You can call me crazy...

[Captain Kangaroo]

Cap'n where did you go at the end of the first half? I know you don't leave the game, but you weren't sitting in front of me any longer.

I went on the other side to visit a friend. I returned, in front of where you were seated, for the entire 4th quarter. You must have missed me in all that excitement?

[Captain Kangaroo]

If the Zips had played for a tie and lost in overtime, many of the same critics would be complaining about not going for the 2-point conversion. Regardless of circumstances, winners are praised and losers are criticized.

Not true. .....

So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?

I will tell you with 100% certainty -- NO ONE would have complained if he took that game to OT. NO ONE.My son is 10 years old. He knew better. Everyone did.

[Captain Kangaroo]

If the Zips had played for a tie and lost in overtime, many of the same critics would be complaining about not going for the 2-point conversion. Regardless of circumstances, winners are praised and losers are criticized.

Not true. .....

So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?

It was ballsy.Rehash this particular decision anyway you want. I am glad iCoach is ballsy.

Was going for 2, down 20 - 6, ballsy too? Or stupid?The dude makes more uniquely stupid play calls in a single season than I've seen, combined, in 40 years. Stuff you couldn't make up, he does every day!There's no Kool Aid strong enough to ignore this guy's playcalling any longer. I used to think he didn't want to win. And was enamoured with "The Process." I was wrong. He simply doesn't know what it takes to win.

[Dave in Green]

If the Zips had played for a tie and lost in overtime, many of the same critics would be complaining about not going for the 2-point conversion. Regardless of circumstances, winners are praised and losers are criticized.

Not true. .....

So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?

I will tell you with 100% certainty -- NO ONE would have complained if he took that game to OT. NO ONE.My son is 10 years old. He knew better. Everyone did.

And I will tell you that in all of the years I've been following football, I have NEVER seen a situation where a coach played for a tie and lost in overtime that some fans didn't criticize him for not going for the 2-point conversion. You cannot seriously be trying to tell me that would not have happened on this forum about this coach.

[Captain Kangaroo]

If the Zips had played for a tie and lost in overtime, many of the same critics would be complaining about not going for the 2-point conversion. Regardless of circumstances, winners are praised and losers are criticized.

Not true. .....

So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?

I will tell you with 100% certainty -- NO ONE would have complained if he took that game to OT. NO ONE.My son is 10 years old. He knew better. Everyone did.

And I will tell you that in all of the years I've been following football, I have NEVER seen a situation where a coach played for a tie and lost in overtime that some fans didn't criticize him for not going for the 2-point conversion. You cannot seriously be trying to tell me that would not have happened on this forum about this coach.

Ok. I concede. Akron Football would have bitched. But that's it.

[Dave in Green]

CK, I think I could add a few more names to your short list, but no need to quibble over minor details. You are a reasonable man.

[Lee Adams]

If the Zips had played for a tie and lost in overtime, many of the same critics would be complaining about not going for the 2-point conversion. Regardless of circumstances, winners are praised and losers are criticized.

Not true. .....

So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?

I will tell you with 100% certainty -- NO ONE would have complained if he took that game to OT. NO ONE.My son is 10 years old. He knew better. Everyone did.

And I will tell you that in all of the years I've been following football, I have NEVER seen a situation where a coach played for a tie and lost in overtime that some fans didn't criticize him for not going for the 2-point conversion. You cannot seriously be trying to tell me that would not have happened on this forum about this coach.

Of course since the players did not get a chance to win or lose in OVT. we will never know.

[Dave in Green]

Just as we would never have known if they could have scored the 2-pointer if they had gone for the tie instead.Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It's all over now.I hate the result about as much as I dislike predictable coaches. I like that Ianello is finally opening up things a little and becoming less predictable.My favorite college head coach is Les Miles. He may not technically be the "best" college coach, but to me he's the most entertaining. He's a riverboat gambler who does crazy things, and the LSU fans were screaming for a new coach after some of his craziness backfired. Now they love him and want him to sign a lifetime contract.I'm OK with Ianello's goofy mistakes as long as he becomes less predictable and more of a riverboat gambler like Les Miles.

