The 1984 Orange Bowl, Game Theory, & Tom Osborne's "Folly"

[The Banner Year]

The problem with these threads is trying to argue math as a valid strategy with people who don't understand math well is like trying to use science to prove evolution to someone from Alabama. OP is absolutely correct.

[Tuco Ramirez]

Oh, and the correct answer is (D) Don't let Miami score 31 points.

Absolutely this. Some folks think the storyline of the game was that the option was outdated. Complete bull$#@!. The defense was.

[TXSooner518]

In the 15-point scenario, I'd go with the early 2-point conversion. That way you'd at least know what you need to win. Osbourne wasn't in this nice 15-point scenario, though. He only needed 14 points to tie, and I probably wouldn't even make the win vs tie decision until the final TD (bad juju).

Try this one: Chris Petersen kicked an XP to tie in the 4Q against OU with 0:07 on the clock. Then, in the OT2 he went for the 2 points. But shouldn't he have just gone for the win with 7 seconds left?

Oh, and the correct answer is (D) Don't let Miami score 31 points.

Peterson had also just watched Adrian Peterson rip a 25 yard TD on the first snap of OT and may have decided that his best chance of winning the game, given that additional info, was gambling on a 2pc.

[elfenix]

it's amazing how people in charge of scoring decisions really don't understand how to maximize scoring opportunities. no one ever got fired for going with conventional wisdom, as wrong as that may be, though.

[Tuco Ramirez]

The problem with these threads is trying to argue math as a valid strategy with people who don't understand math well is like trying to use science to prove evolution to someone from Alabama. OP is absolutely correct.

Believe it or not, I know a little about math.

[FCHorn]

Um, yeah, the Nebraska strategy was to usually play a bad OOC schedule with maybe 1 good but not too good team, mostly home games, win an overrated conference, and sucker voters by running up the score on so-so to bad schools. The textbook example of why we've needed a playoff.

Nebraska blew out Penn st and ucla that year in OOC play...

Nebraska was avg 52 points a game and I always thought that Osbourne thought that Nebraska would simply outscore Miami in the 2nd half running away...Nebraska $#@!ing bulldozed teams that year(44-6 over Penn st avenging last years close loss to PSU)....

Technically, you should go for 2 scoring that first td...but I believe Tom thought he would get at least 2 more chances to score(td and FG giving him a 37-34 win)...

Remember, and I don't know if it has been brought up yet, but Irving fryar missed sure td pass down the sideline for a quick score(can't remember if that was the 4Q).....Nebraska just didn't convert on their opportunities and I believe didn't think Miami could hold them to 3 tds below their average...

That game changed the defensive side of the CFB game IMO...Jimmy Johnson would further refine it...ie db to lb, lb to de etc....$#@!ing defensive speed which brought down switzer in 3 consecutive years at the hands of Miami...

[Beau Vine]

Peterson had also just watched Adrian Peterson rip a 25 yard TD on the first snap of OT and may have decided that his best chance of winning the game, given that additional info, was gambling on a 2pc.

Yeah, IIRC, Peterson said after the game that he thought his D was just getting too worn down to stop OU.

[closetojumping]

Believe it or not, I know a little about math.

I don't think you've got a post on this thread that reflects that you don't. I think there are a couple of rubs in the debate here that cannot be solved with math/statistical probabilities.

The first issue I see is that there is no accounting for chaos or randomness in actual game theory. At least, not in a common case like this. We don't know whether Osborne really felt like he was going to play for the win at the :48 second mark, the 7 minute mark, or before kickoff. We don't know if a crazy player or assistant or thought affected his mindset at some point, or what he viewed as "enough time" or if he thought that Miami might score again. Those concerns and others like them have to be introduced by the discussion participants and finding many who will agree on the same components is rare. So math simply isn't a real world answer, even though everyone in the discussion tends to agree that, on paper, it should be.

