SMU trails ECU 21-0 in 2nd qtr. Will they score today?

(10-04-2014 11:42 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  Halfway through the first quarter, Marshall leads ODU 21-0

Now 28-0 still in the 1stQ. Last week's lost by ODU was also at home....guess we should have played them on the road. Little wonder we are getting little respect thus far.

Mississippi State up over A$M 21-7 in the 1st half. After walloping LSU, they don't appear to be a lower tier SEC team any longer.

I wonder if they had to stop and show the SMU PK where to go as the Mustangs kick their first XP today. They had one other TD but it was the last play of the game against UNT so no XP try was taken.

28-7 Mississippi State now

Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

(10-04-2014 12:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

I guess that answers the question. I too would have gone for the FG here. But I sure didn't like their playcalling that led to the 4th, esp. the third down call.

SMU now only trails by 14.. 28-14 ECU

(10-04-2014 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

I guess that answers the question. I too would have gone for the FG here. But I sure didn't like their playcalling that led to the 4th, esp. the third down call.

Could it not also be a matter of psychology? A&M is in the same class physically and talent wise as MSU so it has some realistic chance of getting back in the game. Some of their wounds in the current game have been self-inflicted. We on the other hand, in order to have a chance at A&M, would need to roll the dice whenever we have a shot at 6. By playing it safe, we insure a loss.

M State's pounding of first LSU and now ATM makes me feel better about our bowl performance!

(10-04-2014 01:09 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

I guess that answers the question. I too would have gone for the FG here. But I sure didn't like their playcalling that led to the 4th, esp. the third down call.

Could it not also be a matter of psychology? A&M is in the same class physically and talent wise as MSU so it has some realistic chance of getting back in the game. Some of their wounds in the current game have been self-inflicted. We on the other hand, in order to have a chance at A&M, would need to roll the dice whenever we have a shot at 6. By playing it safe, we insure a loss.

I was not trying to correlate to the A$M game or any particular FG in our past, but rather to the general idea of kicking FGs when way down.

As I said, I too would have kicked that FG that sumlin just did, but I wondered if some would consider that "giving up".

The play calling that took A$M from a first down in the red zone to having to kick a FG would, IMO, if done by Rice, result in a well-deserved plethora of complaints about play calling and execution. No idea what the Aggies are saying.

(10-04-2014 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:09 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

I guess that answers the question. I too would have gone for the FG here. But I sure didn't like their playcalling that led to the 4th, esp. the third down call.

Could it not also be a matter of psychology? A&M is in the same class physically and talent wise as MSU so it has some realistic chance of getting back in the game. Some of their wounds in the current game have been self-inflicted. We on the other hand, in order to have a chance at A&M, would need to roll the dice whenever we have a shot at 6. By playing it safe, we insure a loss.

I was not trying to correlate to the A$M game or any particular FG in our past, but rather to the general idea of kicking FGs when way down.

As I said, I too would have kicked that FG that sumlin just did, but I wondered if some would consider that "giving up".

The play calling that took A$M from a first down in the red zone to having to kick a FG would, IMO, if done by Rice, result in a well-deserved plethora of complaints about play calling and execution. No idea what the Aggies are saying.

I think whether kicking the FG appears as "giving up" depends on whether you think your team can hang around the other team without taking chances.

I would agree with you on Sumlin's play calling in that situation. No coach is perfect and he will be justly criticized. But overall, his track record at UofH and A&M is pretty good. He is definitely on a higher plane than DB.

(10-04-2014 01:43 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I think whether kicking the FG appears as "giving up" depends on whether you think your team can hang around the other team without taking chances.

Perhaps Sumlin was in error thinking the FG was right. It is now 41-17, State.

(10-04-2014 01:09 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

I guess that answers the question. I too would have gone for the FG here. But I sure didn't like their playcalling that led to the 4th, esp. the third down call.

Could it not also be a matter of psychology? A&M is in the same class physically and talent wise as MSU so it has some realistic chance of getting back in the game. Some of their wounds in the current game have been self-inflicted. We on the other hand, in order to have a chance at A&M, would need to roll the dice whenever we have a shot at 6. By playing it safe, we insure a loss.

