K-State almost lost to......

jgb0607 · September 3, 2006

They won 24-23 after ISU scored and had the balls to go for 2!

Have to respect that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gam...52306&confId=80

Arkstfan · September 3, 2006

Bet Illinois State fans are ready to kill their coach. They lost to Northern Illinois in 2004 the same way.

UNTFan23 · September 3, 2006

Bet Illinois State fans are ready to kill their coach. They lost to Northern Illinois in 2004 the same way.
←

I beg to differ. Going for 2 is playing to win. While kicking the PAT is never a "sure thing", going for 2 requires far more balls then most coaches have nowadays. People would be calling him a genius if they'd made it, and perhaps cursing him if he'd just kicked it and lost in OT. Perhaps the coach was thinking he might not win the game if it had gone into OT, so going for 2 made the most sense.

It's all about risk/reward.

Arkstfan · September 3, 2006

I beg to differ. Going for 2 is playing to win. While kicking the PAT is never a "sure thing", going for 2 requires far more balls then most coaches have nowadays. People would be calling him a genius if they'd made it, and perhaps cursing him if he'd just kicked it and lost in OT. Perhaps the coach was thinking he might not win the game if it had gone into OT, so going for 2 made the most sense.
It's all about risk/reward.
←

I didn't get to watch this game but I did watch the NIU game. Illinois State was the team on the roll. NIU had needed some penalties to save scoring drives and had one set-up by turnover. ISU was the one playing good football. Going for two and the win is an admission that you believe you are better off having one play than a full set off offensive downs and defensive downs to determine who is best.

Look at that box score from the K-State game. Illinois State DOMINATED every category except turnovers which were even.

What sort of dumb-butt wants to determine the game on a single play in that situation?

CaribbeanGreen · September 3, 2006

I didn't get to watch this game but I did watch the NIU game. Illinois State was the team on the roll. NIU had needed some penalties to save scoring drives and had one set-up by turnover. ISU was the one playing good football. Going for two and the win is an admission that you believe you are better off having one play than a full set off offensive downs and defensive downs to determine who is best.
Look at that box score from the K-State game. Illinois State DOMINATED every category except turnovers which were even.
What sort of dumb-butt wants to determine the game on a single play in that situation?
←

Going for two was nothing but idiocy in that situation.