I'll miss a detail or two....

but the ECU game... are you kidding me??

Up by 10 with about 4 minutes to go... Cinn kicks off...

7 plays 50 seconds and 75 yards later, it's a 4 point game. 2 pt conversion fails.

ECU kicks deep and they let it go out of the end zone. Ball on the 20. 3 running plays (after throwing for over 400 yards) burns about a minute... 4th and 2 on their own 28, up 4 with 2 minutes.

THEY GO FOR IT??!!??

AND they turn the ball over. on a poorly conceived play.

ECU takes the lead a minute later... again missing the 2pc

Now, they're driving easily (throwing the ball again) and are currently in FG range so they may win anyway...

but WHAT the HECK were they thinking??

AND they do.

Similar to the counter argument in the other thread...

Does a good outcome justify a stupid decision?

Why are you running when you've moved the ball almost at will by passing.... and how can you POSSIBLY go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28 up by 4? You gave up t TDs in about 45 seconds and only won because despite giving up 75 yards in 7 plays and then 28 in another 5, they missed two 2pt conversions.

ECU screwed up by scoring too fast

(11-13-2014 11:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  AND they do.

Similar to the counter argument in the other thread...

Does a good outcome justify a stupid decision?

Why are you running when you've moved the ball almost at will by passing.... and how can you POSSIBLY go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28?

ECU screwed up by scoring too fast

Yup on all accounts. When ECU got the pass interference call and 1st and goal from the 6 yard line with 1:34 to play, they should have run at least once, if not twice, to burn up the clock. Instead, they did 4 consecutive passes. Stupid clock management. Quite honestly, not impressed with either team.

(11-13-2014 11:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  AND they do.

Similar to the counter argument in the other thread...

Does a good outcome justify a stupid decision?

Why are you running when you've moved the ball almost at will by passing.... and how can you POSSIBLY go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28?

ECU screwed up by scoring too fast

I was watching and had the same reaction. No question it was a horrible decision just to go for it, not to mention the terrible play call. I thought Tuberville would be resigning tomorrow. But they won it somehow, so it will most likely not be a story

(11-13-2014 11:45 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 11:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  AND they do.
Similar to the counter argument in the other thread...
Does a good outcome justify a stupid decision?
Why are you running when you've moved the ball almost at will by passing.... and how can you POSSIBLY go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28?
ECU screwed up by scoring too fast

Yup on all accounts. When ECU got the pass interference call and 1st and goal from the 6 yard line with 1:34 to play, they should have run at least once, if not twice, to burn up the clock. Instead, they did 4 consecutive passes. Stupid clock management. Quite honestly, not impressed with either team.

ECU needed a TD, not a FG. In that case, you have to call the play that you think gives you the best chance to score the TD, not worry about clock. If a FG wins it (particularly if you are tied and not down 1 or 2) then maybe you think about clock. But needing a TD, clock has to be a secondary decision. It didn't work for them, but that wasn't atrocious.

Running the ball three times when they had been living by the pass all night was atrocious for Cincy. As ruowls pointed out in the other thread, their first thought should have been the first down. With 3:44 left and ECU able to stop the clock twice more, they needed at least one first down, most likely two, in order to run out the clock. So you do what has worked for you all night.

As for the fourth down call, I can see some logic. If you get the first, you pretty much get the win. If you have to give the ball up, maybe you have zero confidence in your defense's ability to stop them. So you figure if they're going to score anyway if we give them the ball, maybe we're better off giving them the ball in our end so they score quicker and leave us more time. That's how it worked out. But here's the problem. If that's your thinking, then you don't run the ball three times on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, because if you don't trust your defense then your only objective is the first down. This looks like a classic situation where Tuberville was making it up as he went along instead of having a plan in advance. Lucky for him, this one worked out.

(11-13-2014 11:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  AND they do.

Similar to the counter argument in the other thread...

Does a good outcome justify a stupid decision?

Why are you running when you've moved the ball almost at will by passing.... and how can you POSSIBLY go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28 up by 4? You gave up t TDs in about 45 seconds and only won because despite giving up 75 yards in 7 plays and then 28 in another 5, they missed two 2pt conversions.

ECU screwed up by scoring too fast

Down by 10, you score a TD... why do you attempt a two point conversion? Again, when you have the chance to go up by 3 points, why try it again? I'd assume they'd have someone on the roster that could kick an extra point if their regular kicker were injured. You'd have to have absolutely no confidence in your FG kicker, meaning you'd want to avoid OT at all costs.

