Did the 3 pts actually increase his chances to win or did they just make the bleeding slower?
Basically that's my question.
If they just make the bleeding slower, why not take a shot, however small, on an option that actually gives you a chance to win the game? Is the goal to win or lose by the least amount?
EDIT:
Alright so I've found this lovely thingajigger:
http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.../live-wp-graph
We're basically both right.
(If I'm reading this right) If you go to the point in the graph (toward the end, upper right) where Gano kicks the FG, the Saints have a 92% chance to win the game. After the FG, they still have a 92% chance to win the game. Rivera didn't win the game but he didn't lose the game either. There is value in kicking the can in that situation. If he goes for it and fails, I suspect the Saints win expectancy is basically 99%.
This situation appears to be a matter of how much risk you can stomach on one play. Me, I'd take my chance on that one play because I feel like too many dominoes would have to fall right for you to win going the other route. I don't think there's a right or wrong here.
Apologies to Ron Rivera if he's reading this.