NCAA Bowl Thread

[El Diablo]

Homer,

Insta-TD by Sooners in OT.
First down by Boise in OT.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Homer,

Insta-TD by Sooners in OT.
First down by Boise in OT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they weren't tired, but they were having trouble stopping them towards the end of the game. It's only my best guess, you'd have to ask the coach.

[El Diablo]

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.

[dawade]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

1) Wowowowowow.

2) Wowowoowoww.

3) Why did they go for two in OT instead of just going for two at the end of the game?

4) WTFWTFWTF w/ Chris Myers "YOURE GOING TO PROPOSE TO YOUR GIRLFRIEND" JFC WTF U MORON!!!

5) I rewound that Statue of Liberty play about 10 times. Incredible how perfectly it worked. Just incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they didn't go for two in regulation because of the way the final TD in regulation went down. 4th and goal from the 1 and a QB sneak, yeah I think they go for two there. But on a hail mary/hook and ladder-type play, I think they got caught up in the moment.

[El Diablo]

Homer,

I was just adding more turning points there.

[Homer]

[ 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.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Homer: You missed my point. Why in OT instead of regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were having more trouble stoppping Oklahoma as the game went on. I think their defense was worn out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agreed with the kick at the end of regulation and going for 2. The people I watched the game with agreed as well. Here's why:

at the end of regulation,
Boise St had to think they were the better team. Their offense put more together than the Sooners. They were stuffing the Sooner run. They just scored a TD that left Oklahoma more deflated for whatever that is worth. Basically, why would the better team go for a higher variance strategy.

However, in OT, we saw AP easily run 25 yards for a td. It's amazing, but the idea of Boise St being tired on D hadn't really been a factor before that play. The way the Broncos were just blown off the ball at every position on that play made me think their chances at stopping Oklahoma were minimal. In addition, Boise had to empty the playbook and throw the whole kitchen sink at the Sooners to get the TD in OT. One wonders how much they had left for a shot in the second OT.

I agreed with both choices.
Of course, if I knew the Statue of Liberty would work that well, I would've gone for it at the end of regulation.

[BGnight]

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]

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.

[JaredL]

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%.