The second issue is that once the event is taken out of reality and put into the classroom, theories compete for how decisions in the vacuum would be made. In a sense, everyone engaged in the discussion has a level of conviction based on what they see as a mathematically superior point of view, but a viable minority of the discussion participants have a case to be made about how the timeline involved in the decision tree is different than the way the majority views it. As such, they see a completely different set of necessary decisions that make perfect sense. This doesn't happen when an outcome is reviewed based simply on performance. If the discussion were about a receiver making a catch instead of dropping it, or the QB not hurrying a throw, etc., there's a higher likelihood of consensus or overwhelming majority in what the right action would have been (the receiver should have caught the pass, etc.).It's simply a different kind of discussion where both sides can be "correct" and unwilling to alter how they see it.

[closetojumping]

Nebraska blew out Penn st and ucla that year in OOC play...

Nebraska was avg 52 points a game and I always thought that Osbourne thought that Nebraska would simply outscore Miami in the 2nd half running away...Nebraska $#@!ing bulldozed teams that year(44-6 over Penn st avenging last years close loss to PSU)....

Technically, you should go for 2 scoring that first td...but I believe Tom thought he would get at least 2 more chances to score(td and FG giving him a 37-34 win)...

Remember, and I don't know if it has been brought up yet, but Irving fryar missed sure td pass down the sideline for a quick score(can't remember if that was the 4Q).....Nebraska just didn't convert on their opportunities and I believe didn't think Miami could hold them to 3 tds below their average...

That game changed the defensive side of the CFB game IMO...Jimmy Johnson would further refine it...ie db to lb, lb to de etc....$#@!ing defensive speed which brought down switzer in 3 consecutive years at the hands of Miami...

Regarding Fryar, I mentioned it in the original post. He had a chance to score earlier on the drive, but it was still the same drive. Some time would have undoubtedly been saved, but not more than roughly 60-90 seconds. I'd have to watch it again.

[EsTyne]

I honestly think in spite of the question posed earlier that week and the answer TO gave, he didn't decide until Jeff Kinney scored to go down 1. The 'go for the win' stuff before the game was probably just something for the team to feed on in the preparation leading up to the game. If it was a predetermined risk, then there isn't much too argue with in the OP's case for going for it on the first TD and going from there. This is just one opinion of someone born 5 years after the fact, but I think he wanted the safety net of a tie being decided on an XP, then in the heat of the moment, looked around the sideline, talked to one of the best offenses to ever play, and said "$#@! it. let's go for it. I'm trusting you guys".

Or at least that's how it plays out in my head on espn classic.

[Michael Knight]

100% agree, and coaches should mathematically always go for 2 when they are down 14 late and score the first TD, assuming their 2PC conversion rate is going to be about average, even if we assume the XP is a 100% certainty, which it is not.

Assuming the team will kick both XPs 100% of the time and is 50/50 to win in OT, obviously the XP-XP strategy will result in winning 50% of the time (actually going to be less since XPs are not 100%)

If they are 40% (the average) to convert a 2PC, then they will win the game about 52% of the time when they go for 2 on the first TD. 40% of the time, they hit the first 2pc, then kick the XP on TD2 and win in regulation. roughly 36% of the time they will miss both 2pcs and lose in regulation. So the other 24% of the time they miss the first but hit the 2nd, and go to OT, and they win half of those.

The reason coaches don't do it though is that 36% of the time they lose in regulation despite scoring two touchdowns. Fans and media are too stupid and results-oriented to understand that the coach gave them a better chance to win by playing it that way, and so coaches would get eviscerated for "stupidly costing their team a chance to win".

They got overtime now

[The Banner Year]

Absolutely this. Some folks think the storyline of the game was that the option was outdated. Complete bull$#@!. The defense was.

You've been arguing that with 7 minutes left you may get more than 2 possessions(I think) in which case you are correct. I know I said in my post that the op was correct, and I still like his analysis, but my comment was more directed at the people who think you wait for the 2nd touchdown in a 15 point game to go for 2 with minimal time left.

[linux]

Assuming the team will kick both XPs 100% of the time and is 50/50 to win in OT, obviously the XP-XP strategy will result in winning 50% of the time (actually going to be less since XPs are not 100%)

If they are 40% (the average) to convert a 2PC, then they will win the game about 52% of the time when they go for 2 on the first TD. 40% of the time, they hit the first 2pc, then kick the XP on TD2 and win in regulation. roughly 36% of the time they will miss both 2pcs and lose in regulation. So the other 24% of the time they miss the first but hit the 2nd, and go to OT, and they win half of those.

