[Tommy Karate]

Great field position for fsu! Oh come on now please please

look at this....invasion of the "its too easy" over backers!

[NavsPicks]

Lol it ain't going over killed by the hook

[letsgo]

i got it at 44.

[Tommy Karate]

hopefully you over backers at least had 44

shocked that this will land on 44 or 51

[yisman]

classic ending

Wilder falls down behind the line of scrimmage, leading to a difficult 3rd and 10, followed by a FG

[JayMoney24_7]

Under covers...lol this is ridiculous. Of course they would settle for a field goal. Next time they get the ball waste the clock and game over. 44 even..Books are amazing(perfect) at capping or these guys are great at making it happen.

[onlooker]

no, not the correct call

4th and 8 is very low percentage against FSU

they did make it so it looks good in hindsight, but the correct decision is to kick the field goal there (if you're looking at staying in the game).

No. Because you may not get that close again. Maybe if it made it a two score game, but not a three score game.

They aren't trying to cover the over for you.

[yisman]

No. Because you may not get that close again. Maybe if it made it a two score game, but not a three score game.

They aren't trying to cover the over for you.

I didn't say they should be trying to hit the over.

Mathematically, if you're trying to win the game, kicking the field goal is clearly the correct decision there.

All you have to do is look at the percentages of scoring a TD compared to the odds of getting 3 and getting within 3 scores. Not even close.

Obviously Muschamp wasn't going for the win if you look at the 4th quarter. I never said he should be trying to hit the over.

[onlooker]

I didn't say they should be trying to hit the over.

Mathematically, if you're trying to win the game, kicking the field goal is clearly the correct decision there.

If you are down by 10, with a few minutes left, yes you kick the FG. Then go for a onside kick.

You don't play to make it a three score game.

Maybe if you had a offense that can move the ball. The flow of the game didn't call for a FG there.

But hey, you are always right.

[yisman]

But hey, you are always right.

You're the one talking overs and unders. I'm talking basic football strategy here.

The correct football strategy is to kick the field goal there, because it's simple mathematics.

But hey, you are always right. You can keep arguing this for the rest of your life, but you'll still be wrong, whether you want to admit it or not.

[onlooker]

You're the one talking overs and unders. I'm talking basic football strategy here.

The correct football strategy is to kick the field goal there, because it's simple mathematics.

But hey, you are always right. You can keep arguing this for the rest of your life, but you'll still be wrong, whether you want to admit it or not.

Exactly the way I feel about you dude.

The one that focuses on start and parks in NASCAR.

You argue basic mathematics, but you also have to coach the flow of the game.

[yisman]

Exactly the way I feel about you dude.

The one that focuses on start and parks in NASCAR.

You argue basic mathematics, but you also have to coach the flow of the game.

I don't know why you love to start arguments with me, but you happen to be wrong.

This is basic football strategy and mathematics. Nothing to do with gambling or NASCAR, but I can understand why you keep trying to change the topic.

You earn more points from the drive in the long run by kicking the FG, not going for it. In that situation, you need to maximize your points expectancy.

[onlooker]

I don't know why you love to start arguments with me, but you happen to be wrong.

This is basic football strategy and mathematics. Nothing to do with gambling or NASCAR, but I can understand why you keep trying to change the topic.

You earn more points from the drive in the long run by kicking the FG, not going for it. In that situation, you need to maximize your points expectancy.

You get the touchdowns early, and do the mathematics later in the game if you are close enough. They knew they needed TD's, not FG's to win this game.

You say basic football strategy, but we see this move week in and week out. Why? To give them a chance to win the game. They also maximized their points expectancy by going for it, resulting in a TD.

Not starting anything, but when you post like you are always right, I have say something sometimes.

Enjoy the rest of your day coach.

[yisman]

You say basic football strategy, but we see this move week in and week out. Why? To give them a chance to win the game. They also maximized their points expectancy by going for it, resulting in a TD.

No, they did not maximize their points expectancy by going for it. Muschamp went with an inferior strategy, decreasing his points expectancy, and got lucky. You can double down on hard 15 in blackjack and catch a 6. That doesn't mean you increased your EV by doing so. It means you made a poor decision and got lucky. Happens all the time.

Not starting anything, but when you post like you are always right, I have say something sometimes.

Post like I'm always right? I just made an observation on football strategy. Then you jumped in to start an argument for no apparent reason. You have say something sometimes.

Enjoy the rest of your day coach.

[onlooker]

27-0 in 4th. Can't move the ball. But hey, lets use basic mathematics to try and win this game. Kick FG, and lose 37-3.

Basic mathematics isn't always the right coaching call, especially when you are down 27-0 in the 4th quarter. Teams go for it, because they need a spark and a chance to swing momentum. We see it all the time, not sure why you can't grasp that.

But you want them to kick a 47 yard FG and make it a 24 point game, if they made that long FG. Which they now need three TD's and three 2-PT conversions. Oh yeah, also stop FSU's offense. But hey, a 47 yard FG kick down 27-0 is the right call.

Basic mathematics might be the right call in a close game, but in a game and situation like this. It's not the right call.

[yisman]

In the long run, you get more points from kicking a 47 yard FG than going for it on 4th and 8 from the 30 yard line.

If you can't stop FSU's offense, you lose the game regardless. So the decision is based on your defense being able to hold them the rest of the way. Thus, you mathematically have a much better chance of coming back and tying the game if you kick and make it 27-3 (a 3 score game), rather than going for it on 4th and 8, where you have a very low chance of converting, and even if you do convert, there's a good chance you don't get the TD anyway (and waste more time in the process).

[Mike Huntertz]

44.5 for me....on over..........Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Mac4Lyfe]

I'm chiming in a little late to the thread...

I understand where you are coming from Yisman BUT the UF FG kicker sucks ass. He's less than 50% on the year kicking mainly chip shots. I don't think he's made 1 kick 40+ yards. I shit you not. UF does not have a college level kicker. I think both the guys are walk ons, maybe not on schollie. Hell, to start the game, UF stopped FSU then drove the field and the kicker missed a 47 yarder to start the game. FSU then drove the field and their kicker hit a 49 yarder right down the middle with about 15 yards to spare. How a major program like Florida does not have an average FG kicker is beyond me.

In the long run, you get more points from kicking a 47 yard FG than going for it on 4th and 8 from the 30 yard line.

If you can't stop FSU's offense, you lose the game regardless. So the decision is based on your defense being able to hold them the rest of the way. Thus, you mathematically have a much better chance of coming back and tying the game if you kick and make it 27-3 (a 3 score game), rather than going for it on 4th and 8, where you have a very low chance of converting, and even if you do convert, there's a good chance you don't get the TD anyway (and waste more time in the process).

[yisman]

Velez hasn't been bad since they made the change. 6/8, including 1/2 from 40+