Announcers at end of game

[EdgewoodNHV]

They really could not have been more confused about the game situation. Expecting us to take victory formation when Fresno State had 2 timeouts left. Then trying to figure out if we needed a first down and why we were going for it on 4th, just... hilarious really.

 

[Hoophound]

They really could not have been more confused about the game situation. Expecting us to take victory formation when Fresno State had 2 timeouts left. Then trying to figure out if we needed a first down and why we were going for it on 4th, just... hilarious really.

It was really bad. No clue.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Yes, they were bad. Like more worsterer than average bad announcers.

 

[firstnline]

I had to put the game on mute. Enough said.

 

[freescooter]

It was really bad. No clue.

Well the play by play women was a basketball player who kept saying things like “ time out on the floor” and “spin moves”. I’m not even sure she understands football. Well, maybe if we start winning, we get an upgrade.

 

[Kemba Time]

They also kept talking about going for two instead of kicking the extra point that made it 19-14 because “why not?” without even once considering that if Fresno scored, being able to kick a field goal to win 22-21 would have been a pretty big deal.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Were they physically at the game? Neither noticed Houston's 3Q fumble until the officials signaled Fresno ball and even then they kept jabbering about the good blocking on the play.

 

[ninety-nine]

They really could not have been more confused about the game situation. Expecting us to take victory formation when Fresno State had 2 timeouts left. Then trying to figure out if we needed a first down and why we were going for it on 4th, just... hilarious really.

Just got back from the game. The problem with regard to a premature call for victory formation was that the scoreboard showed Fresno State having only one timeout left when UConn took over on downs. From the stands, we assumed that Fresno must have burned a second timeout prior to the fourth down play for some unknown reason, because they'd had three timeouts after the third down play. The timeout ledger was then corrected prior to UConn's second down play, but because of the scoreboard I also thought for a moment that Fresno was down to one timeout and UConn could just go into victory formation, which made it confusing when they ran a play out of shotgun on first down. You can fault the announcers for not keeping their own stats, but it's pretty natural to rely on the scoreboard for stuff like timeouts and play clock.

 

[scotty0330]

I feel like fauria has been picked up and let go 1000 times at various networks. He is the rash that won’t go away. Simply awful and his play by play partner was equally atrocious.

 

[superjohn]

I feel like fauria has been picked up and let go 1000 times at various networks. He is the rash that won’t go away. Simply awful and his play by play partner was equally atrocious.

christian fauria on Twitter: "At first glance I just saw "anal"." / Twitter

 

[ScottVib]

They also kept talking about going for two instead of kicking the extra point that made it 19-14 because “why not?” without even once considering that if Fresno scored, being able to kick a field goal to win 22-21 would have been a pretty big deal.

Going for 2 was the absolute right move there... it was a brutally bad decision to go for one. 20-14 would've forced a Fresno TD & conversion to take the lead. 19-14 leaves Fresno with the lead and a free shot to go for a two point conversion of their own to eliminate the game winning FG and pushing it to a game tying margin.

Kicking the PAT there was a big mistake. That said, going for it on 4th down, rather than kicking the FG was the right move. Get the 4th down and you win the game. Fail... and you've run the clock down and are forcing Fresno to go 80 yards for a game winning FG with no timeouts and about 20 seconds. Kick the FG and you give Fresno the ball back in ok field position (since for some reason UConn was going with the short kick all day).

 

[Buffett10]

I feel like fauria has been picked up and let go 1000 times at various networks. He is the rash that won’t go away. Simply awful and his play by play partner was equally atrocious.

atleast today she didn't refer to a fair catch as a reception.

 

[Kemba Time]

Going for 2 was the absolute right move there... it was a brutally bad decision to go for one. 20-14 would've forced a Fresno TD & conversion to take the lead. 19-14 leaves Fresno with the lead and a free shot to go for a two point conversion of their own to eliminate the game winning FG and pushing it to a game tying margin.

Kicking the PAT there was a big mistake. That said, going for it on 4th down, rather than kicking the FG was the right move. Get the 4th down and you win the game. Fail... and you've run the clock down and are forcing Fresno to go 80 yards for a game winning FG with no timeouts and about 20 seconds. Kick the FG and you give Fresno the ball back in ok field position (since for some reason UConn was going with the short kick all day).

