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.'

[Matt Williams]

[ QUOTE ]
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.'

[/ QUOTE ]


The thing that annoyed me is how the annoucers were talking about when ND went for it 4th and 1 in the 1st half and got it. USC went for it on 4th and one in the 2nd half and got it. Then 2 or 3 plays later, Leinert throws an INT. USC stops ND and gets the ball back. Then USC gets a TD and they start talking about how they repayed ND back because they went for it on 4th and 1. Uhh... no. It was a new series, not the 4th and 1 series. Geez.

[DougOzzzz]

announcers are stupid. What is new.

Most people don't want to hear stuff like:

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if USC goes for it, based on past play by play data they are 47% likely to get a touchdown and win the game, and 53% to fail. This is based on all college teams over the past 4 years though. Given USC's power rushing attack, and their success in similar situations both this year and in recent years, you could expect to see them succeed close to 60% of the time. However, their success in OT pegs them as about a 60% favorite as well. So the division was close - it was gutsy, might have been wrong, but it worked out

[/ QUOTE ]

I made most of this up but you get the point. Not many people are interested in that. They just want to hear how great a move it was and how USC ownz.

[lastchance]

I think USC should have went for the TD, but done it by running a passing play where you can throw the ball out of bounds if no one's open.

Gives you two shots of winning the game. A 30-40% shot right now, and a nice 50% shot later. Definitely a good idea to do that, IMHO, if USC is well coached enough to do that, and you know they are.

[McGahee]

I thought the worst was Mark May going off on the Minnesota punter for trying to kick the ball away. I mean, the guy's a choke artist for dropping the ball, but if he just falls on the ball at the 5 yard line their defense wasn't going to make a stop and they weren't going to win the game. It was well worth the risk to try to get rid of it there - it's not like a punter has never gotten a kick away after fumbling it.

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the worst was Mark May going off on the Minnesota punter for trying to kick the ball away. I mean, the guy's a choke artist for dropping the ball, but if he just falls on the ball at the 5 yard line their defense wasn't going to make a stop and they weren't going to win the game. It was well worth the risk to try to get rid of it there - it's not like a punter has never gotten a kick away after fumbling it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He should have just ran it out of the back of the endzone and taken the safety.

[jdl22]

A key thing is that the USC kicker isn't very good. He looked terrible when they played Oregon and didn't look good at all on the long extra point. I think the probability of him missing the field goal with all that pressure would be less than .99. I also think that having a crappy kicker in overtime with the college setup would leave them at a huge disadvantage as well. So I definately think they should have gone for it, and also think a pass at the end may have been better. Maybe have Leinart roll out on an option pass/run like the play before.

[McGahee]

Here's another one - Michigan had a 4th&4 from the PSU 34 with ~2 minutes left. PSU had no timeouts. Lloyd Carr is an idiot for punting. Go for the 1st down and end the game. They punt and gain 15 yards, PSU only needs a FG to tie. Granted the punter shanked it out of bounds, but even if he boomed it into the endzone - which happens like >50% of the time - the result would've been the same. Luckily he won't be criticized for this because they won. I guarantee you Parcells, Bellicheck, Weiss, or any other decent coach would've gone for it there.

[holeplug]

I was wondering why USC and the announcers kept saying they were gonna spike the ball when the ball went out of bounds the previous play which means the clock is stopped so there is no reason to spike the ball.

I would have just thrown a lob to Jarrett since he is like 6'5" and hoped he would come down with it. Even Leinhart's first surge got stuffed and he only made it in when he spun to the left and Reggie Bush pushed him in.

[RacersEdge]

The analyst on ESPN News actually said they should have spiked and gone for FG.