sometimes that strategy works (State and FSU both ran out of time on their comebacks), but other times we get results like Saturday.

I admittedly lack the wealth of information and football pedigree that Grobe and staff have, but it seems a little more aggression with the according potential for added risk (which also admittedly can backfire – see the end of Saturday’s game) would be appreciated. I think, personally, that we shouldn’t ease off the playcalling until we’re up by 20 or so (as opposed to 14, which seems to have been the magic number this season). At the very least, it should make for some less tense end-game situations. I also think we’d be more successful in closing out games, and thus having fewer games fall into the “close game” category discussed here.

I also would like to add that, like 2006, this season’s results could be nothing but an anomaly caused by small sample size. I’m not sure how much weight I give the argument, but it is a possibility (that largely seems to have been discounted by fans).

Excellent job on the article, RA. I really appreciate the research and effort put in to pieces such as this. Even though I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, I certainly commend you for your hard work and time spent. Kudos to you, sir.

by quzybuk on Nov 15, 2011 4:33 PM EST reply actions

An underrated factor in our 2006 success ...

was the rules changes only in effect for that year regarding the game clock. Nice summary of those changes can be found here, but basically they ran the clock on kickoffs and dramatically reduced stoppage after first downs. I’ve seen estimates that this reduced game length by as much as 10-15 snaps.

My theory: Grobe’s Wake teams are traditionally pretty good on the first and second teams, but the dropoff to the third- and fourth-strings is pretty dramatic. Schools like FSU and Clemson don’t suffer the same dropoff when they have to play the 3-deeps and 4-deeps. That really starts to show down the stretch of games when our first-stringers are tired and the other team’s starters have had more rest. Seems to be no accident that when the games were shortened by rule change, we were at our best as closers.

The research above is really interesting – seems like that other than 2006, we’ve lost an awful lot of games on the final possession.

by DeacAndYeShallFind on Nov 16, 2011 10:05 AM EST reply actions

All I know is that looking back through those games I remember a lot of heartbreaking losses and agonizing wins where I just kept waiting to see us blow it (BC 2004, Clemson 2005, Duke 2006, FSU 2007, Ole Miss 2008, GT 2010…).

Deacandyeshallfind brings up a really interesting point – I had never heard that but it seems to make sense. In the typical WFU “bend but dont break” defense that first down change can have a big impact.

The only game I remember being really close at the end in 2006 was Duke (God bless you, Chip Vaughn) but I seem to remember that there were interceptions in both the State and UNC games that saved us towards the end.

by deacdiggler on Nov 16, 2011 11:09 AM EST reply actions