We've been over the phantom "deny".
But even a denial of Stirtz would not have been a high risk/high reward strategy.
Had Stirtz actually been denied, I'm sure Florida was willing to deal with the risk of trying to complete it to Stirtz, over the top of the pressure. With the inbounder being guarded, most likely that attempt would have resulted in a tough, looping pass, follow by a tough, contested catch.
No matter what, Florida used a strategy that had been given a lot of thought, and that they felt gave them their best chance to win.
Would Florida attempt to use the same strategy in that situation again? Maybe, maybe not. Almost certainly, Iowa's play would not again be successful, after Florida has seen it. But it's still possible Florida could have learned something about the coverage that they don't love, and decide a different approach would give them their best chance next time.
But we can still be completely sure that a lot of thought went into what they deemed to be their best strategy. They may now be able to split hairs over some things. But, at no point was the strategy out of left field. At no point, was it ever high risk/high reward. (For one thing, the reward remains a constant, no matter what the strategy)
