FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Desertraider]

The most misguided part of AOs logic is using the 2006 Mount v. UWW game. Did LK go victory and kneel it out? Nope. But the problem is that on the previous possession UWW had a 4th and 20 down by 15 with 8 friggin minutes to go!! Did they punt? No - because they were still in the fight! They went for it and failed. Mount got the ball back and ground out the final 7:50 of the clock. The last 3 minutes were a steady dose of Kmic off tackle right - nothing tricky, nothing fancy - getting 1st downs and grinding clock.

[AO]

See I look at it differently.  Here is how I would break it down.

Chance to:
-win the game: .02%

-convert a 4th and 18: 15% (and you still have the ball then and all three timeouts to stop them again)

-punt and hope for a muff: 3% (MUC could have chosen not to catch a tough punt)

-block a punt: 5% (tough to say for me, I don't know how good STUs special teams are)

-punt and stop then from converting a 1st down: 50% (not knowing they would kneel the ball, and also knowing that they would punt again, and probably give you an additional 20 yards?)

-punt and force a fumble during that next MUC possession: 2%

I don't know, I'm taking the chance to convert on 4th, as the chance to do everything else is so slim, that first score is the most important one and you get your timeouts.  field position isn't going to mean that much with MUC punting again anyway.

I hope you're not a poker player.  Why take the 15% chance (even 15% seems generous) over the 50% chance?

Maybe that is why your logic is failing.  That 50% and 15% isn't to win the game, it is to get the ball back without using timeouts at some point on the field with the added task of stopping Mt. Union from getting a 1st down. 

And that isn't how poker works.  Do you take the 15% chance at a royal flush, or a 50% chance at 2 pair?

50% chance at two-pair.  This is what Caruso did. Just because you misinterpret his punt as a white flag, doesn't mean you get to call him classless once you realize your mistake.

Wrong.  The white flag was not using his timeouts BEFORE Mount converted the first down.  Using them after the first down was dumb. 



1st and 10 at UMU18    Mount Union drive start at 02:17.
1st and 10 at UMU18    Jake Simon rush for 3 yards to the UMU21 (Sam Pokornowski; Riley Dombek).   THIS IS WHEN THE TIMEOUT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED IF CARUSO WANTED TO MAXIMIZE HIS SLIM CHANCE AT STILL WINNING.
2nd and 7 at UMU21    Jake Simon rush for 10 yards to the UMU31 (Tyler Erstad).  FRESH SET OF DOWNS = BALL GAME OVER. 
1st and 10 at UMU31    TEAM rush for loss of 2 yards to the UMU29.
2nd and 12 at UMU29    Timeout St. Thomas, clock 00:50.
2nd and 12 at UMU29    TEAM rush for loss of 2 yards to the UMU27.
3rd and 14 at UMU27    Timeout St. Thomas, clock 00:49.
4th and 11 at UMU30    Brandon Mathie punt 40 yards to the UST30, Sean Hamlin return 14 yards to the UST44.

except, the game wasn't over.......

What coach is going to regret calling timeouts to give his offense another chance?

[Retired Old Rat]

AO, you're not going to win this fight.  Caruso is who he is.  Mount guys don't have to like him.

Of course, the other thing to realize is we are discussing this with a guy that has almost -900 Karma. Can we just assume AO is neither an idiot nor stubborn like a mule and simply likes to irritate people by making illogical statements and then sticking to them to see how many people he can goad into a response?

The -900 karma was accumulated by the "old, " younger version of AO.  For the last 1-2 years his posts have been mostly insightful and often show off his dry sense of humor.  Not sure why he's so worked up on this one.  I mean, it's the Tommies after all.

[Jonny Utah]

See I look at it differently.  Here is how I would break it down.

Chance to:
-win the game: .02%

-convert a 4th and 18: 15% (and you still have the ball then and all three timeouts to stop them again)

-punt and hope for a muff: 3% (MUC could have chosen not to catch a tough punt)

-block a punt: 5% (tough to say for me, I don't know how good STUs special teams are)

-punt and stop then from converting a 1st down: 50% (not knowing they would kneel the ball, and also knowing that they would punt again, and probably give you an additional 20 yards?)

-punt and force a fumble during that next MUC possession: 2%

I don't know, I'm taking the chance to convert on 4th, as the chance to do everything else is so slim, that first score is the most important one and you get your timeouts.  field position isn't going to mean that much with MUC punting again anyway.

I hope you're not a poker player.  Why take the 15% chance (even 15% seems generous) over the 50% chance?

Maybe that is why your logic is failing.  That 50% and 15% isn't to win the game, it is to get the ball back without using timeouts at some point on the field with the added task of stopping Mt. Union from getting a 1st down. 

