RU-Howard game coming up on Bad Beats
- Thread starter RUforJERSEY
- Start date
Yes Bad Beats is about the Spread.
I’m going to state this one more time for the Schiano haters like Shelby who have suggested that the spread factored into our play calling. Greg made the exact same series of decisions vs Wagner last year at the end of that game. The only differences were:
1) We scored a few seconds faster so Wagner got the ball back with a few seconds to go.
2) We punched it in from the 3 at 13 seconds to go after failing to get in from the 1 (this year we were at the 11 - it wasn’t even second and goal). The probability of actually scoring from much closer (also considering we were playing a weaker team) was higher vs Wagner.
I’m going to state this one more time for the Schiano haters like Shelby who have suggested that the spread factored into our play calling. Greg made the exact same series of decisions vs Wagner last year at the end of that game. The only differences were:
1) We scored a few seconds faster so Wagner got the ball back with a few seconds to go.
2) We punched it in from the 3 at 13 seconds to go after failing to get in from the 1 (this year we were at the 11 - it wasn’t even second and goal). The probability of actually scoring from much closer (also considering we were playing a weaker team) was higher vs Wagner.
Last edited:
Scott Van Pelt never mentioned the 36.5 spread - perhaps because the spread moved up to 38 or 39 by kickoff. Instead they made it a bad beat under 51.5 total but explained it's not really a bad beat since it shouldn't have gotten to an over possibility. I think they loved that the game was called with no extra point attempt and it went under by 1/2 a point.
Just an observation - after showing a few other games which went over in unlikely fashion, SVP says in a playful manner something like "never play the under" which contradicted the RU result they showed earlier.
Just an observation - after showing a few other games which went over in unlikely fashion, SVP says in a playful manner something like "never play the under" which contradicted the RU result they showed earlier.
Howard could have just as easily stopped our 12 yard run up the gut, and no one would even be talking about this.
I didn’t understand the “running it up” narrative. RU took over on downs (after 2 Howard TOs) at the 31 yd line with about 25 secs left. They ran 2 very basic run plays. The 3rd string RB ran hard and was pushed out of bounds at the 11 yd line. Then broke 2 tackles up the middle for a TD at the gun. If Howard simply tacked him once, the clock would have run out.
Additionally, Rutgers wasn't in a hurry up offense. They let the clock expire naturally, but ran basic run plays.
People should be focusing on how good Raymond looked when he finally got his chance instead of how much Howard's coach was upset that his guys couldn't tackle him.
It was focused on the over/under and the extra point not being played out at the end of the game.
Not only that.. in a recent Schiano interview he mentioned how Raymond's family was there and how cool is was for them to see him get in.. and then to do well and score.. that's the story.. not running up the score or a bad beat.
Last edited:
Hmmm.. pushed out of bounds at the 11... on a run up the middle.
Could that very young RB have planned that so he'd get another carry?
Is Raymond that cold and calculating in his first-ever carry for Rutgers? I hope that is the case and it wasn't pure chance that stopped the clock there for another run. Bad form.. maybe. If we needed to run clock in a close one would he have sat down and not gone out of bounds? I suppose if it was his choice to bounce it outside to try to score/stop the clock then I suppose he would also have been aware enough to sit down if needed.
Very interesting.
So they could have taken a knee, but instead they scored another touchdown. Who cares? I'm sure Coach Schiano had his reasons. Maryland scored a late touchdown as well. I don't care about that either.
I know who Scott Van Pelt is; he's a very nice man. But whatever BAD BEATS is, I am not interested. If a guy can make money sitting on TV talking about a game, and people are interested, good for him. But I can't understand why there's any concern about this...
I know who Scott Van Pelt is; he's a very nice man. But whatever BAD BEATS is, I am not interested. If a guy can make money sitting on TV talking about a game, and people are interested, good for him. But I can't understand why there's any concern about this...
There’s a pretty good percentage of people who only watch sports because of gambling. Bad Beats has been a staple of Monday night Sportscenter for years.
Yeah it’s called we paid Howard lots of money for them to come up here so we can get our guys reps . They take the money so they have to take the beating.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Football Rutgers versus Wisconsin (Oct. 12th) set for Noon / BTN or FOX- Latest: -RUFAN4LIFE-
-
