I respectfully disagree. By kicking the FG early, you at least give your team a chance to recover the onsides kick which gives them a chance, albeit a small one, of winning the game. By driving down the field and trying to score a TD on what ends up to be the final play of the game, gives you NO CHANCE of winning the game.
The best chance of winning is scoring a TD from the 12 on first or second down, not kicking a FG first. Once it got past 2nd down, I agree the game was over, but that doesn't mean your strategy is better.
Your strategy reminds me of the guy at the blackjack table who always stands on 15 or 16, because he wants to not lose longer.
I respectfully disagree. By kicking the FG early, you at least give your team a chance to recover the onsides kick which gives them a chance, albeit a small one, of winning the game. By driving down the field and trying to score a TD on what ends up to be the final play of the game, gives you NO CHANCE of winning the game.
The best chance of winning is scoring a TD from the 12 on first or second down, not kicking a FG first. Once it got past 2nd down, I agree the game was over, but that doesn't mean your strategy is better.
Your strategy reminds me of the guy at the blackjack table who always stands on 15 or 16, because he wants to not lose longer.
The best chance of winning is scoring a TD from the 12 on first or second down, not kicking a FG first. Once it got past 2nd down, I agree the game was over, but that doesn't mean your strategy is better.
Your strategy reminds me of the guy at the blackjack table who always stands on 15 or 16, because he wants to not lose longer.
Again, I respectfully disagree with you especially if you look at last night's situation. The Bears were not moving the ball downfield quickly. They were at the Detroit 30 yard line with about 48 seconds left. The next 5 plays they didn't shoot for the end zone one time. Instead they dumped short pass after short pass to grind down the field giving themselves NO CHANCE of wining the game. Now if they threw one or two passes quickly to the end zone at that point, I might agree with you, however, it was impossible for them to win without getting the ball back a 2nd time. Your blackjack analogy makes no sense. It's more like I was dealt a 15 or 16 and the dealer was playing with his cards face up and I know he has 20. It is unlikely I will win either way, but I maximize my chances of winning by hitting on my 15 or 16 in that situation just like the Bears would've maximized their chances last night by kicking the quick FG and insuring a chance at getting the ball back a second time on an onsides kick. They had no chance of winning by doing what they did.
The best chance of winning is scoring a TD from the 12 on first or second down, not kicking a FG first. Once it got past 2nd down, I agree the game was over, but that doesn't mean your strategy is better.
Your strategy reminds me of the guy at the blackjack table who always stands on 15 or 16, because he wants to not lose longer.
Again, I respectfully disagree with you especially if you look at last night's situation. The Bears were not moving the ball downfield quickly. They were at the Detroit 30 yard line with about 48 seconds left. The next 5 plays they didn't shoot for the end zone one time. Instead they dumped short pass after short pass to grind down the field giving themselves NO CHANCE of wining the game. Now if they threw one or two passes quickly to the end zone at that point, I might agree with you, however, it was impossible for them to win without getting the ball back a 2nd time. Your blackjack analogy makes no sense. It's more like I was dealt a 15 or 16 and the dealer was playing with his cards face up and I know he has 20. It is unlikely I will win either way, but I maximize my chances of winning by hitting on my 15 or 16 in that situation just like the Bears would've maximized their chances last night by kicking the quick FG and insuring a chance at getting the ball back a second time on an onsides kick. They had no chance of winning by doing what they did.
Good points bro. Here is one I ALWAYS tell my friends and I think I would be the first person to ever do it!!!! I can't believe no one has done it before and I have thought of coaching this way for years upon years!!!!!
Okay here is the scenario.....
Game could be defensive but works better in an offensive situation. Game has been tied or going back and forth. You are playing defense and the game is either tied or you are up by 2 points. If the opposing team now has the ball inside my 15 with less then two minutes to go and i cannot stop the clock or have 1 or 2 timeouts let them score.
I have all my defensive player stand up and let them walk into the endzone, thus leaving me time to come back and either win or tie the game. I have a profound feeling that it is better this way (especially if you are tied) then letting them drain the whole clock and kick an easy 30 yard or less chip shot field goal.
Now all my friends say that a coach wouldn't do that because you disrespect the d. I say, Sorry d, either you fucking suck and keep getting scored on or again, sorry guys but this gives our o a chance to get the ball back and tie the game.