[UAZipster0305]

If the Zips had played for a tie and lost in overtime, many of the same critics would be complaining about not going for the 2-point conversion. Regardless of circumstances, winners are praised and losers are criticized.

Not true. .....

So you're telling me you honestly believe that most of the critics on this forum would have praised Ianello for going for a tie if the Zips had lost in OT, and most would not have criticized him for not going for the 2-point conversion?

Given the momentum of the game and that we were playing at home AND that we have a reliable kicker (a made PAT didn't used to be a given), in my judgement, the most probable scenario for getting a W would have been to take it to OT. Even if we had won with the 2 point conversion, I would hesitate to say I'd support the same call in the same situation in the future.

[g-mann17]

Given the momentum of the game and that we were playing at home AND that we have a reliable kicker (a made PAT didn't used to be a given), in my judgement, the most probable scenario for getting a W would have been to take it to OT. Even if we had won with the 2 point conversion, I would hesitate to say I'd support the same call in the same situation in the future.

I keep seeing that word used. Over all the threads talking about this game. Momentum...The interesting thing about momentum is that long stoppages disrupt momentum. Say the long stoppage between the end of the game and the start of OT.Also we were able to maintain momentum by keeping CMU on their side of the 50. So you think putting a team on the 30 and giving them a chance to score is better for a team that has consistantly struggled to score? I am dumbfounded by how many of you talk as though stopping the flow of the game, flipping a coin, and ideally, putting our defense's back against the wall is a better way to win a game than keeping CMU on the field, tired, and confused and going for two. The logic doesn't exist, especially for a team that has 1 win, so we have nothing to lose and everything to gain and we are a team that struggles to score. And all of that is assuming we didn't get the ball first. If we got the ball first in OT we would have had to score a TD to keep the weight off the defense. So let's be honest considering are plethora of potent offensive plays (sarcasm) who of you would take the bet that we score a touchdown given the ball on the 30 vs being able to get the ball in the endzone from the 3?Reallistically none of you would take the TD from the 30 and all of you know it. Then there is GP1's argument that MAC schools do everything they can to lose a game. From the rest of the season that you have seen, who is better at giving away a game? The Zips or the Chips? Because I've seen us fail in the redzone multiple times. Going to OT gives us plenty of opportunity to screw up one more time.

[Captain Kangaroo]

We outscored them 22-3 to close-out the game. CMU was reeling. CMU is a bunch of chokers. Our defense was playing great. Our offense was rolling. Yet Ianello decided to put all our money on red.There are several reasons why you could justify going for two in that situation (stated in another post, and I don't feel like repeating them), and none of them applied.Stanford tied the game against USC Saturday night on the last play of regulation. Why didn't they go for 2? Because they know what they're doing.We needed a win so f-ing bad on Saturday. Ianello must be getting tired of seeing those ESPN clips of Brookhart pulling out meaningful (Marshall & NIU) come-back wins on the InfoCision Jumbotron ever week, while he's getting waxed for the 15th, 16th, 17th 18th, etc time. He had his chance to get one of his own clips to play on the big screen, and he blew it with his stupid extra point gambles.You reap what you sow.

[g-mann17]

Oh CK....They outscored us 20-0 through almost 3 quarters. You are creating a stoppage and giving them a chance to recover. Plain and simple.Our defense was playing great outside of the 30. And CMU was playing to protect a lead.See my other posts Stanford was undefeated and is playing for a shot at National Championship. In those cases you play safe (kick the point) because you have something to lose. We on the other hand have already lost everything and have nothing left to lose. OT means that there is something that has impact of your future decision (coin toss) going for 2 means you hold your own fate in your hands.We need a win a every Saturday. Constantly you and others criticize the coach for being conservative, then he is finally aggressive and you criticize him. DiG is right if we go to OT and lose, every last one of you would say "He had the game in his hands and he went conservative again!!!!" Heck I heard people criticize him kicking the field goal to make it 20-9. "Oh you're still down two scores you idiot, you have to go for the TD." The same field goal that kept the momentum on our side by having 2 possessions in a row result in points. On a side note...With 4 Games left Chisholm needs 247 yards to reach 1000.