Sure, if I knew we would get the two-point conversion, I’d go for it because being ahead 20-14 is better than being ahead 19-14, but being up 19-14 is also better than being up 18-14.

Two-point conversion probability is about a coin flip for even good offenses and the odds of converting would have been much lower than that for both offenses today, making the risk adverse move outweigh the reward opportunity.

Realistically, the more likely outcome is a failed attempt leading to an 18-14 lead. Then if Fresno scores a TD, they can make UConn need a field goal to tie just by kicking an extra point.

If you kick the extra point and Fresno scores a TD, an offense that couldn’t convert on 3rd/4th down all game has to pull off the two-point conversion to make it a 3-point game.

It’s a small difference, but the probability of making Fresno be the team going for two outweighs being the team going for two, given these two offenses/defenses — and the fact that we’re having this conversation is more my original point: the announcers couldn’t fathom that there were two sides to the decision to discuss.

 

[ScottVib]

Sure, if I knew we could get the two-point conversion, I’d go for it because being ahead 20-14 is better than being ahead 19-14, but being up 19-14 is better than 18-14.

Strongly disagree. Essentially you're entire logic is based around UConn failing. Essentially you're making decisions assuming the team can't convert and can't get a stop. The right call there is absolutely forcing Fresno to require both the TD and a successful conversion to take the lead. 20-14 does that.... neither 19-14 nor 18-14 does that.

Your logic is predicated not on doing what is best for UConn's odds of winning on that play (and makes it harder for Fresno to take the lead).. but instead, what would make it easier for UConn to take the lead only after losing the lead again. Essentially you're playing the game assuming your defense, which has been good can't stop them and it's going to take another possession to "really" win. The play there is to get the two, force Fresno into a situation where a TD only ties the game and they have to convert to take the lead.

For whatever it's worth, here's 538's analytic based "decision chart": When To Go For 2, For Real

And here's the standard one that most coaches use: Two Point Conversion Chart

In both sets of charts (analytic or standard), with a 4 point lead, the decision is to go for two.

 

[UCFBfan]

Were they physically at the game? Neither noticed Houston's 3Q fumble until the officials signaled Fresno ball and even then they kept jabbering about the good blocking on the play.

I noticed that too and also a few other times where something happened near the end of the play and they just kept talking as if they didn't see what happened.

They showed them in the press box at some point late 3rd or 4th Quarter so they were there. They just weren't good.

As others said, maybe winning more games will give us an upgrade on the play by play crew

 

[Kemba Time]

Strongly disagree. Essentially you're entire logic is based around UConn failing. Essentially you're making decisions assuming the team can't convert and can't get a stop. The right call there is absolutely forcing Fresno to require both the TD and a successful conversion to take the lead. 20-14 does that.... neither 19-14 nor

Your logic is predicated not on doing what is best for UConn's odds of winning on that play (and makes it harder for Fresno to take the lead).. but instead, what would make it easier for UConn to take the lead only after losing the lead again. Essentially you're playing the game assuming your defense, which has been good can't stop them and it's going to take another possession to "really" win. The play there is to get the two, force Fresno into a situation where a TD only ties the game and they have to convert to take the lead.

For whatever it's worth, here's 538's analytic based "decision chart": When To Go For 2, For Real

And here's the standard one that most coaches use: Two Point Conversion Chart

In both sets of charts (analytic or standard), with a 4 point lead, the decision is to go for two.

The 538 story shows what I am saying:

4

2.9

3.1

Same

4-point lead is the area where the decision is essentially a push because the odds that it even plays a factor are relatively small.

That is when we are talking about the average of all offenses. As much as I love gutting out the win today, this is a below-average offense with a true freshman quarterback that had already missed on one two-point conversion attempt in the game and the odds of getting the conversion are lowered considerably. It is statistically a worse than 50/50 chance that UConn gets that 2-point conversion and the risks that come into play if you don’t lower you chances of winning the ways the rest of the game could play out considerably.

I think the fundamental difference here is I just don’t think forcing the kicker to have to make an extra point to win the game is statistically relevant enough to make up for giving your team a worse chance of overcoming giving up a score with time left. There’s a reason Jim Mora did what he did today, and I’m guessing his logic would be similar.

 

[Exit 4]

Honestly, and I, Don’t disagree- many here have legitimate complaints,… but we one- for the first time since October 21 2017 we beat someone not name Umass or playing as fcs. So- I don’t care about the coverage on cbssn- it’s what any of us on the ninth live game at that hr should expect. Thank you UConn for delivering a win. And for the announcers- I know you wanted us to win- I could hear that - so thanks for the support:

 

[wheelerdog]

I'm not going to comment on the announcers lest I upset he who shall not be named.

 

[UCMB88]

Every time Z. Turner ran she would say "Turner calls his own number." Um no, that expression is used when it is a designed play call for the quarterback to run, not when he is scrambling, all of his receivers are covered, and he decides to run.

 

[Hey Adrien!]

I had to put the game on mute. Enough said.

The "Huskies are putting on the sexy" quote is what inspired me to mute my laptop.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Strongly disagree. Essentially you're entire logic is based around UConn failing. Essentially you're making decisions assuming the team can't convert and can't get a stop. The right call there is absolutely forcing Fresno to require both the TD and a successful conversion to take the lead. 20-14 does that.... neither 19-14 nor 18-14 does that.

Your logic is predicated not on doing what is best for UConn's odds of winning on that play (and makes it harder for Fresno to take the lead).. but instead, what would make it easier for UConn to take the lead only after losing the lead again. Essentially you're playing the game assuming your defense, which has been good can't stop them and it's going to take another possession to "really" win. The play there is to get the two, force Fresno into a situation where a TD only ties the game and they have to convert to take the lead.

For whatever it's worth, here's 538's analytic based "decision chart": When To Go For 2, For Real

And here's the standard one that most coaches use: Two Point Conversion Chart

In both sets of charts (analytic or standard), with a 4 point lead, the decision is to go for two.

The 538 story shows what I am saying:

4

2.9

3.1

Same

4-point lead is the area where the decision is essentially a push because the odds that it even plays a factor are relatively small.

That is when we are talking about the average of all offenses. As much as I love gutting out the win today, this is a below-average offense with a true freshman quarterback that had already missed on one two-point conversion attempt in the game and the odds of getting the conversion are lowered considerably. It is statistically a worse than 50/50 chance that UConn gets that 2-point conversion and the risks that come into play if you don’t lower you chances of winning the ways the rest of the game could play out considerably.

I think the fundamental difference here is I just don’t think forcing the kicker to have to make an extra point to win the game is statistically relevant enough to make up for giving your team a worse chance of overcoming giving up a score with time left. There’s a reason Jim Mora did what he did today, and I’m guessing his logic would be similar.

I started a separate thread on this topic because the math on it is really close.

I think overall, early in the game, say first three quarters, I kick the XP just to get the points. At the end of the game, say less than 5 minutes to go, I think I go for two. Makes them need a TD and a conversion (Either the XP or 2pt). The smart move would say they go for two to make a FG a tie rather than a win. But, the 2 pt conversion is slightly harder to make.

Short story long, there is little difference between four point lead and five point lead. Six point lead makes it a bit more interesting.

 

[Slick]

They really could not have been more confused about the game situation. Expecting us to take victory formation when Fresno State had 2 timeouts left. Then trying to figure out if we needed a first down and why we were going for it on 4th, just... hilarious really.

It seemed that they had never watched a football game before!

 

[ninety-nine]

Were they physically at the game? Neither noticed Houston's 3Q fumble until the officials signaled Fresno ball and even then they kept jabbering about the good blocking on the play.

I was sitting upstairs near UConn's 30-yard-line, and the fumble was not apparent to the naked eye, because Houston was smothered by defenders as he went to the ground. It was only the players' reactions and the ref's signal that clued us in, and honestly, from the replays I saw on the scoreboard I'm still not convinced the ball was out before he went down. We assumed the replays were deemed inconclusive, and the original call was therefore upheld. I can see how announcers, especially inexperienced ones, would have been slow to realize what was up.