I cannot believe this has never been done before and would use this theory in a heart beat!!! Am I brilliant for using this strategy or some dumbass that is missing something here?
Again, thats you an example that most of you can relate to and seems like the obvious. Bills playing New Eng and going in for the score with hardly anytime left. I was YELLLING at the TV and to my friends "LET THEM SCORE!!!!!!" Two minutes left and that bonehead on the D-line takes a stupid penalty. Bills get it 1st and goal inside the 10. New Eng has 0 timeouts. Why the fuck would you not let the bills walk into the endzone and leave yourself 1:50 to score and tie the game. Mister Mastermind (b bilichek) lets them drain the clock then kick a 17 yarder to win the game.
I think I'm brillant and NOT missing something here!
Good points bro. Here is one I ALWAYS tell my friends and I think I would be the first person to ever do it!!!! I can't believe no one has done it before and I have thought of coaching this way for years upon years!!!!!
Okay here is the scenario.....
Game could be defensive but works better in an offensive situation. Game has been tied or going back and forth. You are playing defense and the game is either tied or you are up by 2 points. If the opposing team now has the ball inside my 15 with less then two minutes to go and i cannot stop the clock or have 1 or 2 timeouts let them score.
I have all my defensive player stand up and let them walk into the endzone, thus leaving me time to come back and either win or tie the game. I have a profound feeling that it is better this way (especially if you are tied) then letting them drain the whole clock and kick an easy 30 yard or less chip shot field goal.
Now all my friends say that a coach wouldn't do that because you disrespect the d. I say, Sorry d, either you fucking suck and keep getting scored on or again, sorry guys but this gives our o a chance to get the ball back and tie the game.
I cannot believe this has never been done before and would use this theory in a heart beat!!! Am I brilliant for using this strategy or some dumbass that is missing something here?
Again, thats you an example that most of you can relate to and seems like the obvious. Bills playing New Eng and going in for the score with hardly anytime left. I was YELLLING at the TV and to my friends "LET THEM SCORE!!!!!!" Two minutes left and that bonehead on the D-line takes a stupid penalty. Bills get it 1st and goal inside the 10. New Eng has 0 timeouts. Why the fuck would you not let the bills walk into the endzone and leave yourself 1:50 to score and tie the game. Mister Mastermind (b bilichek) lets them drain the clock then kick a 17 yarder to win the game.
I think I'm brillant and NOT missing something here!
Again, I respectfully disagree with you especially if you look at last night's situation. The Bears were not moving the ball downfield quickly. They were at the Detroit 30 yard line with about 48 seconds left. The next 5 plays they didn't shoot for the end zone one time. Instead they dumped short pass after short pass to grind down the field giving themselves NO CHANCE of wining the game. Now if they threw one or two passes quickly to the end zone at that point, I might agree with you, however, it was impossible for them to win without getting the ball back a 2nd time. Your blackjack analogy makes no sense. It's more like I was dealt a 15 or 16 and the dealer was playing with his cards face up and I know he has 20. It is unlikely I will win either way, but I maximize my chances of winning by hitting on my 15 or 16 in that situation just like the Bears would've maximized their chances last night by kicking the quick FG and insuring a chance at getting the ball back a second time on an onsides kick. They had no chance of winning by doing what they did.
I agree with what is highlighted above. I was working off the example you gave when the Panthers had the ball at the 12. If you are at the 30, you either kick a FG or pass it into the end zone.
If you are at the 12, you need a TD, so you can have a manageable task after you recover the onside kick.
Again, I respectfully disagree with you especially if you look at last night's situation. The Bears were not moving the ball downfield quickly. They were at the Detroit 30 yard line with about 48 seconds left. The next 5 plays they didn't shoot for the end zone one time. Instead they dumped short pass after short pass to grind down the field giving themselves NO CHANCE of wining the game. Now if they threw one or two passes quickly to the end zone at that point, I might agree with you, however, it was impossible for them to win without getting the ball back a 2nd time. Your blackjack analogy makes no sense. It's more like I was dealt a 15 or 16 and the dealer was playing with his cards face up and I know he has 20. It is unlikely I will win either way, but I maximize my chances of winning by hitting on my 15 or 16 in that situation just like the Bears would've maximized their chances last night by kicking the quick FG and insuring a chance at getting the ball back a second time on an onsides kick. They had no chance of winning by doing what they did.
