Going for two in 2nd OT: Coaching 101

[newshound]

Has any team in the modern history of college football found more innovative ways to lose a game in the last 25 years? It's unreal. Yesterday may have topped them all.

Credit to the guys for making it a game, but you cannot fall behind 21-0 and 35-14 and beat anyone. Once again, we played like we didn't know what the kickoff time was. This happens FAR too often and it's nothing but coaching (and preparation).

So, riddle me this. It's the second tie-breaker possession. Knowing that in the third possession, SMU would have the ball first and, should the Mustangs score, by rule, they have to go for two. So, our staff, which actually managed the game as well as they ever in recent vintage, decided to kick the extra point and put our defense back on the field -- at the disadvantage of having to play offense first in the third tie-breaking possession.

After having played -- and coached -- with some much-needed and long overdue fire, we played for the tie, to extend the game? -- knowing full well that, in order to win the game, we almost certainly would have to convert a two-pointer.

You need THREE YARDS to win the game. Three yards. You have Rutgers on their heels, yet you give them another chance in the third possession -- where they have the advantage of going on defense first. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

PLAY TO WIN, COACH. PLAY TO WIN. WHEN YOU PLAY "NOT TO LOSE," YOU USUALLY LOSE. This is Exhibit A.

[mrydel]

Always a nice hindsight argument after a loss. I was thinking he might go for 2 at that point also, but then I recalled Bennett doing just that at Memphis a few years back and we did not make it.

Kick the extra point and you have the opportunity to win in the next series.

I cannot criticize that call. As a matter of fact, Rutgers first loss was in overtime to Fresno State where they did exactly what you are suggesting, and they did not make the 2 point conversion. I bet they wish they had kicked it now.

And by the way, Coaching 101 says to kick. It is Advanced Coaching under the chapter of "taking chances" that suggests the other way.

[sbsmith]

The way we were moving the ball I'm pretty sure June was confident that they'd would screw up before we did (came pretty damn close). I have no problem with him extending the game.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

June explained his rationale in his postgame interview. I have no problem with the decision.

[Grant Carter]

Has any team in the modern history of college football found more innovative ways to lose a game in the last 25 years? It's unreal. Yesterday may have topped them all.

Credit to the guys for making it a game, but you cannot fall behind 21-0 and 35-14 and beat anyone. Once again, we played like we didn't know what the kickoff time was. This happens FAR too often and it's nothing but coaching (and preparation).

So, riddle me this. It's the second tie-breaker possession. Knowing that in the third possession, SMU would have the ball first and, should the Mustangs score, by rule, they have to go for two. So, our staff, which actually managed the game as well as they ever in recent vintage, decided to kick the extra point and put our defense back on the field -- at the disadvantage of having to play offense first in the third tie-breaking possession.

After having played -- and coached -- with some much-needed and long overdue fire, we played for the tie, to extend the game? -- knowing full well that, in order to win the game, we almost certainly would have to convert a two-pointer.

You need THREE YARDS to win the game. Three yards. You have Rutgers on their heels, yet you give them another chance in the third possession -- where they have the advantage of going on defense first. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

PLAY TO WIN, COACH. PLAY TO WIN. WHEN YOU PLAY "NOT TO LOSE," YOU USUALLY LOSE. This is Exhibit A.

That is serious second guessing.

The two Rutgers possessions in overtime had required two 4th down conversions and a 3rd and 25 to get their two touchdowns. By no means was it guaranteed that Rutgers was going to score a touchdown in the third overtime. How do you justify your claim that after seeing Rutgers struggle to score on the prior two possessions he should have known full well Rutgers would score a td in the third overtime? Which part of those first two possessions did you consider to be dominant? Taking 4 downs to get ten yards twice or getting pushed all the way back to 3rd and 25?

On top of that, it is common practice to play for the tie at home in that situation.

There are plenty of things to criticize June for, there is no reason to make up ridiculous reasons that just distract from the real issues.

[SMUer]

You have been man-handled for 3Qs in every single facet, then suddenly you catch fire and have them on the ropes with a chance to win. I agree, you go for the win. Going more possessions just increases the chance that the bigger, faster team wins. You harness and take advantage of the fire, not rely on it. You're right, it's not coaching 101 but it is playing the law of averages. June 's risk-taker, who-thinks-about-punting previous swagger has never really materialized here. We tend to play conservatively when we have an unexpected lead. I agree, it's "playing not to lose" which usually means "playing to lose" if you are the underdog.

[AusTxPony]

Even the announcers mentioned that SMU had a "hot QB" and supported the tying the game. We were Jay Scott fingertip inches from winning the game...come on. Also 3rd and 32 for Rutgers without a good field goal kicker...it's the SMU curse. I respectfully disagree with going for two.

[Grant Carter]

You have been man-handled for 3Qs in every single facet, then suddenly you catch fire and have them on the ropes with a chance to win. I agree, you go for the win. Going more possessions just increases the chance that the bigger, faster team wins. You harness and take advantage of the fire, not rely on it. You're right, it's not coaching 101 but it is playing the law of averages. June 's risk-taker, who-thinks-about-punting previous swagger has never really materialized here. We tend to play conservatively when we have an unexpected lead. I agree, it's "playing not to lose" which usually means "playing to lose" of you are the underdog.

