Suppose Boise St was playing for all the marbles last night, still go for 2 there!?!

Search

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
I don't think they would have ....last time (1984) Tom Osborne tried that it wasn't a good result, Nebraska lost the National title going for two down in the orange bowl vs Miami, in what was also a great game....

Would Boise have still went for two with everything on the line?

ncf_ap_johnson_dailey_412.jpg



ncf_ap_rabb_275.jpg

ncf_ap_johnson_275.jpg
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
44,283
Tokens
That is an awesome question.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,910
Tokens
very simple question. To answer it directly, ofcourse they would. When you are undermanned and cannot stop the other team and know that, you don't want it to go to another overtime in any way shape or form. You try to shorten the game and the way to do it is to take it to a one play situation. To them this game was playing for all the marbles, and they did go for two so that should answer your question directly.

Now onto the Dr. Tom comparison. That was much different and really isn't even remotely comparible to this situation. NU could have kicked the extra point and pussyfooted their way into a national title. That is not his style. However, there was not overtime back then or he most certainly would have kicked the extra point. Comparing apples and oranges.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
What do you think?

I just can't see them so freely risking it all...the thing that made that last play so beautiful was the fake throw, the whole team reacting to the motion of his arm, as the game was on the line...and they set this formation up months ago, pure brilliance.
 

New member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
1,415
Tokens
I would say they would have. They played like they had nothing to lose. Why risk another overtime when you can control your own fate. They know that their defense is not the greatest so let your offense have a chance to win it. Made sense to me. I am just not sure why they did not go for the 2 in regulation to begin with and avoid overtime.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
royalfan said:
very simple question. To answer it directly, ofcourse they would. When you are undermanned and cannot stop the other team and know that, you don't want it to go to another overtime in any way shape or form. You try to shorten the game and the way to do it is to take it to a one play situation. To them this game was playing for all the marbles, and they did go for two so that should answer your question directly.

Now onto the Dr. Tom comparison. That was much different and really isn't even remotely comparible to this situation. NU could have kicked the extra point and pussyfooted their way into a national title. That is not his style. However, there was not overtime back then or he most certainly would have kicked the extra point. Comparing apples and oranges.

I was not comparing the two...

Very true they could have tied it up and played it safe, was that a smart play though?

How old were you in 1984 anyway 7-8?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,910
Tokens
El Jefe said:
I would say they would have. They played like they had nothing to lose. Why risk another overtime when you can control your own fate. They know that their defense is not the greatest so let your offense have a chance to win it. Made sense to me. I am just not sure why they did not go for the 2 in regulation to begin with and avoid overtime.

I think they thought the momentum of the hook and lateral play would carry them through, but it didn't. That was a tougher call than seeing clearly in the overtime they were overmatched. They definately should have gone for 2 in regulation though, no question.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
Were they really overmatched in OT? OU had one running play that was to the house...I'm not so sure if Boise would have been stopped on that next possession, than OU must score a TD and with that QB who knows...they couldn't run it most of the night...it was no guarantee Oklahoma would have ran over them in OT.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,910
Tokens
Journeyman said:
I was not comparing the two...

Very true they could have tied it up and played it safe, was that a smart play though?

How old were you in 1984 anyway 7-8?

Was what a smart play? If asking about boise, going for two was the only play IMO. If asking about Dr. Tom, it wasn't a smart play, but I don't think there is much choice, given the stupid ass rules back then. What kind of dumb ass game ends in a tie? You want to be known as the coach and the program that likes kissing their sister until the end of time? I was 10.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,910
Tokens
Journeyman said:
Were they really overmatched in OT? OU had one running play that was to the house...I'm not so sure if Boise would have been stopped on that next possession, than OU must score a TD and with that QB who knows...they couldn't run it most of the night...it was no guarantee Oklahoma would have ran over them in OT.

I respectfully disagree. That backup boise corner couldn't cover someone in a closet. They were not going to stop OU in all likelihood. Boise coach knew that and made the only choice their was in my opinion.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
Ok what we still come back to is CFB and the idiotic rules, that are not any better than 30 years ago!

replay sucks , very flawed
new clock rule is beyond belief
BCS=LOL
and no playoff

Maybe they should go back to allowing the President to pick the Champion LOL and this was how it really was back in the day!

Can you imagine that now???
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,910
Tokens
those new clock rules are silly. They need to go to the nfl rules with out of bounds clock goes on spot to shorten the game, not this silly nonsense, or at the very least shitcan the starting clock in the 4th quarter.
 

Active member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
71,780
Tokens
this could be one of the BEST games of ALL time to be playing in college sports Id say it ranks in the top 5 easily
 
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
7,174
Tokens
i think they definitley would've went for two still. The game might've not been "for all the marbles", but it was pretty damn close to Boise.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
In many games that clock rule just kills the game...

Depending on the situation of the game...you could have a team in a running situation at the end of a quarter, run one play around 45 seconds then let the clock run out, by the time the ball is set, next quarter starts and run again then have to punt , other team gets it, clock starts, they run on first down and there were basically 3 plays in 3 minutes clock time...too many games bog down now because of this rule...

I noticed this over and over in the lesser bowl games...I heard Tommy Tubberville was a big supporter of the new rule....most coaches hate the rule.
 

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
12,245
Tokens
yes they would have gone for 2.

Boise knew OU was/is the better team. Boise needed a 4th and 18 hook and ladder to be in postion to win the game.

The chances of them going toe to toe with OU in OT and winning, were slim to none.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,910
Tokens
one other thing is that OU would have had the ball last in the next overtime which is a HUGE advantage. Yet another reason to go for two without any doubt.
 

Active member
Joined
Oct 20, 1999
Messages
75,444
Tokens
royalfan said:
one other thing is that OU would have had the ball last in the next overtime which is a HUGE advantage. Yet another reason to go for two without any doubt.

EXACTLY!

Going for 2 was a NO-BRAINER for three huge reasons..........

1. OKLAHOMA getting ball last.

2. Percentages higher making 2-pointer than if they go to 2nd overtime.

3. Boise DB out
 

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
8,834
Tokens
I think it depends on what they play is. At that point, it's not about OU being better or anything - it's about whether you think the play will succeed.
  • With the play that they had, they would go for 2.
  • If the only play they had left was to throw a fade, they wouldn't go for 2.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,820
Messages
13,439,149
Members
99,339
Latest member
billcunninghamhomeloans
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com