Is there any announcer more annoying than Gary Danielson? Every time I watch a game on CBS, I have to mute it because of that idiot.

Enough of the Packers Vikings game already. I think Boomer rambled on for 20 minutes straight about Favre.

Texas jumps Alabama for #2 in BCS standings, Cincinnati up to #5. Oregon from #10 to #8.

I'm not sure which conference is more confusing this year, the Big-10 or the ACC.

Gotta be the ACC. What a mess that is. The Big Ten's pretty straight forward. Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State in that order.

It's weirder than that. Just look at Purdue.

OSU loses to Purdue, who really seemed to be the opposite of Iowa in that they just kept losing close games. Then Wisconsin (who OSU rolled) walks in and shuts Purdue out and wins by 30+. There are a lot of schizophrenic teams in the Big-10 this year, not a lot of consistency.

Brandon Spikes' suspension is a bit unfair. It's not like he complained about the refs or something.

Both conferences flat out stink. Stinky conferences usually are confusing. I am already excited to not watch the G-Tech v. Cincy orange bowl.

I cant believe Urban Meyer did not suspend Spikes for longer. When did UF turn into Miami from the 80s? (Except this team gets all the calls instead of fighting through bad calls) I mean UF is playing Vandy this week. Do they really need Spikes anyway?

I think you are confusing stinky with parody.

I think by default I'd rather watch games from these two conferences than any other this year because of the unpredictable nature of the games.

Disgruntled Browns fans meet with the owner


Heard Mike and Mike interview Dawg Pound Mike this morning. Gotta give props to Lerner...at least he is listening. He's just hiring the wrong people.

I have enjoyed the SEC games more than any others this year (and I am not an SEC guy). I will give you that the ACC and Big 10 are unpredictable. I think it is ironic that you confused parody with parity because big 10 and ACC games often are a parody of football.

It was a typo that got auto corrected by my browser, I was just too lazy to go back and fix it.

I'd love to hear a breakdown of whats so impressive about SEC football this year. I've seen just as many SEC games as any other conference I don't really see anything that's more impressive than what other teams are doing. There are a lot of bad football teams in the SEC this year. They do only have 3 ranked teams and how LSU is as high as they are is a mystery to me.

lack of options. it's a bad bad year for college football. If ever there was a year a non-BCS conference team deserved a real shot it is this year.

I feel like the SEC has had a lot of interesting games. They have two great teams (by this year's standards) and a handful of teams that are really good on one side of the ball (Arkansas-O, Georgia-O, Tenn-D, LSU-D, etc.) It creates some good matchups.

Northwestern beat undefeated Iowa

Nebraska beat oklahoma...

no barking from the dog..

no smog..

Momma cooked breakfast with no hog..

congrats on the win today.

eye gouging = half a game suspension

lying about meeting with Deion Sanders (not an infraction btw) = season long suspension


The best thing that could happen to college sports is if the NCAA building fell into a lake of fire. Brvheart, can you call Jesus for me?

I'll work on it.

NFL:

Fine for dangerous horse collar tackle: $7,500

Fine for wearing wrong color chin strap: $10,000

Ten predictions for '09 second half


Can't really disagree with any of it but even as a Steeler fan I think he's getting a little ahead of himself there.

It is so impossible to win back to back super bowls. So his predictions are bucking the trend already. That being said the Steelers just handled the Vikings and then crushed the Broncos. They will be involved at the end. But they are not so good that I think a prediction that Pittsburgh will not lose again this year period holds a lot of water.

This Bears/49ers game is just dreadful to watch.

As a bears fan who had SF -3 and the SF D in fantasy, it was a weird game to say the least. By the last 2 minuts I went from relative indifference to actually cheering against the bears....because this is not a playoff team. It's clear as day now. May as well not lose my bet too!! LOL.

