Does anyone know why Cal didn't opt for taking a safety by running the ball out of the northwest corner of the end zone, killing 5 to 12 seconds and free kicking from the 20 vs. the -5? Even if it killed 3 seconds, the net gain would have been 25 yards with a pressure free kick. It worked, but seemed like a "better" play call would have …
Does anyone know why Cal didn't opt for taking a safety by running the ball out of the northwest corner of the end zone, killing 5 to 12 seconds and free kicking from the 20 vs. the -5? Even if it killed 3 seconds, the net gain would have been 25 yards with a pressure free kick. It worked, but seemed like a "better" play call would have been the safety option. Or am I missing something (entirely possible, although I am undefeated from my seat in Memorial Stadium :) )
Just curious as to reason for kot doing it. I believe in Wilcox and think there is a side, (maybe from a conservative angle, that suggests it’s not the most beneficial path for that situation, I’d just like to know what it is.
Besides stubbornness or not thinking, I can't think of any reason that would trump all of the risks mentioned by others. Give up 2 points shrinking the lead to 4 but then having the chance for a safe, free-kick to back them up farther down the field.
I was saying this during the game chat. Absolutely baffling we risked getting a kick off up 6 and gave them better field position. Just bad coaching, Wilcox will learn.
He’s shown the ability to effectively manage late game. Remember, against unc we intentionally took defensive holding penalties to run our clock resulting in an ncaa rule change!
I think Bob means it would have been a win/win in the sense that Cal would still be up enough points that UNLV would still need a TD to win and Cals defense would potentially have more field to defend as UNLV as would get worse field position as we wouldn’t be punting out of our own end zone.
I agree, typically win/win means both Cal and UNLV would win in that situation.
I think he meant win/win for Cal in terms of we would still have a large enough lead that UNLV has to score a TD and we get better field position to defense, plus you’re not risking a blocked punt.
In last year's Chargers Raiders game, if the Raiders took a knee to run out the clock and ended in a tie, it would've been a Win-Win, as both teams would've made the play-offs.
hold up -- now you're talking about a win/win/win. aka the Triple Lindy of game management decisions. that's a little different.
oh, but wait, you also *lose* the opportunity for your punter to flop into a roughing penalty that would give you a first down, so that negates a win, and we're back to a net win/win. in that case, please disregard what I said above re: 3 wins.
Does anyone know why Cal didn't opt for taking a safety by running the ball out of the northwest corner of the end zone, killing 5 to 12 seconds and free kicking from the 20 vs. the -5? Even if it killed 3 seconds, the net gain would have been 25 yards with a pressure free kick. It worked, but seemed like a "better" play call would have been the safety option. Or am I missing something (entirely possible, although I am undefeated from my seat in Memorial Stadium :) )
I thought the same thing. I know Tedford has done that...and Wilcox once, too?
Just curious as to reason for kot doing it. I believe in Wilcox and think there is a side, (maybe from a conservative angle, that suggests it’s not the most beneficial path for that situation, I’d just like to know what it is.
Besides stubbornness or not thinking, I can't think of any reason that would trump all of the risks mentioned by others. Give up 2 points shrinking the lead to 4 but then having the chance for a safe, free-kick to back them up farther down the field.
What you are proposing would be effective game management, and your first mistake is expecting that from Wilcox lol.
I was saying this during the game chat. Absolutely baffling we risked getting a kick off up 6 and gave them better field position. Just bad coaching, Wilcox will learn.
Will he? We're in year 6...
He’s shown the ability to effectively manage late game. Remember, against unc we intentionally took defensive holding penalties to run our clock resulting in an ncaa rule change!
How is that a win/win? I only see winning for Cal.
I think Bob means it would have been a win/win in the sense that Cal would still be up enough points that UNLV would still need a TD to win and Cals defense would potentially have more field to defend as UNLV as would get worse field position as we wouldn’t be punting out of our own end zone.
I thought win win means it's a favorable outcome for all parties involved, and I think UNLV was involved in the game last Saturday.
Maybe the expression had a different meaning 70 years ago.
I will check Wikipedia and provide a link.
I agree, typically win/win means both Cal and UNLV would win in that situation.
I think he meant win/win for Cal in terms of we would still have a large enough lead that UNLV has to score a TD and we get better field position to defense, plus you’re not risking a blocked punt.
In last year's Chargers Raiders game, if the Raiders took a knee to run out the clock and ended in a tie, it would've been a Win-Win, as both teams would've made the play-offs.
"plus you’re not risking a blocked punt"
hold up -- now you're talking about a win/win/win. aka the Triple Lindy of game management decisions. that's a little different.
oh, but wait, you also *lose* the opportunity for your punter to flop into a roughing penalty that would give you a first down, so that negates a win, and we're back to a net win/win. in that case, please disregard what I said above re: 3 wins.