I agree with what is highlighted above. I was working off the example you gave when the Panthers had the ball at the 12. If you are at the 30, you either kick a FG or pass it into the end zone.
If you are at the 12, you need a TD, so you can have a manageable task after you recover the onside kick.
The refs in this game invoked the rule incorrectly. USC had a sideline penalty at the end of the game, which means the touchdown counts. The rule is if there is unsportsmanlike conduct from a player on the field before the touchdown scores then it is waived off.
I would challenge Mr Thorpe to show me any other college game in history where the score was changed by one man wearing a suit sitting at his desk miles from the game hours after the game...AND...the final score had no affect on the outcome of the game AND no affect on the ranking of the winning team in the polls affecting post-seaason bowl eligibility.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not think or advocate thinking about fixes....I do, however, know a great deal about sports and gambling and, IMHO, this one....and take into account this affected USC BOOSTERS....stinks.
The refs in this game invoked the rule incorrectly. USC had a sideline penalty at the end of the game, which means the touchdown counts. The rule is if there is unsportsmanlike conduct from a player on the field before the touchdown scores then it is waived off.
I would challenge Mr Thorpe to show me any other college game in history where the score was changed by one man wearing a suit sitting at his desk miles from the game hours after the game...AND...the final score had no affect on the outcome of the game AND no affect on the ranking of the winning team in the polls affecting post-seaason bowl eligibility.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not think or advocate thinking about fixes....I do, however, know a great deal about sports and gambling and, IMHO, this one....and take into account this affected USC BOOSTERS....stinks.
Good points bro. Here is one I ALWAYS tell my friends and I think I would be the first person to ever do it!!!! I can't believe no one has done it before and I have thought of coaching this way for years upon years!!!!!
Okay here is the scenario.....
Game could be defensive but works better in an offensive situation. Game has been tied or going back and forth. You are playing defense and the game is either tied or you are up by 2 points. If the opposing team now has the ball inside my 15 with less then two minutes to go and i cannot stop the clock or have 1 or 2 timeouts let them score.
I have all my defensive player stand up and let them walk into the endzone, thus leaving me time to come back and either win or tie the game. I have a profound feeling that it is better this way (especially if you are tied) then letting them drain the whole clock and kick an easy 30 yard or less chip shot field goal.
Now all my friends say that a coach wouldn't do that because you disrespect the d. I say, Sorry d, either you fucking suck and keep getting scored on or again, sorry guys but this gives our o a chance to get the ball back and tie the game.
I cannot believe this has never been done before and would use this theory in a heart beat!!! Am I brilliant for using this strategy or some dumbass that is missing something here?
Again, thats you an example that most of you can relate to and seems like the obvious. Bills playing New Eng and going in for the score with hardly anytime left. I was YELLLING at the TV and to my friends "LET THEM SCORE!!!!!!" Two minutes left and that bonehead on the D-line takes a stupid penalty. Bills get it 1st and goal inside the 10. New Eng has 0 timeouts. Why the fuck would you not let the bills walk into the endzone and leave yourself 1:50 to score and tie the game. Mister Mastermind (b bilichek) lets them drain the clock then kick a 17 yarder to win the game.
I think I'm brillant and NOT missing something here!
Hey Minion!
I definitely agree in certain situations especially a situation where a team is up 1 point and looks like they can drain the clock without giving the ball back. To allow a TD, still leaves your team within 8 points and one score. I think you will get a whole lot of arguments for allowing a team to score a TD late in a tied game. There is still a chance of blocking the kick, a bad snap or the kicker just missing. But I definitely understand your point. However, I am a firm advocate of a team down 1 point late in the game with very little chance of getting the ball back, to allow the opposing team to score a TD to get the ball back down 8 points. I have only seen it done one time.
Good points bro. Here is one I ALWAYS tell my friends and I think I would be the first person to ever do it!!!! I can't believe no one has done it before and I have thought of coaching this way for years upon years!!!!!
Okay here is the scenario.....
Game could be defensive but works better in an offensive situation. Game has been tied or going back and forth. You are playing defense and the game is either tied or you are up by 2 points. If the opposing team now has the ball inside my 15 with less then two minutes to go and i cannot stop the clock or have 1 or 2 timeouts let them score.
