They need to adjust their formulae or algorithms or whatever.

I wouldn’t say that 1:13 is an “eternity” in modern-day college football, but if you put two teams of equal strength against each other, teams are going to score a touchdown in that scenario far more than just 1% of the time. (And arguably the two teams were not “equal”.)

So the drive was awesome, no doubt. But I roll my eyes when podcasters or analysts mention ESPN’s win probabilities. I feel like it’s pretty inaccurate when it comes to different specific scenarios. It’s almost like they apply metrics as if it were a generic 2nd-quarter drive where they think teams will run up the middle on 1st down.