Started By
Message
re: The Loss to Tech
Posted on 12/5/14 at 4:17 pm to Dick Leverage
Posted on 12/5/14 at 4:17 pm to Dick Leverage
quote:Exactly my point. I don't think the call was good or bad by itself prior to it playing itself out. It was the conservative approach that, I believe, was meant to all but guarantee that we don't lose by preventing a TD right before the end of the 4th when we were only up by 3 points. Obviously we know how it turned out so I think everyone would agree that, knowing what we know now, a deep kick would have been the better call, but it's one of those things that the quality of the call is only known after the fact.
I respect your opinion. It did not cause us to lose outright. It was, however, the catalyst that led to us losing and no coach wants that burden. You are not saying that call, by itself, lost the game. I can agree with that. It did initiate the series of events that gave them a more advantageous position to do the unlikely though. I believe you understand this and are making the argument that however wrong that particular call was....we were still in position to win.
I'm merely arguing against those who believe CMR is an "idiot" for making that call, as well as against those who say that the call lost us the game. I believe it was a rational decision that didn't have a desired outcome, and that even though the outcome was undesirable, we still had an opportunity to win but didn't execute.
1
Posted on 12/5/14 at 4:28 pm to FooManChoo
We had a 99.8% chance of winning the game before the kick according to somebody with some kickass software. That's been published elsewhere. Unfortunately there were no odds published after the kick. I bet that immediately following the kick, our odds went from 99.8% to something like 96.2%. This according to the kickass software in my skull.
The call did not lose the game for us. Anybody who says otherwise is either... too lazy to analyze the ending, doesn't understand odds or how the game works, or unwilling to admit defeat to a GT team that outplayed us for what I would say was the majority of the game, even before the kick.
ETA: The reason the winning % doesn't exist immediately following the kickoff? Because the number is similar to what I put above, 96.2%. Had that number actually been published, it would have made an otherwise interesting statistic (99.8%) totally irrelevant. You KNOW the person who published the 99.8% figure had one following the kick as well.
The call did not lose the game for us. Anybody who says otherwise is either... too lazy to analyze the ending, doesn't understand odds or how the game works, or unwilling to admit defeat to a GT team that outplayed us for what I would say was the majority of the game, even before the kick.
ETA: The reason the winning % doesn't exist immediately following the kickoff? Because the number is similar to what I put above, 96.2%. Had that number actually been published, it would have made an otherwise interesting statistic (99.8%) totally irrelevant. You KNOW the person who published the 99.8% figure had one following the kick as well.
This post was edited on 12/5/14 at 4:35 pm
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News