I have all my defensive player stand up and let them walk into the endzone, thus leaving me time to come back and either win or tie the game. I have a profound feeling that it is better this way (especially if you are tied) then letting them drain the whole clock and kick an easy 30 yard or less chip shot field goal.
Now all my friends say that a coach wouldn't do that because you disrespect the d. I say, Sorry d, either you fucking suck and keep getting scored on or again, sorry guys but this gives our o a chance to get the ball back and tie the game.
I cannot believe this has never been done before and would use this theory in a heart beat!!! Am I brilliant for using this strategy or some dumbass that is missing something here?
Again, thats you an example that most of you can relate to and seems like the obvious. Bills playing New Eng and going in for the score with hardly anytime left. I was YELLLING at the TV and to my friends "LET THEM SCORE!!!!!!" Two minutes left and that bonehead on the D-line takes a stupid penalty. Bills get it 1st and goal inside the 10. New Eng has 0 timeouts. Why the fuck would you not let the bills walk into the endzone and leave yourself 1:50 to score and tie the game. Mister Mastermind (b bilichek) lets them drain the clock then kick a 17 yarder to win the game.
I think I'm brillant and NOT missing something here!
Hey Minion!
I definitely agree in certain situations especially a situation where a team is up 1 point and looks like they can drain the clock without giving the ball back. To allow a TD, still leaves your team within 8 points and one score. I think you will get a whole lot of arguments for allowing a team to score a TD late in a tied game. There is still a chance of blocking the kick, a bad snap or the kicker just missing. But I definitely understand your point. However, I am a firm advocate of a team down 1 point late in the game with very little chance of getting the ball back, to allow the opposing team to score a TD to get the ball back down 8 points. I have only seen it done one time.
I agree with what is highlighted above. I was working off the example you gave when the Panthers had the ball at the 12. If you are at the 30, you either kick a FG or pass it into the end zone.
If you are at the 12, you need a TD, so you can have a manageable task after you recover the onside kick.
I agree with what is highlighted above. I was working off the example you gave when the Panthers had the ball at the 12. If you are at the 30, you either kick a FG or pass it into the end zone.
If you are at the 12, you need a TD, so you can have a manageable task after you recover the onside kick.
I think it really comes down to percentages. How many times out of ten, on a 30 yarder or less field goal, would a kicker miss, botched snap or block happen? I would guess maybe 1 to 2 times. I like my percentage of letting them score and coming back. At least it gives me a better chance. Plus you have to look at some kickers that have been automatic in there time.
I think it really comes down to percentages. How many times out of ten, on a 30 yarder or less field goal, would a kicker miss, botched snap or block happen? I would guess maybe 1 to 2 times. I like my percentage of letting them score and coming back. At least it gives me a better chance. Plus you have to look at some kickers that have been automatic in there time.
I just had a flashback to this past weekend when they flashed a stat that Neil Rackers hit 65 straight field goals from 40 yards or less and then he shanked one wide left 5 seconds later. LOL
I just had a flashback to this past weekend when they flashed a stat that Neil Rackers hit 65 straight field goals from 40 yards or less and then he shanked one wide left 5 seconds later. LOL
The refs in this game invoked the rule incorrectly. USC had a sideline penalty at the end of the game, which means the touchdown counts. The rule is if there is unsportsmanlike conduct from a player on the field before the touchdown scores then it is waived off.
I would challenge Mr Thorpe to show me any other college game in history where the score was changed by one man wearing a suit sitting at his desk miles from the game hours after the game...AND...the final score had no affect on the outcome of the game AND no affect on the ranking of the winning team in the polls affecting post-seaason bowl eligibility.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not think or advocate thinking about fixes....I do, however, know a great deal about sports and gambling and, IMHO, this one....and take into account this affected USC BOOSTERS....stinks.
I'm not disagreeing with you. If it were Wash St that needed those points to cover, the score probably doesn't change. And I have never seen the score change 2 hours after a game.
The Pac 12 is saying that the ref on the field scored the play a TD (even though he never signalled for a TD), and there was a miscommunication between the ref and the press box regarding the final score.