:this

I knwo I'm going to be in the 1 percent minority, but I think Belicheck made the right play. The colts needed a touchdown, they would have had more than two mintues to drive down the field, which is more than enough time.... the patriots were at what, their own 28... the hardest yards to get are those last 28, I don't think the colts chances of winning would have changed all that much by punting, but they would have lost 100 percent of the time if they make that first down. HE's going get murdered by results based thinking, but I actually think it was a godlike call, way ahead of the curve of thinking in the NFL, and I'm glad a coach had the sack to do it.

I mean, that seems bonkers.

What percent of the time do the Pats convert the 4th and 2? What percent of the time do the Colts put up a TD after punt? And what percent of the time do the Colts score after turnover on downs?

The Colts have 3 time outs and the Pats have 1. The time left on the clock should be the same in any scenario because of the 2 min warning. We can consider neglible the various interception returned for TD scenarios as a wash, but the Pats have some non-zero equity where the Colts score a TD and leave time on the clock.

I'm pretty sure that it was a clearcut mistake.

I guess I'm just a pussy and dimwitted then, because I'd rather make them drive 60, 70, 80 yards and put it in the end zone 100% of the time, as opposed to attempting to convert a 4th and 2 from my own 28, 75% of the time.

Totally agree.

They had a chance to end the game right there. Even if they don't convert, they have a chance to stop the Colts from scoring a TD. And even if the Colts score a TD, many times Brady is getting it back with enough time to still win the game with a FG.

Can't wait to hear Lebatard talk about this tomorrow.

Semi-related: Andy Reid must have had a rash on his pussy, not going for it twice on 4th and 1's deep in Charger territory in their game. I'm glad Belichick is the champion times over.

If the Pats convert Bill is a genius. I actually thought Faulk got the first even with the bobble, but the Pats should have let Addai score on that run to the 1, that way they have some time left since the Colts were obviosly running the clock out.

I agree with BigD. If I have to bet on the Pats picking up 2 yards or the Pats stopping Manning going 70 yards, I am betting on the Pats picking up 2 yards. Win the game right there. Besides, we should all be waking up this morning talking about Belichik the genius because the Pats got HOSED on that spot by the ref. (Not that I am too upset about it but still)

I really thought they were going to let him score there. Then Brady has to go probably like 35 yards in about a minute (?) for a FG.

Yes, absolutely all of that.


I think it would've been better for the Pats had Addai scored, but I don't think you let him score there. I think the only time you let someone score is when they can just run the clock down and kick a gimme FG for the win. Scoring a TD is never a sure thing and it took a great throw by Manning to get it.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/be...n-vs-colts.html

The spot was correct. Faulk bobbled the ball until he was vertical, so he didn't have possession until he hit the ground.

I saw a reverse angle where he had control after the initial bobble but well before he hit the ground. I saw it on tv like 100 different times over the last 12 hours and from what I saw I would spot it just a whisper past the 30. But that's me; it was a close call and the Pats never should have let them get back in the game up 31-14. No game is about one call.

And Deion Sanders agrees with me so that settles the matter.

I know it it's counter-intuitive, but here's my case... The math I'm going to use here are rough estimates, and it's only to illustrate the logic behind going for it. But you're kidding yourself if Belichek hasn't refined these stats. This was an informed decision, not playing his gut or a moment of insanity.

1) If they convert, they win 100 percent of the time. They should convert 4th and 2 about 60 percent of the time from what I've read about the issue, maybe higher since it's newengland

2) If they don't convert, then Indy still has to convert a touchdown. I would guess from the 29 that they would get a touch down again around 60 percent of the time, maybe less. The thing to remember at this point, is indy is on a short field, and defense gets easier in the red zone, or near it. These 29 yards are the hardest to get on the field.

So, 60 percent of the time they win outright, and of the 40 percent of the time they don't.. they still win 40 percent of the time, so that's an extra 16 Percent.. so by going for it, they are going to win 76 percent of the time..

