I couldn't believe it. I thought it was an awful decision at first. But gaming it out, I don't think it's quite as crazy as it initially appeared. I think people are underrating 1) the 2 point conversion only being a 50/50 chance, 2) Tom Brady having the ball and timeouts only needing a FG to win the game and 3) OT only being a 50/50 chance if it gets there. It's obviously easier to convert a 4th and goal from the 8 than to 1) stop them and 2) drive with likely no timeouts to score a last second TD. Quite a bit easier. But is it easier enough to also have to essentially flip a coin 3 times and have them all come up heads? That's where I'm not sure and I would like to see a better description of the math. I looked up on numberfire, and GB's win probability went up over 3 percent when they successfully kicked the field goal. I mean, they almost literally have 0 chance to win in regulation because they were down 8. So, them being down less than a TD naturally increases their chances because there was 0 chance of a tie at that point. #2 is the only point I halfway buy (Brady w/ ball w/ timeouts). But when you're losing, you have to get there first. You absolutely make them try to run out the clock in the shadow of their goalline. It's not like they were at the 20. Not to mention, they could have gotten yards without a TD and made it even more tough for Tampa. If any team should know that you don’t give the ball to a HOF QB to run the clock out, it should be the Packers. There’s just no way around this being a supremely horrible call.