Cal faces off against the top offense in the Pac-12 (and #3 in the country). Luckily, Oregon is only (check notes) #18 in the country in defense, so Cal for sure has a great chance this game.
Either Nix sets a passing record of 100% completions while Ducks hold Bears to under 10@ yards on offense. Or the Bears snatch two tipped passes for a pair of pick sixes, Ott motors for several long tds and Nando completes a game winning clutch pass to Trond.
I don't think the 2-point conversion attempt was a stats decision, and I think going for 2 there was the correct decision, it just didn't work out. At that point of the game, Ott and Ifanse were hurt, USC had put up 21 unanswered points in the 4th quarter, the Cal defense was slowing down, and the offensive line was getting beat. Going for the win on the 2-point conversion means you're betting it all on one play, which has much higher variance than another overtime. In short, Cal had, say, a 40% chance to win on that one 2-point play. That's much more likely than winning a majority of plays during overtime if each play has a 40% success rate. That is, USC was playing like the better team at that point in the game, and it's easier to win one play against them than a bunch of plays against them in OT. So I think it was the correct decision.
Of course, it didn't work out because the USC defense blatantly held every receiver on the play, with two hands wrapped around TE Jack Endries and WR Brian Hightower's pads being twisted in the completely wrong direction, but refs didn't want to throw a flag against USC... Err, I mean they didn't want to throw a flag that late in the game. I watched all the games in the conference, and they cut in to show that final sequence over and over in every single Pac-12 game, and it was so obvious on every playthrough.
Thanks, again, foer another great analysis, Chris.
I am pretty sure I had not seen this officiating crew before and they looked rookie. There were plenty of non-calls throughout the game, with a few occasional "who- us-how-dare-you" calls on $C, but not nearly enough to call it a well-officiated game. As for $C, and-now-it's-time-to-pay-the-referee, you'd think P12 refs would be bitter about losing their side jobs and the storied $C-to-ref gravy train. You know, the same way, before NIL, there were workarounds to "enrich" the families of those who "help" $C.
Speaking of $C corruption, elsewhere on W4C, someone suggested "Bad City" by Pringle. The book's primary focus is about the corruption of $C's head of the medical school, also the book mentions previous but forgotten scandals, such as Pat Haden milking a charity, Sark's tolerated alcohol abuse, and the general fear and control that $C commands over the Southland. I'm sure that it's all the tip of a win-at-all-costs iceberg.
Looking forward to veteran crews calling Saturday's game for the CFP-possible D!*ks.
[SoYouAreSayingThereIsAChance.gif]
Great write up Mr. Helling!
I anticipate a game that will shock the nation.
Either Nix sets a passing record of 100% completions while Ducks hold Bears to under 10@ yards on offense. Or the Bears snatch two tipped passes for a pair of pick sixes, Ott motors for several long tds and Nando completes a game winning clutch pass to Trond.
Moral victory awaits! cries in his cereal
I don't think the 2-point conversion attempt was a stats decision, and I think going for 2 there was the correct decision, it just didn't work out. At that point of the game, Ott and Ifanse were hurt, USC had put up 21 unanswered points in the 4th quarter, the Cal defense was slowing down, and the offensive line was getting beat. Going for the win on the 2-point conversion means you're betting it all on one play, which has much higher variance than another overtime. In short, Cal had, say, a 40% chance to win on that one 2-point play. That's much more likely than winning a majority of plays during overtime if each play has a 40% success rate. That is, USC was playing like the better team at that point in the game, and it's easier to win one play against them than a bunch of plays against them in OT. So I think it was the correct decision.
Of course, it didn't work out because the USC defense blatantly held every receiver on the play, with two hands wrapped around TE Jack Endries and WR Brian Hightower's pads being twisted in the completely wrong direction, but refs didn't want to throw a flag against USC... Err, I mean they didn't want to throw a flag that late in the game. I watched all the games in the conference, and they cut in to show that final sequence over and over in every single Pac-12 game, and it was so obvious on every playthrough.
Thanks, again, foer another great analysis, Chris.
I am pretty sure I had not seen this officiating crew before and they looked rookie. There were plenty of non-calls throughout the game, with a few occasional "who- us-how-dare-you" calls on $C, but not nearly enough to call it a well-officiated game. As for $C, and-now-it's-time-to-pay-the-referee, you'd think P12 refs would be bitter about losing their side jobs and the storied $C-to-ref gravy train. You know, the same way, before NIL, there were workarounds to "enrich" the families of those who "help" $C.
Speaking of $C corruption, elsewhere on W4C, someone suggested "Bad City" by Pringle. The book's primary focus is about the corruption of $C's head of the medical school, also the book mentions previous but forgotten scandals, such as Pat Haden milking a charity, Sark's tolerated alcohol abuse, and the general fear and control that $C commands over the Southland. I'm sure that it's all the tip of a win-at-all-costs iceberg.
Looking forward to veteran crews calling Saturday's game for the CFP-possible D!*ks.