And that isn't how poker works.  Do you take the 15% chance at a royal flush, or a 50% chance at 2 pair?

50% chance at two-pair.  This is what Caruso did. Just because you misinterpret his punt as a white flag, doesn't mean you get to call him classless once you realize your mistake.

I never called Caruso classless.  I played with him at Ithaca for 3 years.  He was my captain and a friend.  I love the guy.  Doesn't mean I think punting on 4th down is the right call, or grabbing the snap is the right call.

Back to the poker, you don't take the 2 pair if there are cards on the table which give you a 15% chance of winning big versus a small chance of winning with the 2 pair.

[AO]

The most misguided part of AOs logic is using the 2006 Mount v. UWW game. Did LK go victory and kneel it out? Nope. But the problem is that on the previous possession UWW had a 4th and 20 down by 15 with 8 friggin minutes to go!! Did they punt? No - because they were still in the fight! They went for it and failed. Mount got the ball back and ground out the final 7:50 of the clock. The last 3 minutes were a steady dose of Kmic off tackle right - nothing tricky, nothing fancy - getting 1st downs and grinding clock.

so, UWW went for it on 4th and long and failed, and somehow this backs up your argument that you should go for it on 4th and long? 

They might have also been trying to get Kmic over 100 yards on the day.

[Pat Coleman]

I would just think the UMU fans would understand that other schools might begin with "University of" as well, as with UST.

In years of watching AO, I am never quite sure if or whether he crosses the line between believing his own posts and just stirring the post, but in his younger days, he argued quite vociferously that Northwestern and the UMAC deserved to be thought of in a similar vein as St. John's and the MIAC based on his alma mater, Northwestern, only being down 7-0 at the end of the first quarter.

That's where he lost most of his karma. He's been pretty steady in the -900 range the past couple years.

[AO]

See I look at it differently.  Here is how I would break it down.

Chance to:
-win the game: .02%

-convert a 4th and 18: 15% (and you still have the ball then and all three timeouts to stop them again)

-punt and hope for a muff: 3% (MUC could have chosen not to catch a tough punt)

-block a punt: 5% (tough to say for me, I don't know how good STUs special teams are)

-punt and stop then from converting a 1st down: 50% (not knowing they would kneel the ball, and also knowing that they would punt again, and probably give you an additional 20 yards?)

-punt and force a fumble during that next MUC possession: 2%

I don't know, I'm taking the chance to convert on 4th, as the chance to do everything else is so slim, that first score is the most important one and you get your timeouts.  field position isn't going to mean that much with MUC punting again anyway.

I hope you're not a poker player.  Why take the 15% chance (even 15% seems generous) over the 50% chance?

Maybe that is why your logic is failing.  That 50% and 15% isn't to win the game, it is to get the ball back without using timeouts at some point on the field with the added task of stopping Mt. Union from getting a 1st down. 

And that isn't how poker works.  Do you take the 15% chance at a royal flush, or a 50% chance at 2 pair?

50% chance at two-pair.  This is what Caruso did. Just because you misinterpret his punt as a white flag, doesn't mean you get to call him classless once you realize your mistake.

I never called Caruso classless.  I played with him at Ithaca for 3 years.  He was my captain and a friend.  I love the guy.  Doesn't mean I think punting on 4th down is the right call, or grabbing the snap is the right call.

Back to the poker, you don't take the 2 pair if there are cards on the table which give you a 15% chance of winning big versus a small chance of winning with the 2 pair.

2 pair wins the pot, going to lose a lot of hands waiting for a royal flush.

[Jonny Utah]

See I look at it differently.  Here is how I would break it down.

Chance to:
-win the game: .02%

-convert a 4th and 18: 15% (and you still have the ball then and all three timeouts to stop them again)

-punt and hope for a muff: 3% (MUC could have chosen not to catch a tough punt)

-block a punt: 5% (tough to say for me, I don't know how good STUs special teams are)

-punt and stop then from converting a 1st down: 50% (not knowing they would kneel the ball, and also knowing that they would punt again, and probably give you an additional 20 yards?)

-punt and force a fumble during that next MUC possession: 2%

I don't know, I'm taking the chance to convert on 4th, as the chance to do everything else is so slim, that first score is the most important one and you get your timeouts.  field position isn't going to mean that much with MUC punting again anyway.

I hope you're not a poker player.  Why take the 15% chance (even 15% seems generous) over the 50% chance?

Maybe that is why your logic is failing.  That 50% and 15% isn't to win the game, it is to get the ball back without using timeouts at some point on the field with the added task of stopping Mt. Union from getting a 1st down. 

And that isn't how poker works.  Do you take the 15% chance at a royal flush, or a 50% chance at 2 pair?

