|
|
#841
10-27-2007, 11:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the breakeven point would essentially be (caveat....I'm doing this just to think aloud, not trying to make any argument) how often you need that timeout. [/ QUOTE ] It's not just how often you need it, though. You have to call a different game with one timeout instead of two. -McGee 
|
|
#842
10-27-2007, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
1. We do know that icing doesn't work, you're trying to insert a step. [/ QUOTE ] We do? I didn't know that. Source? [ QUOTE ] 2. If you don't think he was right your entire series of posts is pointless [/ QUOTE ] False. My series of posts was to think aloud. [ QUOTE ] 3. Don't act like you derived the 5% by carefully evaluating the chances of a sack, you just made that [censored] up. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I knew sacks were unlikely, but like I said, the 5% was a guesstimate. [ QUOTE ] I'll play along, though, my answer is 8.3%. What now? [/ QUOTE ] Then there's no way that a play that is wrong by a percent or two is the worst coaching move in history, like many here make it out to be. THAT is my point....it's close. It's not unbelievably horrid, it's not overtly obvious. It's close. hd
|
|
#844
10-27-2007, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, you aren't seriously arguing that it didn't hurt them because they ended up winning, are you? [/ QUOTE ] I made the argument long before they won. And my argument is not that it was the right call, but that it was close to the breakeven point. hd
|
|
#845
10-27-2007, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Again I ask....to those who say it is bad, how often do you think the icing needs to be successful for Fulmer to be correct? If you can't answer that question, you can't have a meaningful discussion. [/ QUOTE ] What is of greater value Kicker's FG % - Kicker's FG% after being iced A Timeout with 1:30 left in the game on a winning drive durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [/ QUOTE ] And remember they were actually down. If the attempted ice were done if TN were up 3, then I would not have the same problem. Then the timeout is less valuable. The extra timeout increases the chance at a TD, which is not needed in a tied game. A winning TD is worth the same as a winning FG. A winning TD > a tying FG.
|
|
#846
10-27-2007, 11:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well, the breakeven point would essentially be (caveat....I'm doing this just to think aloud, not trying to make any argument) how often you need that timeout. [/ QUOTE ] It's not just how often you need it, though. You have to call a different game with one timeout instead of two. -McGee [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. Then it's the difference in success between those two drives. Still a small percent. Like I said, if there were 30 seconds left, it was a stupid move. But in college, with a minute and a half left, and still one TO, it's close.
|
|
#847
10-27-2007, 11:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
Perhaps Ohio State will get some god damn respect after donkey stomping Penn State at Crappy Valley. But I won't get my hopes up too much. We'll be hearing about how Penn State was overrated, and not that good, and a 20 point win is not impressive. No worries, I'll just be able to bet on Ohio State -7 next week against Wiscrapsin and get maximum value.
|
|
#849
10-27-2007, 11:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: f;hgghsfsgdgjfdityrehvfadksbjv
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Ohio State will get some god damn respect after donkey stomping Penn State at Crappy Valley. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah no kidding. You guys totally deserve to be number one... oh wait. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
