[NU Sports] Bowl pool update ...

Fri Jan 9 13:17:31 CST 2009

IMHO, the Texas game was lost on the way that Tressel handled the
challenge of the ball spot for the first down.

As long as there isn't a rule against it, I would have pulled the
defense to the sidelines as soon as I made the challenge and treated the
delay as a time out.  I would have told the defense that we weren't
going to win the challenge, but that we will win the game if we can keep
Texas out of the end zone.  Then I would have reminded them that Texas
had been beating us all evening with quick snaps, so get back to the
line of scrimmage and be prepared for the quick snap.  Instead from what
I could see, everyone stared at the jumbotron and waited for the call on
the challenge.

Jeff

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.

From: nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com [mailto:nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Hodges
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:07 PM
To: Trey McAdams
Cc: nwu-sports at tssi.com
Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Bowl pool update ...

If we're analyzing game situations, I'll take a stab at these two.

- Regarding running on 3rd down and more than one yard: yes, the run
game may be working well, but the fact is that 3rd and short is clearly
a running opportunity and it makes it easier for the defense to focus on
clogging the middle of the field.  On 1st and 2nd downs, though, with
the defense more spread out, it opens up more for the run.  It's easy to
sit back and judge them for an incomplete pass, but it's quite possibly
more likely to get stuffed if attempting a run - and if they would have
run it and not made it everyone would be jumping up and down about
"being too conservative."

- Now specifically regarding the OSU game - when your team is down (in
this case, down by 2, 15-17), you ALWAYS go for the score.  I can
understand if people are upset for them not running more time off of the
play clock, but "wasting" downs just for the purpose of bleeding the
clock while you're losing is just plain dumb.  OSU's defense was doing a
great job of holding back Texas that game and the very least you can do
is leave it up to them to hold them one last time to win the game.  If
your offense has an opportunity to take the game-winning score, even if
that means leaving time on the clock, go for it.  Running it up the
middle 3 times and then failing to convert a FG and then losing by 2
points does you no good - if the opportunity is there to punch it in,
then go for it.  Plus, with over 2:00 left to play and already in the
red zone, chances are that they couldn't run off that much time anyways
(I believe Texas had at least 2 timeouts left too).  AND remember that
OSU scored on a running play, so one would think that they were trying
to be conservative in that situation, but don't expect the RB to just
fall down to try and run off more time when the end zone is there for
the taking.

Regarding the 2 point conversion, OSU was up by 4 already (meaning Texas
needed a TD), and at least if a 2 point conversion is made, the other
team feels some pressure to make that XP for the win - which is not a
sure thing, especially at the collegiate level.  A 5-point lead does you
absolutely no good.

While other coaching decisions during the respective games may have cost
teams the game, I do not agree at all that these 2 specific decisions
cost teams the game - in fact, both of the aforementioned drives
resulted in points that left those teams with the lead close to the end
of the game - it's hard to argue that that puts your team in a bad
position.  It is perfectly suitable, though, to argue that the defense
allowing long last-minute drives for game-winning scores is
unacceptable.  OSU was finding ways to stop Texas for much of the night
but then lost it at the end.

Jonathan

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Trey McAdams <tmcadams at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Not only was this an ugly OSU/Big Ten loss, It was the second BCS game

> that a Big Ten Coach has GIVEN to the opponent.
>
> Case in Point #1:
>  - Mich versus Texas in the Rose Bowl - Mich has a 3rd and short with 
> under
> 2 mins to play.  They are getting 8-10 yards a rush because Texas is 
> worn down.  Carr decides to throw the ball - incomplete.  Field Goal
Michigan.
>  Texas has time to have Vince Young drive Texas and get a field goal 
> to win the game on a last second field goal. Run the ball on the 3rd 
> down and Michigan likely gets the 1st down and wins the game on the 
> their own field goal (or TD with a new set of downs).
>  - OSU versus Texas this Year.  Texas leading by 2 and has 2 timeouts
left.
>  OSU has 1st and 10 at the UT 23 and gains 8 yards on 1st down.  2nd 
> and 2 OSU scores.  This was the mistake, OSU did not let the play 
> clock run down and should have tried to run the ball for 2-3 yards and
then fallen down.
>  You CANNOT GIVE TEXAS THE BALL BACK IF YOU CAN HELP IT.  At worst you