The math is off, assuming a PAT is 1 and 2PC is .4 and assuming that everything else is equal (its not but let it be) then by:

1)Going for two PATS there is a 1 chance of drawing, 0 chance of wining and 0 chance of losing.

2)Going for 2PC and PAT gives you a .4 chance of wining a .6 chance of losing

3)Going for 2PC and 2PC gives you a .2 chance of wining (.4*.4) and .36 (.6*.6) chance of losing and a .44 chance of drawing (subtracting from 1)

4)What Osborne did PAT and 2PC is the same as above .4 chance of wining and .6 chance of losing.

If you preset your strategy from the very begining the highest odds of wining are (assuming 50-50 OT) is scenario 1, scenario 2 is for idiots if the first 2PC failed, and scenario 3 is idiotic if the first 2PC succeeds. In modern CFB statistically you go for the tie always (unless momentum, injury etc)

Now going back to 1983, since there is no OT and the goal is clearly to win going for 2 early or late is the same really and both optimal for wining. The difference is of course that with the 2 2PC strategy there is a .36 percent chance of losing vs a .60 percent chance of losing with the Osborne approach. But of course with 2 PATS there is a 0 chance of losing as well.

[TXSooner518]

They got overtime now

yeah, that's why i mention it in my post. results are:

40% win in regulation
12% win in overtime
12% lose in overtime
36% lose in regulation


linux, there are really 3 scenarios, as you point out it is retarded to miss the first 2PC then kick the XP, so the choices are:

1) kick them both. 0% win, 100% tie, 0% lose
2) go for 2 on the first one. If you miss, go for 2 again. If you make, kick 2nd XP. 40% win, 24% tie, 36% lose.

3) Osborne's way: 40% win, 60% lose.

So by going for 2 on the first TD vs kicking htem both, you are trading 76% of your tie for 40% win, 36% lose. A better result mathematically if we treat a tie as 0.5 wins, and an absolute no-brainer if you are placing a greater value on the outright win, as Tom did. He would have had the exact same win%, but would lose 36% instead of 60%.

[Blank]

Nebraska blew out Penn st and ucla that year in OOC play...

Nebraska was avg 52 points a game and I always thought that Osbourne thought that Nebraska would simply outscore Miami in the 2nd half running away...Nebraska $#@!ing bulldozed teams that year(44-6 over Penn st avenging last years close loss to PSU)....

So? That was a Penn State team that finished 8-4-1, including a 14-3 loss at home to Cincinnati the week after Nebraska, a bad Cincy team that would finish 4-6-1.

Similarly, UCLA was a mediocre 7-4-1, and while blown out, it was in Lincoln and the 3rd game of the year. Impressive names to beat, but not impressive teams. But Nebraska (and all the other poseurs) would say "Look at the big names we beat" and puff for beauty contest votes. What a travesty college football has been without a playoff.

[runthebone]

I thought his folly was keeping Lawrence Phillips on the team.

[alphahydro]

2) go for 2 on the first one. If you miss, go for 2 again. If you make, kick 2nd XP. 40% win, 24% tie, 36% lose.

3) Osborne's way: 40% win, 60% lose.

I didn't read all the posts, but I'm going to be an ass and jump in anyway.

Obviously, Osborne didn't place much value on the tie.

If you thought a tie was as bad as a loss, wouldn't you just see:

2) yada yada 40% win, 60% everything else.
3) yada yada 40% win, 60% everything else.

Sounds dumb, but if you thought that a tie was unacceptable, wouldn't you care very little about the difference between 2 and 3?

If all you care about is the win, you have stratererize knowing that you have to make your first 2pt conversion, whether it follows the last or second to last touchdown, right? You might even prefer to kick the extra point first, to take pressure off your kicker.

It's hard to say how Osborne valued a tie vs. a close loss. If he valued a tie more at all, #2 seems preferable, but there are of course a lot more factors that could make #3 preferable, if he didn't prefer a tie over a close loss by all that much.

I suck at math, so i probably $#@!ed this up, but that's my $.02.