The refs in this game invoked the rule incorrectly. USC had a sideline penalty at the end of the game, which means the touchdown counts. The rule is if there is unsportsmanlike conduct from a player on the field before the touchdown scores then it is waived off.
I would challenge Mr Thorpe to show me any other college game in history where the score was changed by one man wearing a suit sitting at his desk miles from the game hours after the game...AND...the final score had no affect on the outcome of the game AND no affect on the ranking of the winning team in the polls affecting post-seaason bowl eligibility.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do not think or advocate thinking about fixes....I do, however, know a great deal about sports and gambling and, IMHO, this one....and take into account this affected USC BOOSTERS....stinks.
I'm not disagreeing with you. If it were Wash St that needed those points to cover, the score probably doesn't change. And I have never seen the score change 2 hours after a game.
The Pac 12 is saying that the ref on the field scored the play a TD (even though he never signalled for a TD), and there was a miscommunication between the ref and the press box regarding the final score.
I watched that game and do not recall a TD call....and, as you said, there was a penalty call that was (supposedly) wrong...which then resulted in a change in the score hours later....
Just can't recall any other game where that has happened...ever
...and....find it seriously wrong that the change in score was made by the Pac 12 person and not by the NCAA.....
I watched that game and do not recall a TD call....and, as you said, there was a penalty call that was (supposedly) wrong...which then resulted in a change in the score hours later....
Just can't recall any other game where that has happened...ever
...and....find it seriously wrong that the change in score was made by the Pac 12 person and not by the NCAA.....
It's probably not being stupid nor covering spreads.
These backdoor covers that happen, or how many times you wondered how come a QB that hasn't done a thing whole game just marches down in last minute, generally do happen because with 2 scores up the defending team is content to just not give up big plays. Play loose coverage, get some tackles in the field, waste time off the clock. As for attacking coaches, 2 scores down, they still need to recover an onside kick, might as well get the hard part (scoring a TD) over with and then try to get the FG.
I do agree tho that there is a point in time when it's better to go FG-onside kick-hail mary...something like getting down to 15-20sec
It's probably not being stupid nor covering spreads.
These backdoor covers that happen, or how many times you wondered how come a QB that hasn't done a thing whole game just marches down in last minute, generally do happen because with 2 scores up the defending team is content to just not give up big plays. Play loose coverage, get some tackles in the field, waste time off the clock. As for attacking coaches, 2 scores down, they still need to recover an onside kick, might as well get the hard part (scoring a TD) over with and then try to get the FG.
I do agree tho that there is a point in time when it's better to go FG-onside kick-hail mary...something like getting down to 15-20sec
I watched that game and do not recall a TD call....and, as you said, there was a penalty call that was (supposedly) wrong...which then resulted in a change in the score hours later....
Just can't recall any other game where that has happened...ever
...and....find it seriously wrong that the change in score was made by the Pac 12 person and not by the NCAA.....
I watched that game and do not recall a TD call....and, as you said, there was a penalty call that was (supposedly) wrong...which then resulted in a change in the score hours later....
Just can't recall any other game where that has happened...ever
...and....find it seriously wrong that the change in score was made by the Pac 12 person and not by the NCAA.....
There is only one possible explaination. I'm going to rule out that the coaches really can't be that stupid and give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus the only explaination left is that the losing coaches have all given up on the game and is simply using the remainder of the game to run their two minute offense.
Lovie Smith going on 4 and short in the 1st quarter
There is only one possible explaination. I'm going to rule out that the coaches really can't be that stupid and give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus the only explaination left is that the losing coaches have all given up on the game and is simply using the remainder of the game to run their two minute offense.
Lovie Smith going on 4 and short in the 1st quarter
There is only one possible explaination. I'm going to rule out that the coaches really can't be that stupid and give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus the only explaination left is that the losing coaches have all given up on the game and is simply using the remainder of the game to run their two minute offense.
Lovie Smith going on 4 and short in the 1st quarter
Lovie Smith then challenging that play when it wasn't even close and going 3-17 on his L20 challenges.
There is only one possible explaination. I'm going to rule out that the coaches really can't be that stupid and give them the benefit of the doubt. Thus the only explaination left is that the losing coaches have all given up on the game and is simply using the remainder of the game to run their two minute offense.
Lovie Smith going on 4 and short in the 1st quarter
Lovie Smith then challenging that play when it wasn't even close and going 3-17 on his L20 challenges.