Bingo.

Although MSU is rolling along like a juggernaut now.

Looks like we got rolled in the Liberty Bowl by an up and coming football team that just got their star QB back and not just some mediocre SEC team. Miss St looking like a top SEC contender so far this year.

Does anyone understand why Texas A&M decided to move to the Slightly Educated Conference? Had they remained in the Big 12, they would have won that conference at least 1 out of the last 2 years. Every Aggie I have conversed with insists that the move has "enhanced their brand". I fail to understand how associating with an athletic conference that fails to stand for any semblance of the actual mission of an educational institution (save for Vandy) allows you to "enhance your brand". Perhaps they were speaking of the infamous BEVO (13-0) brand.

(10-04-2014 02:09 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 01:09 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Down 28-7, 7 seconds left in the half, 4th and 3 at the nine. Would we want Bailiff to kick a FG here?

Sumlin did. 28-10 MissSt at the half.

Buddy, with only 7 seconds on the clock (time for only one play), you've GOT to go for the FG there. VERY different situation than when Bailiff went for the FG on 4th an 3 against A&M. That was an insanely idiotic and ultra conservative decision.

I guess that answers the question. I too would have gone for the FG here. But I sure didn't like their playcalling that led to the 4th, esp. the third down call.

Could it not also be a matter of psychology? A&M is in the same class physically and talent wise as MSU so it has some realistic chance of getting back in the game. Some of their wounds in the current game have been self-inflicted. We on the other hand, in order to have a chance at A&M, would need to roll the dice whenever we have a shot at 6. By playing it safe, we insure a loss.

Bingo.

Although MSU is rolling along like a juggernaut now.

Thanks everybody for a sane and civil discussion.

(10-04-2014 03:00 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Does anyone understand why Texas A&M decided to move to the Slightly Educated Conference? Had they remained in the Big 12, they would have won that conference at least 1 out of the last 2 years. Every Aggie I have conversed with insists that the move has "enhanced their brand". I fail to understand how associating with an athletic conference that fails to stand for any semblance of the actual mission of an educational institution (save for Vandy) allows you to "enhance your brand". Perhaps they were speaking of the infamous BEVO (13-0) brand.

Have you seen how big the SEC brand is right now? Right now, even in the P5 there is the SEC, and then there is "not exactly" to quote a commercial. Being associated with the SEC and being considered a top team in that conference is like the golden ticket right now in NCAA football. Does anyone even care who the Big 12 champion was last year? All eyes are on the top SEC teams and the only question in this new playoff is, will 2 SEC teams fight for the championship, or is there another team out there strong enough to compete with the SEC champ.

(10-04-2014 03:00 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Does anyone understand why Texas A&M decided to move to the Slightly Educated Conference? Had they remained in the Big 12, they would have won that conference at least 1 out of the last 2 years. Every Aggie I have conversed with insists that the move has "enhanced their brand". I fail to understand how associating with an athletic conference that fails to stand for any semblance of the actual mission of an educational institution (save for Vandy) allows you to "enhance your brand". Perhaps they were speaking of the infamous BEVO (13-0) brand.

I truly hope you're being sarcastic here. A university's brand, national reputation, perception and overall awareness is far more than simply it's academic standing. In fact, one can argue pretty convincingly that it has more to do with athletic prominance than academic rankings. A&M jumped at the opportunity to move into the SEC (as did Arkansas much earlier) predominantly to get out of UT's long shadow (and puppet strings). In terms of college athletics, for the past 10+ years the SEC has blown away the Big 12 in national prominence and exposure in all sports save for perhaps basketball. It's as simple as that. Playing in the SEC, and having a successful program in the SEC, garners far more positive national exposure than doing so in the Big 12, and that most definitely translates into "ehancing it's brand".

Oh, and BTW, a University's mission-- even at the most elite academic schools-- goes far beyond being an "educational institution". As a wise man once said, "don't let your studies interfere with your education".