Why I don't consider Duke a bad beat...

blackbull

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion on here, but after hearing it over and over I feel compelled to state this: Duke fumbled the ball, Cincy recovered it, then Duke blew coverage and Cincy scored a td, then Cincy got pressure on Renfree and forced a pick that the Cincy defender made a great play on and took it to the house. A dramatic and quick change in the game, sure, but not a bad break. That's football.

What was a bad break?
What I do consider to be a bad break is the call on the field when the San Jose State ball carrier fumbled the ball through the endzone. It was a fumble, but they didn't overturn it. Human error of the officials = bad break. (The good news is these things should even out for you (and me) in the long run)

A lot of bad plays by Duke and good plays by Cincinnati in quick dramatic succession does not equal a bad break. And yes, I had Duke, so I'm not trying to legitimize a position on Cincy ;-)

newcombe

i guess all i can do is laugh about your post as this certainly qualifies for a bad beat and very bad luck based on the chain of events. to think your team has the ball with 45 tics left on the opposing teams 5 yard line with a 9 points to work with and not covering is assanine. 2 fumbles inside the 5 on the game. Duke pissed the game away no doubt but there is simply no way you can say this wasn't a horrible beat for the duke bettors. You think that chain of events is typical? I am not sure why I am actually letting this bug me but this thread is ridiculous.

blackbull

Just because something is atypical does not make the play a bad beat. If Sanchez goes out and throws for 400 yards Sunday, that's atypical, but it's not a bad beat. Closing the game out is a part of the game. Protecting the football is a part of the game. Preventing a long td pass is a part of the game. Protecting the QB is a part of the game. Your just making excuses to make yourself feel better.

Chisox6

blackbull wrote: »

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion on here, but after hearing it over and over I feel compelled to state this: Duke fumbled the ball, Cincy recovered it, then Duke blew coverage and Cincy scored a td, then Cincy got pressure on Renfree and forced a pick that the Cincy defender made a great play on and took it to the house. A dramatic and quick change in the game, sure, but not a bad break. That's football.

What was a bad break?
What I do consider to be a bad break is the call on the field when the San Jose State ball carrier fumbled the ball through the endzone. It was a fumble, but they didn't overturn it. Human error of the officials = bad break. (The good news is these things should even out for you (and me) in the long run)

A lot of bad plays by Duke and good plays by Cincinnati in quick dramatic succession does not equal a bad break. And yes, I had Duke, so I'm not trying to legitimize a position on Cincy ;-)

A bad beat and a bad break aren't necessarily the same thing. Maybe you should start there since your title thread and explanation interchange the two

kane

I'm with Newcomb. If it were just the fumble, or just the long td pass, or just the pick 6, then maybe you can make the case that it's football and those things happen, but when all three of those things have to happen to lose a bet, then yes this was absolutely a bad beat.

Chisox6

Isn't a bad beat losing a bet late where the odds of you losing are minuscule? I'm not sure how you can argue that duke +9 had an incredibly high chance of cashing when they were tied with the ball on Cindy's 10 with 2 minutes left.

hotbustop

When you have the ball inside the opponents 10 yard line in a tie game getting 10pts with less than 1 minute and 30 seconds left and you don't cash....

That is about as bad a beat as you can possibly suffer.

blackbull

Chisox6 wrote: »

A bad beat and a bad break aren't necessarily the same thing. Maybe you should start there since your title thread and explanation interchange the two

LOL, you need to reread the post again. Didn't interchange the two in the slightest.

blackbull

I guess I have a different definition of "bad beat" than all of you because everything y'all are talking about involves football plays made or not made by football players. It was a part of the game. I don't consider legitimate football plays as bad beats.

blackbull

blackbull wrote: »

LOL, you need to reread the post again. Didn't interchange the two in the slightest.

O.k., sorry, read your post quick and thought you said bad break and "bad play." (I needed to reread it, haha)

Bad break and bad beat are the same to me. I don't see how the difference between the two is relevant in this debate.

wcf1214

thats a terrible beat.ball fumbled at the 3 with a minute to go and 2 td's later all the duke players were sucking wind,its like your wife cheating and paying for the hotel with your own credit card

increasedodd

Cinci -9 was easily +2000 at one point. When that bet is won, guys on the other side have suffered a bad beat.

blackbull

O.k., was thinking more about your definitions and here is how I understand them:

bad beat: the actual investment itself being impacted spreadwise by a number of bad breaks

bad breaks: a single play in the game whose outcome was greatly impacted by a variable that should not be a determining factor in the game of football


So my question to you is: If you consider the investment to be a bad beat then there must have been bad breaks in the game that produced the bad beat. Which play do you consider a bad break?

(1) Can't be the fumble b/c the ball carrier fumbled the ball. That's a part of the game.

(2) Can't be the recovery b/c Cincinnati jumped on the ball. That's a part of the game.

(3) Can't be the long td pass because coverage is a part of the game and Duke blew the coverage.

(4) Can't be the interception that Sean Renfree through because pass blocking is a part of the game and he got hit on the throw, causing the ball to pop up in the air.

(5) Can't be the interception and return by the Cincy player because that Cincy player exercised his awareness, caught the ball, and ran down the field for the TD (a good block by a Cincy defender also enabled him to get into the endzone). That's a part of the game so it can't be that.

(*) The close proximity of all these events is what is making people think that this was a bad beat that was produced by bad breaks when in fact it was just a bunch of game determining football plays in quick succession.

Lawboy

Chisox and increasedodd have this one right. At the time of the beginning of the end, 45 seconds to go with a 9point lead ATS, on the opp 5 yard line with no time outs, and you are virtually guaranteed a win ATS.

Most likely, kick FG, and win the game.
Kick FG and Cincy kicks FG and game goes into OT with no chance to lose.
Kick FG and Cincy scores TD to win game and win ATS.
Etc etc etc.

Least likely, fumble, have opp score a TD with 40 seconds and no time outs. Then throw pick 6 to lose by 14.

At the time of the fumble, Cincy to cover -9 was way more than +2000 chisox, more like +10000. And if you have 45 seconds until your bet ends, and you are a -12500 fav, losing is a bad beat. Yes, it's football, too; but a bad beat indeed.