I think you'd actually have a greater than 56% chance of winning if you make the PAT and there is a subsequent score by the opponent.
If the other team fails on the 2 point conversion, you win. (56%)
If the other team makes the two point conversion, you go to OT. So, of the 44% of the time that Team B successfully converts, he will only win the game X% of the time, based on whatever the probability is of winning in OT.
In this model it was 50/50. So Team A should win half of the games where Team B converts, making the actually probability of winning .78:
.56 + .5(.44) = .78
This corresponds to the model's equation where Beta is equal to 1, which makes makes sense since we're treating the Team B score as a given in your hypothetical.
Despite the heartbreaking way that our losses came about, I'm loving 5-2. If we can TCOB against Purdue and Illinois; snag one from PSU, Wisco, or the Bucks; and exhibit some solid play in a bowl game, I'll consider this year a raging success.
Speed alone means next to nothing when it comes to choosing a position. Every position benefits from having a person who, all other attributes being equal, is speedier than another. Where a player goes on the field should be determined by other attributes. Tall, bulky, hands, core strength? Wideout. Agile like an epileptic cat? Slot. Ability to learn and run a system, make reads, throw a ball? QB.
Take my skill set: bulky in all the wrong places, at negative one steps after having lost one due to age, crazy eyes. Natural fit at MGoBoard commenter.
We don't need to beat each of those teams to have a legitimate national title, just the team we play in the BCS championship. But, in a perfect world, we would never ever lose to any of those teams. Just thinking about it makes my sciatica act up.
It's a nice problem to have at a position for a change. I remember the last few minutes of the Eastern game, where I was downright giddy when we gave a preview of that depth.
I agree that these movies primarily get made because there is demand for them, which makes them an economically sound proposition.
On the flip side, Michael Bay--whom it would be a stretch to call a writer, but is nevertheless a "creative" force behind a number of these films--is an example of the type of person I was talking about. The studios give him the green light because he basically prints money with his movies, but I kind of doubt that he conceives his ideas for remakes primarily on the basis of dollar signs, even though profit no doubt enters his mental calculus.
So I guess I'm agreeing with you, but saying that the studios' motivations in greenlighting many of these turd sandwiches coexist alongside the individual motivations of the producers, directors, and writers.
I used to love horror films. The Friday the 13th series is one of my all-time favorites, but I'm a sucker for camp. The most disturbing trend for me is the move toward torture porn. Don't get me wrong, I always got a kick out of Jason's most recent creative means of human disposal, but I really don't enjoy watching people get tortured for ninety minutes. The directors of more recent movies confuse torture with suspense.
The only recent horror movie that I have enjoyed was Zombieland, and it's probably a stretch to call that a horror movie. Maybe America is too cynical for the horror movies from the 70's and 80's.
I see two possible rationales for remakes like this one. First, the trend in pop culture is toward meta. That is, I see a lot of movies and books that have a primary purpose of commenting on some other movie, book, or the conventions and standards of the medium. Second, maybe a lot of Hollywood writers have the mentality of seventeen year-old potheads: e.g., "Wouldn't it be cool if John McClane had a twitter account?"
Probably more movies fall into the second category than the first. The worst remake I've heard rumors of is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Because kids today just can't relate to the cultural context of 1992.
FWIW, putting "Red Dawn" at the top of my Netflix queue.
I was referring to his tendency to tuck it and run at the first sign of trouble. I know that he is given a number of designed runs, but on plays where he has the option to throw, it looks like he rarely checks down.
The bunny comment wasn't a knock on his personality or heart, just his tendency to bail on the passing option. Again, not unexpected given that he's a freshman with relatively little exposure to the speed and complexities of the game at the collegiate level.
I think he has loads of talent and could emerge as a viable threat to start at quarterback next year. However, it is not next year. It is this year. And this year he reminds me of a scared bunny. Granted, a scared bunny that has bionic legs, but to me he looks too hurried (except perhaps between snaps). It's not really a knock since the guy is a true freshman, but even on his TD drive he never looked like the type of field general that inspires confidence.
Recent Comments