[Dave in Green]

The subject of going for 1 point for the tie and OT or 2 points for the win is carried out on football discussion forums hundreds of times per season. Each case is slightly different due to different circumstances, and reasonable cases can be made for and against each point of view.The bottom line for some Zips fans is that their coach called a play that they believe was either slightly more or slightly less likely to result in a win, depending on how they interpret the circumstances of this team and this game.The bottom line for others is that a coach often criticized for being overly conservative has started rolling the dice more often and making unpredictable calls, which could lead to more wins in the long run.I don't see any side convincing the others that they are more correct in their beliefs. So I don't see this as a winnable debate, but just a discussion of different beliefs.

[Dr Z]

On a side note...With 4 Games left Chisholm needs 247 yards to reach 1000.

Good for The Chisel. I would rather have a W instead of any stat. I would bet he would say the same. Losing sucks and I'm sick of it. Reading through some of these threads this week reminds me of PD writers apologizing for the way the Browns lose year after year. I think it's second nature in NEO.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Constantly you and others criticize the coach for being conservative, then he is finally aggressive and you criticize him. DiG is right if we go to OT and lose, every last one of you would say "He had the game in his hands and he went conservative again!!!!"

"Aggressive" by your definition. "Stupid" my mine.And DIG is wrong. He sells the intelligence of our members short. No one would have complained if Ianello went for OT, because it was the right call. If you make the right call, and it doesn't work out, that's sports...that's life...whatever. People can accept it. I dream of the day I can leave InfoCision after a well-played and well-coached game. I have a dream...

[UAZipster0305]

If he wasn't chasing the points on the first 2-point conversion, we would have been kicking an extra point for the win.

[skip-zip]

With me, I guess the problem is the decision making. In other words, when he decides to gamble, and when he does not.Gamblling on a two-point try in this game when we had scored to cut the lead to 14 was NOT a good gamble.The two-point conversion at the end of the the game still makes no sense at all.On the other hand, we've seen this guy kick a field goal when down 21 points....THIS would be a good time to gamble.And, during an earlier series in the CMU game, when we were down 14 with the ball near the goal line, we took a short field goal. THAT seemed like a good time to try to get the touchdown. I don't get it. And I can't attribute it to anything else except his lack of on-field decision making experience when he became our head coach.

[g-mann17]

If he wasn't chasing the points on the first 2-point conversion, we would have been kicking an extra point for the win.

Again, not his call. Its an option play. It would be like saying its Ianello's fault that Moore threw to Sconiers on the long route when Suel was sitting wide open 10 yards out.Should he or Okruch called that option off at that moment? Maybe, because there is no difference between 7 or 8 at that point. You don't know what the next score from CMU will be, if there even is one. You are down 2 scores no matter what the outcome is on that PAT. But that is also Campbell's poor decision. Don't forget he is a veteran player and that is why the coaches trust him to make that decision. Ultimately that one point ended up mattering. A coach's decision on that is to base it on making up ground. So you assume that you can hold an opponent to field goals. So at 20-6 you need to get 14 to tie assuming the opponent kicks a field goal you are looking at 23-6 a 17 point difference. This means the 2 point conversion at this moment has to be on the table because assuming CMU only kicks a field goal you are going to have to get them at some point anyway. So you wouldn't call off the muddle huddle option because it might create an extra point that you weren't counting on. What's lost in the argument is the fact that this could have been a blowout if not for the offensive adjustments that were made. We are 1-6, it sucks!!! I'm sitting there (as we trail 20-0) drafting a letter in my head to Wistrcill demanding a refund for my season tickets because I paid to see competitive football. Two seasons in I've physically seen us compete twice against our conference. Miami and Buffalo, last year. I'm as mad as anyone of the rest of you. But they did conjur up some quality play and whether this was a win or loss ideally it was a eureka moment for the coaching staff on how to get the best production out of this team.