> need to force Texas to call its timeouts.  Since they did not have to 
> call their timeouts, Texas had the entire field to work with on their 
> drive.  OSU must try to run the clock out with 2 mins to play and in 
> easy field goal range, but no OSU scores quickly.  Then to make it 
> worse - THEY GO FOR 2!!!!!  In that situation there is huge 
> differnence in being up 4, or 5/6.  Up 4, Texas could score a TD,
kick an extra point and OSU needs a field goal to tie.
>  Up 5/6, Texas scores kicks an extra point and then OSU can kick a 
> field goal to win.  Up 6, Texas will kick a field goal and be up 1, 
> OSU  still needs a field goal to win.  SO WHY GO FOR 2!!!!!  It made
no sense.
>
> Simple coaching lost both of those BCS games or the Big Ten.  I hope 
> Fitz is watching and learning from these mistakes that others are 
> making.  NU will be in this type of situation in the future (ie. - MSU

> comeback game - we failed to let MSU score when it was obvious they 
> were going to get a field goal and leave us with very little time).
>
> It drive me nuts when coaches make these types of simple mistakes.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "neonrye at aol.com" <neonrye at aol.com>
> To: sjtruog at yahoo.com; nwu-sports at tssi.com
> Sent: Monday, January 5, 2009 11:11:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Bowl pool update ...
>
> Another loss by the Big Ten--ugh!? I even found myself rooting for the

> Buckeyes, notwithstanding my nearly four decade hatred of everything 
> about tOSU.? I especially liked the fade play TD from Boeckman to 
> Pryor.? Can you imagine, though, if Terell had been badly injured on 
> that play.? Tressel would have never lived it down.? But seriously, 
> are there 2 major programs that are more easy to dislike than those 
> based in Austin and Columbus?? And two more arrogant sets of fans?
>
> Anyway, on another note, 60 Minutes had a terrific piece last night on

> Mike Leach of Texas Tech.? I highly recommend it if you can catch the 
> replay later in the season.
>
> Paul Levinson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SjT (Stephen J. Truog) <sjtruog at yahoo.com>
> To: NUSPORTS <nwu-sports at tssi.com>
> Sent: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:00 pm
> Subject: [NU Sports] Bowl pool update ...
>
>
>
> Well, I'm ready to stick a fork in the Buckeyes. Almost like our bowl 
> game (and not just in the endless shots of the QB parents - sheesh! I 
> think the only parents on TV more than Chase/Colt's was Grant Hill's 
> dad in that 1994
> tourney)
> - great first half but they didn't take advantage in scoring as much 
> as they should have given the yardage/time domination.
>
> But at least we seemed to make adjustments and come out with some life

> in the second half. The Buckeyes just looked dead. No will. No 
> adjustments. And once that bad call gave the first Texas drive new 
> life, they were toast.
>
> In any case, in terms of the bowl pool the Buckeyes have foiled my 
> comeback plans and means congratulations go out to RAY STAHL, who at 
> 12-7 has clinched no worse than a tie for the title. (Lots of .500 or 
> below marks this year!).
>
> If Florida wins, Ray claims the title alone at 13-7.
> If Oklahoma wins, Ivars Embrekts ties him at 12-8.
>
> Updated Hall of Fame and final results after the game in Miami on
Thursday.
> Thanks for playing and another great year!
>
> GO CATS!!!
> -SjT
>
> * * * * * * * * *
> STEPHEN J. TRUOG
> sjtruog at yahoo.com
> GO CATS!!!
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>

--
Jonathan W. Hodges
1237 Emerson St Apt 2
Evanston, IL  60201-3577
(847) 736-2449
jonathanwhodges at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
nwu-sports site list
nwu-sports at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports