Fitz was clearly wrong for going for two point play. Why?

[Titanium999]

Because we missed both two point plays, we were down by nine points. 15-24! That meant we needed two scores. If we made both two point conversions, we are down five points. Meaning only one score. What Fitz did was take nu out of the game by needing two scores. Conservative calling would have meant the game would have been only 17-24 with a TD tying game in regulation. A final two point conversion would have won the game 25-24!

 

[Hungry Jack]

I agree with you Wrassler! We knew that we would need one 2 pt conversion to win the game, but there was no rational justification for pursuing it at 24-9 that I can see. The odds are against you, and putting yourself in a 24-9 only increases the pressure on your next score.

I don't care what Fitz' analytics scenario-based algorithm tells him. The best strategy was to take the easy points until you make it a one-score game. Then you have some options: win in regulation, or play for OT.

If only Fitz would consult the Oracle of Wrassler and Hungry! We would not have four threads on this topic!!!!!!

 

[Gladeskat]

The Oracle of Glades could be heard in Georgia when Pat Zookgerald went for two down 24-9.

 

[hdhntr1]

Because we missed both two point plays, we were down by nine points. 15-24! That meant we needed two scores. If we made both two point conversions, we are down five points. Meaning only one score. What Fitz did was take nu out of the game by needing two scores. Conservative calling would have meant the game would have been only 17-24 with a TD tying game in regulation. A final two point conversion would have won the game 25-24!

If he had made the first, he would not have needed to go for the second. If he felt he had an advantage at that point in time that he would not have later, it was reasonable. And he probably felt that we had a better chance at that point than trying to bet them in OT. The second one could be questioned if he was just trying to get it to OT unless he felt he had an advantage he would not have later. Regardless, his options were all longshots being down by three TDs against number one D in the country. But having to score 4 times against that D even if one was in OT was an uphill battle no matter what

 

[hdhntr1]

I agree with you Wrassler! We knew that we would need one 2 pt conversion to win the game, but there was no rational justification for pursuing it at 24-9 that I can see. The odds are against you, and putting yourself in a 24-9 only increases the pressure on your next score.

I don't care what Fitz' analytics scenario-based algorithm tells him. The best strategy was to take the easy points until you make it a one-score game. Then you have some options: win in regulation, or play for OT.

If only Fitz would consult the Orale of Wrassler and Hungry! We would not have four threads on this topic!!!!!!

Not if he felt he had an advantage that he would not have later

 

[Titanium999]

I agree with you Wrassler! We knew that we would need one 2 pt conversion to win the game, but there was no rational justification for pursuing it at 24-9 that I can see. The odds are against you, and putting yourself in a 24-9 only increases the pressure on your next score.

I don't care what Fitz' analytics scenario-based algorithm tells him. The best strategy was to take the easy points until you make it a one-score game. Then you have some options: win in regulation, or play for OT.

If only Fitz would consult the Orale of Wrassler and Hungry! We would not have four threads on this topic!!!!!!

Agreed! I still think Fitz is one of the five best college or pro coaches. Clearly the best Northwestern has ever had. We all make mistakes.

 

[BigNUFan51]

It was a stupid play because of how bad Northwestern has been all year in short yardage. The chances of executing on a single down was slim to nil.

 

[LeftyLarry]

Imagine you made both, to me the biggest error was the pooch kick, Badgers were 0 for 2 this season covering onside kicks, you let us off the hook there!