[g-mann17]

With me, I guess the problem is the decision making. In other words, when he decides to gamble, and when he does not.Gamblling on a two-point try in this game when we had scored to cut the lead to 14 was NOT a good gamble.The two-point conversion at the end of the the game still makes no sense at all.On the other hand, we've seen this guy kick a field goal when down 21 points....THIS would be a good time to gamble.And, during an earlier series in the CMU game, when we were down 14 with the ball near the goal line, we took a short field goal. THAT seemed like a good time to try to get the touchdown. I don't get it. And I can't attribute it to anything else except his lack of on-field decision making experience when he became our head coach.

In this CMU game, you need points to close a lead, you just forced a punt. Any points close the gap. You go for the touchdown and fail you give them decent field position and have no win to help pump up the offense. A field goal is a win offensively.

[Dr Z]

Again, not his call. Its an option play.

My problem with that is that it is an option play. It should not be. You want to know why? Because you could lose a winnable game by one point. Exhibit A

[Captain Kangaroo]

Again, not his call. Its an option play.

My problem with that is that it is an option play. It should not be. You want to know why? Because you could lose a winnable game by one point. Exhibit A

I agree. Down 20-6, 3rd quarter, how is going for two even remotely under consideration? Who's responsible for that option even being in the playbook? Who?I'm guessing the CMU coach studied tape on the Zips, and suckered us into the botched attempt.

[Hilltopper]

Again, not his call. Its an option play.

My problem with that is that it is an option play. It should not be. You want to know why? Because you could lose a winnable game by one point. Exhibit A

I agree. Down 20-6, 3rd quarter, how is going for two even remotely under consideration? Who's responsible for that option even being in the playbook? Who?I'm guessing the CMU coach studied tape on the Zips, and suckered us into the botched attempt.

Again, thats the problem. It MUST be his call. Its the attention to the small details that is the difference between winning and losing. The special teams players line up together at the 50 Yd line before each extra point. All that has to happen is for the coach to access the situation and advise the holder as to what play to run. When there is no advantage to trying for 2, he is told to kick the point no matter how the other team lines up. End of controversy.

[johnnyzip84]

Again, not his call. Its an option play.

My problem with that is that it is an option play. It should not be. You want to know why? Because you could lose a winnable game by one point. Exhibit A

I agree. Down 20-6, 3rd quarter, how is going for two even remotely under consideration? Who's responsible for that option even being in the playbook? Who?I'm guessing the CMU coach studied tape on the Zips, and suckered us into the botched attempt.

Again, thats the problem. It MUST be his call. Its the attention to the small details that is the difference between winning and losing. The special teams players line up together at the 50 Yd line before each extra point. All that has to happen is for the coach to access the situation and advise the holder as to what play to run. When there is no advantage to trying for 2, he is told to kick the point no matter how the other team lines up. End of controversy.

+1 well said

[skip-zip]

With me, I guess the problem is the decision making. In other words, when he decides to gamble, and when he does not.Gamblling on a two-point try in this game when we had scored to cut the lead to 14 was NOT a good gamble.The two-point conversion at the end of the the game still makes no sense at all.On the other hand, we've seen this guy kick a field goal when down 21 points....THIS would be a good time to gamble.And, during an earlier series in the CMU game, when we were down 14 with the ball near the goal line, we took a short field goal. THAT seemed like a good time to try to get the touchdown. I don't get it. And I can't attribute it to anything else except his lack of on-field decision making experience when he became our head coach.

In this CMU game, you need points to close a lead, you just forced a punt. Any points close the gap. You go for the touchdown and fail you give them decent field position and have no win to help pump up the offense. A field goal is a win offensively.

Getting the ball on their own 5 yard line would have been good field position?

[Dave in Green]

The reason I'm OK with going for the first 2-point conversion is precisely because no one expected it. It was not the "standard" thing to do in this situation, as so many people have so eloquently made clear in this and other threads. That and the CMU defensive setup combined to make it a much higher percentage play than normal.The advantage a 2-point score would have created at that point would have been that the Zips could then have won the game with a TD and extra point plus two field goals instead of having to score two TDs and two extra points to win. This all assumes, of course, that CMU doesn't score again. That was not clear at this point in the game, so going for more points made sense for a number of reasons.