50% chance at two-pair.  This is what Caruso did. Just because you misinterpret his punt as a white flag, doesn't mean you get to call him classless once you realize your mistake.

I never called Caruso classless.  I played with him at Ithaca for 3 years.  He was my captain and a friend.  I love the guy.  Doesn't mean I think punting on 4th down is the right call, or grabbing the snap is the right call.

Back to the poker, you don't take the 2 pair if there are cards on the table which give you a 15% chance of winning big versus a small chance of winning with the 2 pair.

2 pair wins the pot, going to lose a lot of hands waiting for a royal flush.

No two pair doesn't always win the pot when there are statistics which show that you have a better chance of winning a hand by going for certain cards, even though the safest bet is going with another hand.  Video poker is a clear example of that where you have to go for a royal flush if you are dealt a certain hand, even when there is a 2% chance of winning.

[Pat Coleman]

AO, you're not going to win this fight.  Caruso is who he is.  Mount guys don't have to like him.

Of course, the other thing to realize is we are discussing this with a guy that has almost -900 Karma. Can we just assume AO is neither an idiot nor stubborn like a mule and simply likes to irritate people by making illogical statements and then sticking to them to see how many people he can goad into a response?

The -900 karma was accumulated by the "old, " younger version of AO.  For the last 1-2 years his posts have been mostly insightful and often show off his dry sense of humor.  Not sure why he's so worked up on this one.  I mean, it's the Tommies after all.

What he said -- I've given AO karma on many an occasion myself in the past couple years. People can change.

[Desertraider]

The most misguided part of AOs logic is using the 2006 Mount v. UWW game. Did LK go victory and kneel it out? Nope. But the problem is that on the previous possession UWW had a 4th and 20 down by 15 with 8 friggin minutes to go!! Did they punt? No - because they were still in the fight! They went for it and failed. Mount got the ball back and ground out the final 7:50 of the clock. The last 3 minutes were a steady dose of Kmic off tackle right - nothing tricky, nothing fancy - getting 1st downs and grinding clock.

so, UWW went for it on 4th and long and failed, and somehow this backs up your argument that you should go for it on 4th and long? 

They might have also been trying to get Kmic over 100 yards on the day.

Going for it on 4th and long shows you are still playing to win. UWW in 2006 showed they were still playing to win. But I'll give you a +k since I got to put in the 2006 Stagg DVD and watch Kmic power through and Pierre go superman! Look - if you are still playing to win with under a minute to go down 3 scores and the other team just got a first down, then you should have been playing to win it before they got the first down (i.e. called the TO then) - and you should have been playing to win it on 4th down. caruso called the TOs to prolong his stage because he is going to be at someother school before next season and wanted to savor his appearance on the stage.

[Desertraider]

Now - on to more important stuff. I need to know if anyone can figure out how to get the Mount semi-final (greatest game I have ever seen) and STAGG #11 off of ESPN and onto a DVD? I know the link to watch it wont be there forever - and one day when this train comes to an end I want to be able to watch these again. Suggestions?

[Dr. Acula]

Craig Candeto is the new HC in Bexley.  Credit to Cap, they went outside the box on this hire.  I like it.  Although I'm not sure JK will like seeing a Midshipman in charge!

Cbus Dispatch

[Desertraider]

Has anyone mentioned Tom Arth as the new HC at JCU? In all the playoff madness I meant to post a congrats a while ago but it slipped my mind. Congrats to Tom. Should be interesting to see what he can do with that huge QB.

[MUC80]

I must say that the last few days of posts has provided great entertainment and amusement!

I thought I'd just throw in my own 2 cents. On Friday night my wife and I had to go to a party one of my daughters was throwing for her boyfriend at her house. We left our house at halftime after I was able to listen to the Keith and Pat online. I resigned myself to being able to only watch the game tracker online for the game's progress at the party. However, I scored gold when my daughter's friend supplied me with her brother's login and password for Warner Cable! I was able to watch the 2nd half from right after UST's field goal to the end.

I was not able to listen because of the noise at the party, but fortunately I was able to watch on my daughter's laptop. When UST punted toward the end of the game, I commented to someone that the game was over and UST had conceded the game. When the TOs started to be taken, I was totally confused. I couldn't figure out what the purpose of them would be, since UST needed 3 scores. I didn't have the audio, but from what others have posted, it sounded like I came to the same conclusion. I honestly thought the coach was drawing out the game as long as possible even though he knew there was no way they could possibly (or logically) win. It definitely was a head scratcher!

Congrats to the Purple Raiders!

[Desertraider]

As much as I hate to say this - I think that after 3 hours and not hearing from AO, maybe the "final minute" thread has come to pass. R.I.P.