3) If they kick it, I would estimate indy gets a touch down 40 percent of the time, but lets make it even less that that, lets make it 30 percent. So if they kick, the patriots win 70 percent of the time, and if they go for it they win 76 percent of the time


That's why you go for it in that situation. Granted, my numbers are pulled straight from my ass for the most part, but the true numbers are going to play out somethings similar. Sports statisticians have been arguing for a while now that coaches are much too conservative in going for 4th downs. This wasn't a wreckless gamble on BB's part, this was a calculated one. It just seems like the risky thing to do, due to sports convention. Coaches don't ever do what BB does because either A) they don't believe the statistical evidence supporting aggressive 4th down attempts they are cowards who don't want to face the wraith of the media/fan base like BB is now if the result doesn't go their way C) They don't have the job stability BB does, to be able to survive doing something like this and failing.

I've seen every angle. He doesn't have possession until his feet are off the ground, so he still hasn't technically caught the ball until he himself hits the ground and keeps control.

TOP THAT

Oh wait, that's your argument?

Getting his feet on the ground with possession of the ball is what constitutes a catch, but you still get credit for forward progress at the point you have control.

So if he had dropped it when he hit the ground, it would be an incomplete pass, not a fumble, but if he doesn't drop it, then the spot should be where he first gains possession, not where he comes down.

Ok, honest hypothetical. A wide receiver runs a 10 yard button hook pattern. He stops at the 30, turns and jumps to catch a pass facing his QB. While in the air he almost catches it...bobbles it.....then secures it just before he is hit while still in the air. The forward momentum of the hit makes them all land at the 29. My understanding is this ball should be spotted at the 30. As high as these WRs can jump, this play happens often enough. Do they have a show where the head of NFL officiating talks about controversial calls? I think the NBA does that.

Forward progress is after you've made the catch with possession in bounds. That had not yet happened.

Deion hates the Colts and sucks large balls.




your entire post is worthless because statement 1 is false.




If he is being pushed back wards then forward progress is where he has control of the ball. Where his feet land is irrelevant.

I don't think that's right.

You see plays like this where a TD is involved a lot. Receiver is coming back towards the ball, jumps to catch it in the end zone, lands on the one yard line. It's a TD.

I'm like 92% sure I'm right on this.

So BigD says that the Colts score 60% of the time from the 29.. and CB thinks that they put it in 75% of the time after being punted to.. and they both come to the same conclusion.

Weird.

Even if they bobble it? That doesn't make sense to me.

Regardless, I have yet to see a definitive angle where he has possession at the marker, and close plays like these is why they have challenges. Only they didn't.

As annoying as all the talk about this has already become, this is pretty god damn funny:


Well...shit.

The bobble just means that you mark it where he gains control. It doesn't change the theory of the ruling.

Also, I don't think the call would've been overturned on challenge because it was so close, I just think they got the initial spot wrong.

Wow very interesting. It seems like at worst this decision was a wash (about equal win probability between going for it and punting), while it most likely had an edge over punting. Counter-intuitive indeed.

My stats aren't right, for the record and also, I thought indy was out of timeouts, but I guess they had one left, which changes it from a 100 percent chance of winning, into something lower ( but not much lower). IT doesn't make my post " Worthless" as sam suggests, because the point of my post wasn't to get the exact figures right, but to illustrate the logic of Belichek going for it. My major point is I believe belichek to be more informed on the probabilities of going for it in that situation than any of us are, or announcers like Trent Dilfer who are killing him and calling it the worst coaching decision of all time.

According to the link posted earlier, your stats weren't very far off. If you just go based on league average stats, it makes going for it better than the numbers you came up with (going for it=.79WP; punt=.70WP). The more you adjust for a powerful Manning offense, the more reason to go for it.

I think the only way to make punting decisively correct would be to make some convoluted argument that the Colts score way higher than league average with a short field but will score LESS than league average after a punt. Maybe you would also try arguing that the Pats are significantly below league average on 4th and 2's, and that Manning will win more than his fair share after the Pats convert but still have to punt.

Or maybe you would anonymously comment on a blog post about it and say:

"Well, he went for it and it didn't work. Then his team lost a game it was winning by six points with two minutes left.

We don't need any more proof then that to know it was a dumb decision, no matter what any stat geeks claim.

This isn't calculus calls[sic]. This is the NFL."

This is why I'm staying away from ESPN and the like this week.