Results-oriented thinking among sportscasters

[jacki]

If Matt Leinart gets stopped at the end of the USC-ND game, Pete Carroll and Leinart would be getting torn apart on sports radio forever.
They'd be called stupid, reckless, crazy.
Why would you turn down a sure chance at OT instead of a one-play win or lose situation?

But because it worked, it's gutsy, ballsy, etc.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is, I wish there was a sports guy smart enough and confident enough to discuss the decision to go for the TD, not the result.
You've got a 99% chance at OT, where, based on the game so far, you've got a 50% chance of winning (maybe more, maybe less, but the game would be tied, so I guess they're pretty equal).
So does going for the TD at the end give you a better than 50% chance of winning?

I don't know, but I wish there was someone who would discuss that aspect of the game, instead of just stroking Leinart and Bush for being so 'gutsy.'