I am talking about the guy in the suit in an office who changed the score........NOT the refs....
One man, no committee.....why was this done on a Saturday night?....It had NO bearing on who won the game....it only had a bearing on bets on the spread.
Can you honestly believe that the issue could not have waited for a full meeting of the Pac 12 executives on Monday or Tuesday with guidance from the NCAA?....
IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON RANKIINGS BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH USC AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WON BY 3 POINTS OR 9 POINTS.....
The only thing that this decision affected due to the quickness of the decision was payouts on USC instead of payouts to Utah.
The confusion in Vegas as to the outcome only added to the "myth of truth" on how this decision was made and by whom.
Trust me, Vegas has seen everything......EXCEPT THIS
I am talking about the guy in the suit in an office who changed the score........NOT the refs....
One man, no committee.....why was this done on a Saturday night?....It had NO bearing on who won the game....it only had a bearing on bets on the spread.
Can you honestly believe that the issue could not have waited for a full meeting of the Pac 12 executives on Monday or Tuesday with guidance from the NCAA?....
IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON RANKIINGS BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH USC AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WON BY 3 POINTS OR 9 POINTS.....
The only thing that this decision affected due to the quickness of the decision was payouts on USC instead of payouts to Utah.
The confusion in Vegas as to the outcome only added to the "myth of truth" on how this decision was made and by whom.
Trust me, Vegas has seen everything......EXCEPT THIS
I am talking about the guy in the suit in an office who changed the score........NOT the refs....
One man, no committee.....why was this done on a Saturday night?....It had NO bearing on who won the game....it only had a bearing on bets on the spread.
Can you honestly believe that the issue could not have waited for a full meeting of the Pac 12 executives on Monday or Tuesday with guidance from the NCAA?....
IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON RANKIINGS BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH USC AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WON BY 3 POINTS OR 9 POINTS.....
The only thing that this decision affected due to the quickness of the decision was payouts on USC instead of payouts to Utah.
The confusion in Vegas as to the outcome only added to the "myth of truth" on how this decision was made and by whom.
Trust me, Vegas has seen everything......EXCEPT THIS
How many Pac 12 executives are there? Maybe they wanted to get the score right before the newspapers were printed? I have more of a problem with not calling the score a TD on the field, than with them changing it 2 hours laters.
Vegas books all have the rule that score changes on the day of the game are honored, but those made the next day are not. So just because we haven't seen this, doesn't mean the rules weren't followed.
What of the head ref called his boss after the game, and said he forgot to signal a TD in the confusion, and that teh final score was a 9 point margin. Should the Pac 12 not act on this immediately?
I had Utah +10 in the game, so the score change did not affect me.
I am talking about the guy in the suit in an office who changed the score........NOT the refs....
One man, no committee.....why was this done on a Saturday night?....It had NO bearing on who won the game....it only had a bearing on bets on the spread.
Can you honestly believe that the issue could not have waited for a full meeting of the Pac 12 executives on Monday or Tuesday with guidance from the NCAA?....
IT HAD ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON RANKIINGS BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH USC AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WON BY 3 POINTS OR 9 POINTS.....
The only thing that this decision affected due to the quickness of the decision was payouts on USC instead of payouts to Utah.
The confusion in Vegas as to the outcome only added to the "myth of truth" on how this decision was made and by whom.
Trust me, Vegas has seen everything......EXCEPT THIS
How many Pac 12 executives are there? Maybe they wanted to get the score right before the newspapers were printed? I have more of a problem with not calling the score a TD on the field, than with them changing it 2 hours laters.
Vegas books all have the rule that score changes on the day of the game are honored, but those made the next day are not. So just because we haven't seen this, doesn't mean the rules weren't followed.
What of the head ref called his boss after the game, and said he forgot to signal a TD in the confusion, and that teh final score was a 9 point margin. Should the Pac 12 not act on this immediately?
I had Utah +10 in the game, so the score change did not affect me.
If u miss the 2 pointer uv pretty much lost the game at that point.
If u kick the XP there is more pressure on the other team because u can still tie the game up.
This is called risk aversion and this is absolutely what we are all talking about here.
If u miss the 2 pointer uv pretty much lost the game at that point.