[linux]

yeah, that's why i mention it in my post. results are:

40% win in regulation
12% win in overtime
12% lose in overtime
36% lose in regulation

No its 20% to win in regulation, remember that he has to hit BOTH 2PC to win in regulation (.4*.4). Make only one to tie the game and miss both to lose it (.6*.6).

2) go for 2 on the first one. If you miss, go for 2 again. If you make, kick 2nd XP. 40% win, 24% tie, 36% lose.

This is really scenario 3, Going for 2PC first and failing is .6 likely meaning that the next play is still scenario 3, going for 2 again just for a chance to tie the game.


It all works out like this .2 chance of wining in regulation, drawing .44 and losing .36, you only do this to placate your fanbase that you are interested in wining but still lost over avoding losing. In 1983 of course, today the only viable use is the last second 2PC only because of momentum and injuries

[linux]

Lets look at it more intuitively, if you are gambling and get a 1:1 risk:payoff you clearly keep rolling the craps dice, the same if you get a 2 dollars per 50% chance keep rolling the dice its the same, however getting 2 dollars at a 40% clip immediately makes you a loser for playing.

But you say: what if I am talking long run vs just two quick gambles? irrelevant there is nothing that differentiates a long game to a short game, just that the long game will have statistically stable results.

[The Banner Year]

No its 20% to win in regulation, remember that he has to hit BOTH 2PC to win in regulation (.4*.4). Make only one to tie the game and miss both to lose it (.6*.6).



This is really scenario 3, Going for 2PC first and failing is .6 likely meaning that the next play is still scenario 3, going for 2 again just for a chance to tie the game.


It all works out like this .2 chance of wining in regulation, drawing .44 and losing .36, you only do this to placate your fanbase that you are interested in wining but still lost over avoding losing. In 1983 of course, today the only viable use is the last second 2PC only because of momentum and injuries

.4*.4=.16.
You also would never go for 2 twice if you made the first one.

[linux]

But that makes it scenario 2 though I probably should have edited my post better, and yeah you are right about the math.

Again only min max the pass line in craps, you lose, but you lose slowly.

[runthebone]

.4*.4=.16.
You also would never go for 2 twice if you made the first one.

Les Miles would.

[Huckleberry]

Les Miles would.

Yep, Les Miles with his team favored by 1.5 points is the only plausible scenario I can think of where that would happen.

[po elvis]

A tie via going for two twice, missing the first and making the second is greater than the tie by kicking both extra points.

You get credit from people for going for the win but still pulling out the tie versus just playing for the tie.

[linux]

A tie via going for two twice, missing the first and making the second is greater than the tie by kicking both extra points.

You get credit from people for going for the win but still pulling out the tie versus just playing for the tie.

Yes, but only in the old days, playing it safe for the sure chance of a tie vs taking a .36 risk of losing, for a very small chance of wining.

Unless 2PC start becoming more likely than half the odds of making a PAT then their only value in football is in the last-play-of-the-game scenarios.

[linux]

Oh its also relevant for levelling the score, if down by 5 after a touchdown to get within 3 late.

[TXSooner518]

Linux you are wrong. Its 40% chance of winning. After first 2pc is successful, it is 31-25 and NU kicks the XP after the second TD. So you win more often than losing.

[warmfront]

So? That was a Penn State team that finished 8-4-1, including a 14-3 loss at home to Cincinnati the week after Nebraska, a bad Cincy team that would finish 4-6-1.

Similarly, UCLA was a mediocre 7-4-1, and while blown out, it was in Lincoln and the 3rd game of the year. Impressive names to beat, but not impressive teams. But Nebraska (and all the other poseurs) would say "Look at the big names we beat" and puff for beauty contest votes. What a travesty college football has been without a playoff.

Nebraska was absolutely stacked, so was Texas. Look how many guys off those rosters were drafted. You could have fielded a solid NFL team off of those 2 rosters combined.

