No on-side kick?

[LakeHighlandsPony]

Banking on our defense to make a stop was nuts.

[mrydel]

Banking on our defense to make a stop was nuts.

But you had to bank on it because the only other option was recovery of the onside kick and that is iffy. I am sure that Jones thought either way the odds were in favor of us having to stop them to get the ball back and better to stop them deep in their territory than in ours. I personally would have liked to try the onside kick but I understand the reasoning behind not doing it.

The saddest thing about it is all knew (including Jones I suppose) that our D would not be able to stop them which leads me to think he was trying to instill confidence in the defense, but it did not work.

[JasonB]

Even if recovering the kick is a 10% chance, us stopping them to 3 and out was a 0 percent chance, we hadn't done so in the second half at all. Only their penalties were keeping them from continuing drivers other than the turnovers, and they weren't going to run those types of plays on that drive.

It was a bad decision. Stuff happens, long season, but that was a bad call.

[ponyfanman]

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB....one first down by Tulane and it's over.

[westexSMU]

ONLY option should have been on sides kick because we only had 2 time outs left. So even if we had stopped them with 3 and out, there just would not been but a few seconds left after they would have run down the clock on 4th down and taken a penalty before punting.

[westexSMU]

Having said that, I thought the team looked good in the second half after a pitiful effort in the first half. I thought BLM looked pretty good the entire game as receivers dropped passes in the 1st half and caught them in the 2nd half.....The real question is are we starting to really get better or was Tulane just flat in 2nd half after leading 31-7 at halftime ?

[jimhagle]

Realistically we had one chance to win and that was to recover an on-side kick-go figure.