4th and 2... why not go for it?!?

**swarthmoreCY** · 11-26-2011, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

That's a losers mentality. You don't play to only lose by 20 and not 35. You play to win.
Plus the public doesn't give two ***** if ISU loses to OU by 10 or 30. But if we win? WOW!!

We ended up losing by 23 to Baylor and the game wasn't that bad at all. But the team played to win and thus they took chances and the score looked worse. I was ok with that.

Also, let me add that the 4th and 2 had zero effect in the game. We weren't winning anyway but I'd still like the opportunity

Saying there is a difference between losing by 7 and "playing to lose by 20 instead of 35" are two different arguments.

How much you lose by does matter, especially as drastic a difference as by 7 or by 50.
But you must agree, given you resorted to now using by 20 to by 35.

**cyclone87** · 11-26-2011, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

That's a losers mentality. You don't play to only lose by 20 and not 35. You play to win.
Plus the public doesn't give two ***** if ISU loses to OU by 10 or 30. But if we win? WOW!!

We ended up losing by 23 to Baylor and the game wasn't that bad at all. But the team played to win and thus they took chances and the score looked worse. I was ok with that.

Also, let me add that the 4th and 2 had zero effect in the game. We weren't winning anyway but I'd still like the opportunity

I would have been fine with the call either way (although I think this was the better call), I can see why they made this call with the way our defense was playing and OU turning it over so much. I just can't see why you are so very sure this was a bad call. Maybe you should get involved and be coach somewhere if you are so very certain of what call to make in difficult situations in a game.

**Clones85'** · 11-26-2011, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Saying there is a difference between losing by 7 and "playing to lose by 20 instead of 35" are two different arguments.

How much you lose by does matter, especially as drastic a difference as by 7 or by 50.
But you must agree, given you resorted to now using by 20 to by 35.

No losing by 7 or 50 means NOTHING to Iowa State. We aren't playing for the BCS and to be ranked higher. National Perception means nothing to us. We aren't Oklahoma State hoping to win by 30 next week to show they are really good. We need WINS and thats it.

You really think that losing by 1 in OT last year against Nebraska did anything for the program? It's all about wins right now.

**Goothrey** · 11-26-2011, 03:40 PM

At the time, I didn't think it was a good decision. And in hindsight, I don't think it was the right decision. Didn't we then punt it 20 yards in which they got those very 20 yards back the very next play?

Giving OU the ball back doesn't get us points which is what we needed.

**Wesley** · 11-26-2011, 03:42 PM

The 20 yard net punt did not help much after deciding not to go for it.

**Clones85'** · 11-26-2011, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Goothrey

At the time, I didn't think it was a good decision. And in hindsight, I don't think it was the right decision. Didn't we then punt it 20 yards in which they got those very 20 yards back the very next play?

Giving OU the ball back doesn't get us points which is what we needed.

Exactly. We were down 17. We needed points. Giving them the ball doesn't get us points and we hadn't shown the ability to get that far down field all game. It was a rare opportunity and we punted

**swarthmoreCY** · 11-26-2011, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

You really think that losing by 1 in OT last year against Nebraska did anything for the program? It's all about wins right now.

Having been at games were ISU lost to NU by close to 70, yes losing by 1 in 2OT did more for the program than those losses.
No one is claiming a one point loss in OT is anywhere near as beneficial as a win, but it is not as binary as you make it out to be.

**Clones85'** · 11-26-2011, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

Having been at games were ISU lost to NU by close to 70, yes losing by 1 in 2OT did more for the program than those losses.
No one is claiming a one point loss in OT is anywhere near as beneficial as a win, but it is not as binary as you make it out to be.

When was the last time we lost to Nebraska by 70? This is no longer the 80's and 90's. Like I said, this is a losers mentality. Rhoads has done a good job of ridding our fanbase of this mentality. It's the biggest accomplishment he's had at ISU. That's why I was shocked when he didn't go for it. It was very unlike Rhoads.

**swarthmoreCY** · 11-26-2011, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

When was the last time we lost to Nebraska by 70? This is no longer the 80's and 90's.

You almost have it!
It is no longer the 80's and 90's Cyclone football, in part because we no longer lose by 60 points. See, as you pointed out, losing by 50 is different than losing by 7- it can help delineate eras.

**Clones85'** · 11-26-2011, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

You almost have it!
It is no longer the 80's and 90's Cyclone football, in part because we no longer lose by 60 points. See, as you pointed out, losing by 50 is different than losing by 7- it can help delineate eras.

When we only win 2 games a year, than yes, losing by 7 is different than losing by 50. But we don't only win 2 games a year anymore like we did in the 80's and 90's. We win 5-7 games a year and now the scoring difference no longer matters. There are no such things as moral victories any more. Go for the win! If it backfires and we lose this game by 35 instead of 20, who cares?

**CycloneErik** · 11-26-2011, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by cyclone87

Thing is if we go for it and get stuffed are you on here complaining that it was the wrong call? Probably

No doubt. The offense wasn't going anywhere. Why count on them doing what they aren't getting done?

**Clones85'** · 11-26-2011, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

No doubt. The offense wasn't going anywhere. Why count on them doing what they aren't getting done?

So how are we going to get 17 points? Thing about it for a second. We are down 17 points. How are we going to get those points?

**swarthmoreCY** · 11-26-2011, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

When we only win 2 games a year, than yes, losing by 7 is different than losing by 50. But we don't only win 2 games a year anymore like we did in the 80's and 90's. We win 5-7 games a year and now the scoring difference no longer matters. There are no such things as moral victories any more. Go for the win! If it backfires and we lose this game by 35 instead of 20, who cares?

I was not arguing the call- I would have gone for it, but it was too close to call it chicken-****.

You must live in Iowa if you think the score does not matter. People take note when a team not ranked is on upset alert, not when they end up losing by 50.

**CycloneErik** · 11-26-2011, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

So how are we going to get 17 points? Thing about it for a second. We are down 17 points. How are we going to get those points?

I have to think that giving them the ball at the 50 isn't going to get us many points. The punt was a calculated attempt to pin them back. Turned out to be a poorly-executed one.

**Clones85'** · 11-26-2011, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by swarthmoreCY

I was not arguing the call- I would have gone for it, but it was too close to call it chicken-****.

You must live in Iowa if you think the score does not matter. People take note when a team not ranked is on upset alert, not when they end up losing by 50.

Upset alert? They were up 17. People forget upset alerts shortly after they fail. People remember upsets for a long while