[AUinAustin]

And on a side note - that game ticked me off more than almost any other. Auburn's only loss that year was to Texas and we played at least 7 top ten teams and only lost to you. Nebraska at 1 and Texas at 2 both lose and not only did we not move to number 1 - we didn;t even move to 2. I went to bed in New Orleans convinced we has a championship. Also I was at the Texas Auburn game that year and it was the hottest game I have ever attended. It was way over 100 in the stands at noon and probably close to 120 on the field

[linux]

Linux you are wrong. Its 40% chance of winning. After first 2pc is successful, it is 31-25 and NU kicks the XP after the second TD. So you win more often than losing.

But you are assuming A single kick is successful whether it be the first or last there is no guarantee of that, both can fail and skew the odds. The only way its 40% or more is if I give you a re-roll, or I fix the dice so you don't fail twice.

When you play the 2pt conversion game you are always risking getting behind the eight ball, meaning always working to catch up and there is also the chance for going 0 fer.

Again lets view this intuitively, if I gave you a 3 point play at 33.32% probability would you take it over a perfectly sure PAT? what if you were given 33.34% probability? trust me the math works out, for two, three, a million attempts. Whether you are ahead or you are behind, at 33.32% you are taking the sucker bet and at 33.34% you are playing with house money. That is basketball 101. short FG's are higher percentage shots than 3's ergo your long term strategy is to be good at them, 3's will only win you small sample of games with statistical anomalies, its not a good strategy in the long term where these anomalies disappear.

Of course football is not a dice game, and yes you sometimes need to make on the fly decisions using a laminated scoring card, but a strategy to go for 2 repeatedly will only end in failure unless you can do it better than 50%, so either you get a better kicker if yours sucks or you look for another job.

[TXSooner518]

Never said always go for 2. Said go for 2 down 14 late. And my %ages are accurate. The 40% accounts for the 0-fer. You g 0-for-2 36% of the time and lose in regulation. You make the first one 40% of the time. You win that always. You miss the first and make the second and force OT or tie if we are talking 1983 the other 24%. Indisputable given our assumptions.

[FCHorn]

Had Nebraska trailed at all during the season? I just remember Miami being up 17-0 and Nebraska not knowing WTF was happening...$#@!, that announcers voice is still in my head...Joe criqui or something like that...with ara parseghian the color guy....

[Echo Base]

Remember that he has to hit BOTH 2PC to win in regulation

Linux your maffs is off. You're getting lost inside your own numbers. He only has to hit ONE 2 pt and ONE 1 pt to win. [8+7=15, or 7+8 = 15]

If you go for two on the second score, you have zero room for error. You miss, you lose. [7+6=13]

If you miss the 2 pt on the first TD, you can still leave yourself a window to tie it up if you score a second touchdown. [6+8=14]

BTW, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 2010 OU vs Mizzou game. Stoops faced the 15 pt delimma, down 21-36 late in the 4th. Okies scored, and Bob went for 2. The play failed and Stoops was crucified by the fanbase after the loss. This was from the sbn Oklahoma blog:

I am stunned that Stoops' decision on that failed two point conversion is not a bigger story. I suppose it's because of the fact that it proved to be irrelevant to the final outcome, but it was one of the dumbest decisions he's ever made as the coach at OU. His explanation after the game that he went for it so they would know what they had to do on the ensuing kickoff is quite possibly the most stupid thing I've ever heard. I'm sure this will illicit the typical "So you think you're smarter than the coach" type comments, but even the casual football fan is smart enough to realize you kick the PAT there and give yourself a chance to be within one score kicking the onsides.

[linux]

Never said always go for 2. Said go for 2 down 14 late.

Its the same thing man, once you eliminate anomalies, or momentum, fatigue, or injuries etc, or the need for a laminated score card, and assuming OT is a coin flip.

It does not matter if you start from the beginning of the game or you just scored a touchdown with one second left and are down 1 point, if you can't score a 2PTC for more than a 50% clip you go for a PAT.

Lets do another thought experiment this time with 2pt conversion at exactly 50%

25% chance of wining
11
50% chance of OT
10
01
25% chance of losing
00


If you do it down say 28 (it does not work for 21 because of the laminated score card deal).

31,25% chance of wining
1111
1110
1101
1011
0111

37.5% chance of OT
1100
0011
1010
0101
1001
0110

31.25% chance of losing.
0000
0001
0010
0100
1000

See a pattern? now imagine it with lower odds. Long game and short game is the exact same really, just makes OT less likely but its irrelevant since its a coin flip as well.

A 2pt conversion is indistinguishable statistically from a perfect PAT, if you can do it better than 50% you are playing with house money since PAT odds can never go over 100%, your opponent would be scoring a single extra point while you are scoring say 1.02 points.

[linux]

Linux your maffs is off. You're getting lost inside your own numbers. He only has to hit ONE 2 pt and ONE 1 pt to win. [8+7=15, or 7+8 = 15]

If you go for two on the second score, you have zero room for error. You miss, you lose. [7+6=13]

If you miss the 2 pt on the first TD, you can still leave yourself a window to tie it up if you score a second touchdown. [6+8=14]

BTW, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 2010 OU vs Mizzou game. Stoops faced the 15 pt delimma, down 21-36 late in the 4th. Okies scored, and Bob went for 2. The play failed and Stoops was crucified by the fanbase after the loss. This was from the sbn Oklahoma blog:

I was wrong verbally but the numbers still measure. The 2 + 1 is scenario 2 meaning the same 40% as taking scenario 4 1+2 (Osborne).

The point is its never more than 40% unless you get a re-roll or fix the dice. Believing you can have a strategy based on past events, in a near perfect stochastic environment, is why people lose a lot at the craps table, in the long run.

[TXSooner518]

Your math is STILL wrong. If a cfb team in 2012 makes a 2pc 50% of the time and they are down 14 w 5 minutes to go. Lets assume the team scores two TDs and make the XP 100. Obviously a strategy of kicking both XPs forces OT 100% of the time.

If instead they go for two after the first td, they will make it 50% of the time, yes? They will now be down 6 and will always win in regulation. So 50% of the time they win in regulation.

Of the 50% of the time the first attempt fails, the second attempt will succeed 50% of the time, yes? .5*.5=.25 so 25% of the time we go to overtime. The other 25% of the time, we lose in regulation after missing both conversions. So if we make the 2 at a 50% rate and win in OT at a 50% rate, we win 62.5% of the time we score two tds after trailing by 14 when we go for 2 after the first score. We win 50% of the time we kick both. It is clear basic math.

And I mentioned the 2010 OU Mizzou game in a note to ctj. I argued with loads of idiotic OU fans over that one. Stoops did it right.

[linux]

weird double post

[linux]

Of the 50% of the time the first attempt fails, the second attempt will succeed 50% of the time, yes? .5*.5=.25 so 25% of the time we go to overtime. The other 25% of the time, we lose in regulation after missing both conversions. So if we make the 2 at a 50% rate and win in OT at a 50% rate, we win 62.5% of the time we score two tds after trailing by 14 when we go for 2 after the first score. We win 50% of the time we kick both. It is clear basic math.

For starters you are not adding right

Its .25 (win in regulation) +.5*.5 = .25 (win in OT) + .5*.5 = .25 (loss in OT) + .25 (Loss in regulation) = 1

So its exactly win in regulation + win in OT equals exactly 50%

Like I said at 50% its indistinguishable win/loss when compared to PAT, now give it significantly lower odds like say 40%

[Wulaw Horn]

Holy $#@! linux- the math is there and a sooner is showing you your own ass.

Going for 2 when you score down 14 to go down 8 is always the right answer, if you want to win in regulation. Make it and you have an almost guaranteed win if you score another TD (99% chance of hitting the xp). Miss and you still have a 40% chance at a tie. What is wrong with you.

And on another note- I always thought CTJ was pushing 40, not 34....

[cale]

I can tell you first hand, this stuff does not always work in real football once the game starts. I could tell you stories forever. All scenarios are not by any means discussed here. Good in theory and bad in actuality.

[TXSooner518]

Why in the blue $#@! do you think we only win 25% in reg??????????? We win the $#@!ing ggame in regulation with a 2pc and an XP. (.5 * 1.0 =0.50) we win EVERY TIME we make the first 2pc which is 50 fkn %

[ndawg]

Down 14, and you just put six points up. Your 2pc stands a 50% chance at success....

... stop right there. You cannot as the coach have any idea what your odds are. Even after 12 games you don't have enough meaningful data to derive statistics to go off of. On top of that, you're dealing with 20 year old kids who are well aware of the fact that the game is on the line.

All bets are off, as they say.

[Wulaw Horn]

Why in the blue $#@! do you think we only win 25% in reg??????????? We win the $#@!ing ggame in regulation with a 2pc and an XP. (.5 * 1.0 =0.50) we win EVERY TIME we make the first 2pc which is 50 fkn %

This right $#@!ing here. Even if you want to say it's not 50% and 40% that they hit the 2, it's still like 39% that they win hitting the 2 first. Then you have another 40 percent chance to tie (hitting the 2 after going for it the 2nd time if you miss the first go round) and if you tie then you have a 50/50 chance of winning in OT- making it 60 $#@!ing percent likely that you win the game going for 2 first). Stop being a incredibly stupid. Stop letting the sooner school you. For someone who prides himself as smarter than everyone else you are bringing the stupid here.

[FCHorn]

This right $#@!ing here. Even if you want to say it's not 50% and 40% that they hit the 2, it's still like 39% that they win hitting the 2 first. Then you have another 40 percent chance to tie (hitting the 2 after going for it the 2nd time if you miss the first go round) and if you tie then you have a 50/50 chance of winning in OT- making it 60 $#@!ing percent likely that you win the game going for 2 first). Stop being a incredibly stupid. Stop letting the sooner school you. For someone who prides himself as smarter than everyone else you are bringing the stupid here.

This.....linux priding himself being smarter doesn't make it so...

[ndawg]

I feel like we need to start discussing the odds of landing both of two recruits that the Big Cigar told us were 65% Texas leans.

[Wulaw Horn]

This.....linux priding himself being smarter doesn't make it so...

Yeah, but it's almost as if he's trying to be an idiot on this thread. I mean, you'd think nobody could be that ridiculous, but he has 4 or 5 moronic posts in a row. I get Ndawgs point- or the argument for conventional wisodm, I don't agree, but I get it. Linux is arguing math, and he's getting the math ridiculously, moronically wrong.

[ndawg]

Yeah, but it's almost as if he's trying to be an idiot on this thread. I mean, you'd think nobody could be that ridiculous, but he has 4 or 5 moronic posts in a row. I get Ndawgs point- or the argument for conventional wisodm, I don't agree, but I get it. Linux is arguing math, and he's getting the math ridiculously, moronically wrong.

My argument isn't conventional wisdom. It is conventional wisdom plus the fact that the whole "50% chance at converting" is a lie. Too much missing information.

[Beau Vine]

Linux is trolling, right?

[FCHorn]

Really in the end theres no math to it.,,just gut feeling and feeling of the game at that moment...

I don't really fault Tom for going for 2 on the 2nd td(thought he should have done it on the first td) but I think his gut feeling was that Nebraska was destined to win that game in any scenario with the dream season they had been living...

Anyhow, he did go for 2 which was gutsy per se because Nebraska might have won a share of the title with auburn or miami with a tie and I think Ol Tom wanted a clear cut $#@!ing victory...nothing wrong with that...

[linux]

Why in the blue $#@! do you think we only win 25% in reg??????????? We win the $#@!ing ggame in regulation with a 2pc and an XP. (.5 * 1.0 =0.50) we win EVERY TIME we make the first 2pc which is 50 fkn %

Because we are going down scenario 3???

Look do you want me to build the whole thing?

Lets assume 50% again. In select your own adventure style

First score, first digit
second score, second digit
Overtime third digit.

He scores he won the game since PAT is automatic

1x
OR
He misses he has to try again (this is what we have been debating scenario 3)
01x
00

This leads us to

He misses, game over
00
OR
He scores and ties the game
01x

This leads us to overtime
They win
011
OR
They Lose
010

As you can see at every turn you are given a coin flip, you assume that you can add up the probabilities and get 65%? but if they are added atomically and correctly they will never ever be more or less than 50%. The trick is to measure absolutely all the possibilities both success and failure and in between, and if they add up to more than 1 you just broke the entire universe, or you just simply made a mistake.