(11-14-2014 09:32 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 11:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  AND they do.
Similar to the counter argument in the other thread...
Does a good outcome justify a stupid decision?
Why are you running when you've moved the ball almost at will by passing.... and how can you POSSIBLY go for it on 4th and 2 on your own 28 up by 4? You gave up t TDs in about 45 seconds and only won because despite giving up 75 yards in 7 plays and then 28 in another 5, they missed two 2pt conversions.
ECU screwed up by scoring too fast

Down by 10, you score a TD... why do you attempt a two point conversion? Again, when you have the chance to go up by 3 points, why try it again? I'd assume they'd have someone on the roster that could kick an extra point if their regular kicker were injured. You'd have to have absolutely no confidence in your FG kicker, meaning you'd want to avoid OT at all costs.

They were down 11, 45-34, not 10. They scored with 3:44 left to cut it to 5; going for two so that a FG ties it is perfectly reasonable in that situation, probably the obvious play. Then they scored to go up 46-45 with 1:02 left; at that point you clearly go for two to go up 3. I think they were one point off from the progression in your hypothetical. Up 2, which is where I think you are projecting them to be after the second TD, you clearly kick to go up 3.

The down 10 situation (so you are down 4 after scoring) is one that is debated and there are arguments both ways. The right answer probably depends more on philosophy than anything. Overtime has probably changed some preferences here. The others are clear-cut. Down 11 (5 after scoring) you clearly go for 2 to get to down 3. Down 5 (up 1 after scoring) you go for two to go up 3. Down 4 (up 2 after scoring) you clearly go for 1 so the field goal doesn't beat you.

Thanks. It seemed like stupidity ran rampant on the field, but an 11 point margin makes more sense of the situation. I was wondering if the coaches just wanted to get off the field because it was too cold...

Hey all...

I need to apologize for unintentionally doing something. In no way was I trying to 'rehash' any conversation in another thread... in no small part because I didn't really pay attention to the conversation... I just saw the single comment and thought it was pertinent.... and it turned out to be so.

My point is that I called this decision a bad one because it was WAY against the odds and only worked out because of another mistake by the other coach.

Having not trusted the offense that had worked for him all day... running to keep them honest but then throwing for first downs... with a FG meaningless... the percentage call was to make them go 70 yards in 2 minutes for a TD, not 28 yards.

The only reason it worked was because ECU, having first down and goal at the 6 after a short run and a PI call (meaning there was still most of the 2 minutes left) THREW the ball 5 times in a row before running for the score... taking virtually no time off the clock and giving Cinncinatti a minute to score in return and they did. On at least ONE of those plays from the 6, they should have run the ball and taken more time off the clock. If they had scored with 30 seconds left rather than 1:02, they would have likely won the game.

They should have run on 1st or 2nd down from the 6. and burned some time. They had more than 1 TO and best I can tell all three... so 'not enough time' was NEVER an issue for them. Getting the PI on 4th down, putting the ball at the 2, again, they should have run, not thrown. If they'd have scored, it would have been the same thing... but if they had not, they would have at least run the clock.

In other words, one bad percentage call was only made 'okay' by another bad percentage call by the other coach... and it wasn't 'okay' because he trusted his offense or didn't trust his defense. ECUs coach isn't on Cinn's offense or defense.

If Cinn was going to not trust his defense, he should have conceded the TD from the 28 giving him 2 minutes to score 3 to tie or 7 to win IF they made the 2pc or 3 to win (as they did) if they'd failed.

For US the pertinent thing is that ECU is no longer in the picture.

It is Marshall or us... Memphis has an outside shot if 'voters be crazy' but if we can beat Marshall twice and utep and la tech (not impossible but also far from easy or expected) the Peach Bowl is in play

(11-14-2014 12:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  For US the pertinent thing is that ECU is no longer in the picture.

It is Marshall or us... Memphis has an outside shot if 'voters be crazy' but if we can beat Marshall twice and utep and la tech (not impossible but also far from easy or expected) the Peach Bowl is in play

If Marshall loses before the end of the season it's likely onto Colorado State or Boise State at this point for the G5 spot. Colorado State has one loss but it's to Boise - and rules for the G5 spot state that the bowl invitee must win its conference (Colorado St needs a Boise loss somewhere along the way to even make the MWC title game).

Both ESPN guys this week have Boise St in the Peach Bowl even if Marshall wins out.

Of course, crazier things have happened than everyone losing again ...

(11-14-2014 12:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  For US the pertinent thing is that ECU is no longer in the picture.

It is Marshall or us... Memphis has an outside shot if 'voters be crazy' but if we can beat Marshall twice and utep and la tech (not impossible but also far from easy or expected) the Peach Bowl is in play

LaTech also has a reasonable shot at the CUSA championship, though they may have a worse resume than the AAC or MWC champion.

Right now, the top of the MWC and AAC are messes because the top teams are beating each other. If Rice beats Marshall, then the top of CUSA has the same problem.

Regardless, combining ND and A&M with a potential finishing run of Marshall, UTEP, LaTech, and (hopefully) Marshall would give Rice a pretty nice SOS. But Rice over a 2-loss Colorado State or a 2-loss Boise State? Again, certainly a worthy discussion and it would be great for Rice to be a part of that discussion.

