I didn't watch the game, but my Miami friend was going off on Al Golden for going for it on 4th and goal from the 5 down 11 vs. Cincy.
Sure, winning with two touchdowns is the best scenario. What I said was that overtime was the best reasonable scenario....because the chances were remote that you were going to have enough time to go for it on 4th down, score a touchdown, hold FSU on downs, and get the ball back in time to drive the length of the field to score a 2nd touchdown. So, in reality, if you scored a touchdown, made the 2-point conversion, held FSU and got the ball back again.... you were almost certainly only going to have enough time to get into position for a tying touchdown.
Scoring two touchdown in less than 4 minutes is not a reasonable scenario.
FacepalmWhen you are 11 points behind with 4 minutes to play, the only way you can win in regulation is by scoring 2 touchdowns....so everyone should be in agreement that we are talking about a situation where OT was the best reasonable scenario, because even if you make the first down, then make a touchdown, and then make a 2-point conversion.....3 uncertain variables.....you are still almost certainly going to be in the situation...if you get the ball back....of trying to get into position for a tying field goal to force overtime. You are very unlikely to score two touchdowns in this amount of time.
A field goal from that position was almost like an extra point....a virtual sure thing....which took no time off the clock. That eliminates all those first three variables and gives you more time to try to reach the same goal...forcing an overtime....that you would have ended up trying to accomplish by going for it on 4th down. You needed three things in either option: a FG, a TD & a 2-point conversion. Clawson chose to get the sure thing for one of them without using any more time off the clock. It was obviously the correct thing to do. If he had gone for it on 4th down and not made it, the game would have been over....and even if he made the first down, he was using up precious time and would have still needed the same three scores.
I disagreed with the decision but like I said after Cuse, I'm not going to fret over individual playcalls. I'm way more focused on the macro.
If we had been playing, say, Elon in this situation, I'm pretty sure Clawson would've gone for the first down. But he wasn't. He was facing FSU with a very stout defense who stood a very good chance of stoning us on our plunge for one yard. Our rushing attack is still very unreliable, and Hinton's capability of completing an effective short pass for a yard isn't as good as Wolford's. You take the 3 in that situation every day and hope to come back for the TD hopefully with better fortune.
This point doesn't deserve this degree of discussion. Stop flogging the dead horse.
I saw "The Martian" last night and one of the central themes was "do the math". I agree that "doing the math" is a valuable exercise and applaud Fckvwls effort. However I have some problems with the conclusions and a couple of assumptions.
1. First the conclusion. If we accept that all 15 of your variable assumptions are absolutely correct, then the probability of winning goes from 2% to 4%. You rightly point out that is a doubling of your chances and that sounds impressive. Problem is that that is only a 2% incremental increase in chance of winning. Do you base your decision on doubling only a 2% increased chance of winning? By that logic you should always spend all your money on the lottery because you are increasing your chance of winning by a factor of thousands. However, we all know that you can spend all your money on the lottery and that the incremental increase in your chance of winning is still virtually zero. So you fall back on personal preference to decide how much to spend on the lottery. For me, the breakeven point would be if your analysis showed about a 10% improvement in incremental chances of winning.
2. Second the assumptions... rendered moot by #1. But if you want to discuss assumptions and logic then PM me. I'm sure 98% of the posters on this board quit reading after the first sentence.