NCAA Bowl Thread

El Diablo · #1 01-02-2007, 02:22 AM

Homer,

See, I think they already knew that. And with such confidence and willingness to go for that and a great play like that, seems like they wouldn't want to risk not scoring in OT and not even getting the CHANCE to win it. The choice to go for two made a lot of sense to me. Just seems to me like it would have made even more sense in regulation. I'm not super familiar w/ college OT, though, and how often they'd expect OK to score 3 and have a shot to get a touchdown and win like that, so maybe I'm missing something about OT that makes a difference.

El Diablo · #2 01-02-2007, 02:23 AM

Homer,

I was just adding more turning points there.

Homer · #3 01-02-2007, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Homer,

I was just adding more turning points there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, I thought you were saying that since Oklahoma scored quickly in OT, BSU's defense likely wasn't tired.

I think dawade has a valid point regarding why they might not have gone for 2 in regulation.

BGnight · #4 01-02-2007, 02:27 AM

I think the momentum of the final play in regulation would be better suited in OT than a 2 pt conversion. How crushing it would be to make that amazing play and 10 seconds lataer miss the 2 pt conversion.

Austiger · #5 01-02-2007, 02:32 AM

The teams were even going to OT, so going for 2 is incorrect. Going to the 2nd OT, Chokelahoma had the advantage because they would be on defense first, so there is more of an incentive.

MyTurn2Raise · #6 01-02-2007, 02:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The teams were even going to OT, so going for 2 is incorrect. Going to the 2nd OT, Chokelahoma had the advantage because they would be on defense first, so there is more of an incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good point that I left out of my original explanation.

JaredL · #7 01-02-2007, 02:32 AM

Diablito,

I could be wrong, but I believe that BSU would have had the ball first in the second OT. Maybe that's the difference, having a 50% chance at going first versus 100%.