Yeah, well, if you kick the extra point and go down as time expires and miss the two pointer, you have not pretty much lost the game but you have ABSOLUTELY NOW LOST IT IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE.
RISK AVERSION IS TO NOT WANT TO GO FOR IT EARLY AND MISS IT, OH, WHAT IT WE MISS IT, If you do miss it, you know you still need two scores and plan accordingly but if you make it, one TD will do it.
All this is about risk aversion. It is powerful stuff. Read SCORECARD, excellent book about this.
If u miss the 2 pointer uv pretty much lost the game at that point.
If u kick the XP there is more pressure on the other team because u can still tie the game up.
This is called risk aversion and this is absolutely what we are all talking about here.
If u miss the 2 pointer uv pretty much lost the game at that point.
Yeah, well, if you kick the extra point and go down as time expires and miss the two pointer, you have not pretty much lost the game but you have ABSOLUTELY NOW LOST IT IN THE WORST WAY POSSIBLE.
RISK AVERSION IS TO NOT WANT TO GO FOR IT EARLY AND MISS IT, OH, WHAT IT WE MISS IT, If you do miss it, you know you still need two scores and plan accordingly but if you make it, one TD will do it.
All this is about risk aversion. It is powerful stuff. Read SCORECARD, excellent book about this.
FUNNY i took panthers after looking at Bears SCHEDULE and knowing they were looking ahead to thier OLD biggest rival Packers and the defending Champs and playoff revenge !
LOOK at the teams schedules from NOW on every team in the league will not cover before playing the defending champs !
OR thier biggest div or confernce rival !
AND YET people still walk right into these TRAPS every week !
FUNNY i took panthers after looking at Bears SCHEDULE and knowing they were looking ahead to thier OLD biggest rival Packers and the defending Champs and playoff revenge !
LOOK at the teams schedules from NOW on every team in the league will not cover before playing the defending champs !
OR thier biggest div or confernce rival !
AND YET people still walk right into these TRAPS every week !
How many Pac 12 executives are there? Maybe they wanted to get the score right before the newspapers were printed? I have more of a problem with not calling the score a TD on the field, than with them changing it 2 hours laters.
Vegas books all have the rule that score changes on the day of the game are honored, but those made the next day are not. So just because we haven't seen this, doesn't mean the rules weren't followed.
What of the head ref called his boss after the game, and said he forgot to signal a TD in the confusion, and that teh final score was a 9 point margin. Should the Pac 12 not act on this immediately?
I had Utah +10 in the game, so the score change did not affect me.
Judging by your post, I doubt that you were in Vegas that Saturday....The entire MGM sportsbook empire DID NOT pay out on USC...at anytime. Some locals paid out on both....and some paid Utah then switched to USC.
The rule should be...and is at MGM...that the final score is THE FINAL SCORE; whatever happens after the game is over and the players leave the field, shower, get in their buses and go home has no relevancy whatsoever......IN ALL SPORTS.
The books that paid out on both or switched left themselves open to real problems.....
If I had a choice between theorizing that the head ref called the Pac 12 hqtrs or a highly influential USC booster called the hqtrs.....I'll take the booster
How many Pac 12 executives are there? Maybe they wanted to get the score right before the newspapers were printed? I have more of a problem with not calling the score a TD on the field, than with them changing it 2 hours laters.
Vegas books all have the rule that score changes on the day of the game are honored, but those made the next day are not. So just because we haven't seen this, doesn't mean the rules weren't followed.
What of the head ref called his boss after the game, and said he forgot to signal a TD in the confusion, and that teh final score was a 9 point margin. Should the Pac 12 not act on this immediately?
I had Utah +10 in the game, so the score change did not affect me.
Judging by your post, I doubt that you were in Vegas that Saturday....The entire MGM sportsbook empire DID NOT pay out on USC...at anytime. Some locals paid out on both....and some paid Utah then switched to USC.
The rule should be...and is at MGM...that the final score is THE FINAL SCORE; whatever happens after the game is over and the players leave the field, shower, get in their buses and go home has no relevancy whatsoever......IN ALL SPORTS.
The books that paid out on both or switched left themselves open to real problems.....
If I had a choice between theorizing that the head ref called the Pac 12 hqtrs or a highly influential USC booster called the hqtrs.....I'll take the booster
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.