How about the game against BYU where we went for it on 4th and short from about our own ten with less than a minute to go in the first half? Passed to the tight end and got a huge gain but what kind of decision was that by Hatfield?

(11-14-2014 12:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hey all...

I need to apologize for unintentionally doing something. In no way was I trying to 'rehash' any conversation in another thread... in no small part because I didn't really pay attention to the conversation... I just saw the single comment and thought it was pertinent.... and it turned out to be so.

My point is that I called this decision a bad one because it was WAY against the odds and only worked out because of another mistake by the other coach.

Having not trusted the offense that had worked for him all day... running to keep them honest but then throwing for first downs... with a FG meaningless... the percentage call was to make them go 70 yards in 2 minutes for a TD, not 28 yards.

The only reason it worked was because ECU, having first down and goal at the 6 after a short run and a PI call (meaning there was still most of the 2 minutes left) THREW the ball 5 times in a row before running for the score... taking virtually no time off the clock and giving Cinncinatti a minute to score in return and they did. On at least ONE of those plays from the 6, they should have run the ball and taken more time off the clock. If they had scored with 30 seconds left rather than 1:02, they would have likely won the game.

They should have run on 1st or 2nd down from the 6. and burned some time. They had more than 1 TO and best I can tell all three... so 'not enough time' was NEVER an issue for them. Getting the PI on 4th down, putting the ball at the 2, again, they should have run, not thrown. If they'd have scored, it would have been the same thing... but if they had not, they would have at least run the clock.

In other words, one bad percentage call was only made 'okay' by another bad percentage call by the other coach... and it wasn't 'okay' because he trusted his offense or didn't trust his defense. ECUs coach isn't on Cinn's offense or defense.

If Cinn was going to not trust his defense, he should have conceded the TD from the 28 giving him 2 minutes to score 3 to tie or 7 to win IF they made the 2pc or 3 to win (as they did) if they'd failed.

What may have been even more egregious about the time management is that before running the failed 4th down play, Cincinnati had to take 1 of their 3 remaining timeouts to avoid a delay of game. The interaction as the team came to the sideline was interesting, because the coach on the field (not Tuberville) was cursing out the QB for something. I'm presuming now (it wasn't obvious at the time that they actually really wanted to go for it) it may have been because they actually wanted him to run the play, while the team only half-heartedly tried to draw ECU offsides then gave up instead of running the play.

Luckily for them, they didn't need that extra TO to get in FG range, though it could have been interesting if they were still scrambling to get close enough as the clock wound down. Yet another example of preparation and execution and where it really didn't work out.

Wouldn't the worst call ever be the one near the end of a game some years ago, when all SMU had to do was take a knee... And instead the coach called a pass which was intercepted and run back for the game-winning touchdown by their opponent?

ETA: Well, it was Baylor, and a run, and it was 15 years ago. But I had the right sport.

(11-14-2014 02:35 PM)elf owl Wrote:  How about the game against BYU where we went for it on 4th and short from about our own ten with less than a minute to go in the first half? Passed to the tight end and got a huge gain but what kind of decision was that by Hatfield?

That was the kind of decision that was pre-internet-message-board.

(11-14-2014 01:10 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Right now, the top of the MWC and AAC are messes because the top teams are beating each other. If Rice beats Marshall, then the top of CUSA has the same problem.

Regardless, combining ND and A&M with a potential finishing run of Marshall, UTEP, LaTech, and (hopefully) Marshall would give Rice a pretty nice SOS. But Rice over a 2-loss Colorado State or a 2-loss Boise State? Again, certainly a worthy discussion and it would be great for Rice to be a part of that discussion.

If you recall, I addressed the Boise/CSU issue. The easiest solution is for them to lose the MWC championship game to a team that already has 2 league losses and 3-4 on the year. Boise has 2 losses on the year and CSU has one to Boise. Boise wins out and they are in the championship but must lose. If Boise loses another league game and AF beats CSU (AF beat Boise), then Utah St goes from that division and they have already lost 3 games. And, Boise still has to play Utah St, Wyoming, and SDSU. Utah State also has only one league loss to CSU and still has to play Boise last game and they already have 3 losses on the year. So, Utah State wins out and CSU loses to AF or New Mexico, problem solved by MWC championship game. Otherwise, CSU or Boise must lose the MWC championship game.

While not as much late game determining, there was this "beauty" of a fake punt that Cal tried running deep in its territory last night. I know they were down big at the time, but this is some kind of awful.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...31319.html

Okay.

Ever was an over-reaction.


Let's win out and find out. If we don't win out, I frankly don't care enough about any other g5 school to care who goes. I suppose I'd root for the team in our league (at the margin) but I honestly don't care.