Where is the criticism that we did not go for 2 on the second to last touchdown of regulation then? We could have won it in regulation if we had gotten two 2 point conversions instead of just the one. Then we would not have given Rutgers the additional possessions in overtime you are referring to.

[newshound]

No, he explained why he kicked the field goal in the 3rd OT. There, he had no choice. But he created that situation by NOT GOING FOR TWO on the previous possession.

Yes, it's serious second-guessing. I do agree with that. But we hired a $2.1 million coach who we "thought" had a renegade, win-at-all-costs spirit. Hal Mumme has awakened some of that, it appears. Yet, when it was nut-cutting time, they backed off the gas and gave Rutgers another chance.

Even when they do manage the game pretty well, they gack on the one big decision that DECIDED THE GAME. Sick of it.

It's THREE YARDS in the face a having the disadvantage of playing the third OT with offense first when you were going to have to convert a 2-pointer, most likely, to win.

Losers coach "not to lose." I stand by my criticism. Don't merely extend the game. Win the [deleted] thing. Or don't play.

[newshound]

And, yes, it's common practice to play for the tie at home, especially when you have momentum like we did. You play for the tie at the end of regulation and usually at the end of the first OT (but that can depend on who gets the first possession in the second OT)

But, once yet get the the second OT -- and you have to consider the rules change in the 3rd OT where you have to go for two after a TD -- you play to win. Especially if you are getting the ball first in the third OT.

June has consistently demonstrated that he doesn't understand the concept of the two-point conversion and when to use it (see the Tulane game last season).

Down 35-26, you always KICK, which they did. so you keep the game "alive" at an 8-point deficit. That they got right.

But, if you remember the Armed Forces Bowl, we were down 16-0 and finally scored with 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter and June kicked the PAT. It took 42 minutes to score ONE TD, yet JJ made the decision as though we were in some high-scoring shootout. We lost 16-14.

It's a MAJOR pet peeve that he coaches that part of the game like we are in the 1980's NFL.

[mrydel]

I think some of you that have all the answers and knowledge of how the game should have been played after the game is over need to use that knowledge to build a way-back machine. That way we can go back in time and take your wise advice that to date is against any rational thought in coaching circles.

[mrydel]

You have been man-handled for 3Qs in every single facet, then suddenly you catch fire and have them on the ropes with a chance to win. I agree, you go for the win. Going more possessions just increases the chance that the bigger, faster team wins. You harness and take advantage of the fire, not rely on it. You're right, it's not coaching 101 but it is playing the law of averages. June 's risk-taker, who-thinks-about-punting previous swagger has never really materialized here. We tend to play conservatively when we have an unexpected lead. I agree, it's "playing not to lose" which usually means "playing to lose" of you are the underdog.

Where is the criticism that we did not go for 2 on the second to last touchdown of regulation then? We could have won it in regulation if we had gotten two 2 point conversions instead of just the one. Then we would not have given Rutgers the additional possessions in overtime you are referring to.

Grant, I trust you are being facetious here. No way was going for two in the next to last score a viable option. If missed then it would have become a 2 score. I think I understand where you are coming from in your post but I just want to be sure.

[PonyKai]

I was a little surprised that in the third OT, we kicked the FG. I understand that it was 4th and 5(?), but, given that Rutgers had just scored a 29 yard TD pass on Third and 24, and we had demonstrated a solid inability to prevent them from scoring touchdowns, I thought we should have gone for it. I know, hindsight and all, but they had scored 7 touchdowns on the day up to that point (yes, two in OT).

[Grant Carter]

You have been man-handled for 3Qs in every single facet, then suddenly you catch fire and have them on the ropes with a chance to win. I agree, you go for the win. Going more possessions just increases the chance that the bigger, faster team wins. You harness and take advantage of the fire, not rely on it. You're right, it's not coaching 101 but it is playing the law of averages. June 's risk-taker, who-thinks-about-punting previous swagger has never really materialized here. We tend to play conservatively when we have an unexpected lead. I agree, it's "playing not to lose" which usually means "playing to lose" of you are the underdog.

Where is the criticism that we did not go for 2 on the second to last touchdown of regulation then? We could have won it in regulation if we had gotten two 2 point conversions instead of just the one. Then we would not have given Rutgers the additional possessions in overtime you are referring to.

Grant, I trust you are being facetious here. No way was going for two in the next to last score a viable option. If missed then it would have become a 2 score. I think I understand where you are coming from in your post but I just want to be sure.

Yes. My point was, if someone really believes we should have gone for two in the 2nd overtime because more possessions gives Rutgers a better chance to win, then why are they not extending that argument to earlier in the game as well.

[SMUer]

It's not "after the fact wisdom", it's life experience. If you are ahead in a situation where you shouldn't be, you can count on the fact that if your situation is extended, you at increasingly likely to fall behind. Go for the win when you have the opportunity. When June first arrived , he alluded to the fact that, with this offense, he wouldn't punt if he was near the 50...haven't seen that bravado although at the time I was like "heck yeah".