Game #11 - Can't State

[exit322]

53 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Are you really trying to argue settling for a field goal on 4th and goal from the 3 yard line when you're down 11 late in the 4th quarter?

 

Even after kicking the field goal you're still down 8 so you would need to convert a 2-point conversion from the same distance that you settled for a field goal on. The difference is a touchdown gives you 6-8 points while a 2-point conversion only gives 2. It's logical to take the risk when the return is greater since no matter what you will have 1 play from the 3-yard line with the game on the line in both scenarios.

 

That was the one particular call that I found egregious. I don't mind taking the field goals earlier in the game, but near the end of the game we absolutely should have went for it on 4th and goal.

TO BE FAIR, there was 7:14 on the clock.  It wasn't particularly egregious IMO, but it did feel like a letdown.

 

Now, 7:14 wasn't a usual "7:14" since Joe had already blown all three timeouts.  But I would say it was "midway through the fourth."

[ZippyRulz]

20 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

I honestly feel many are in denial about the state of our program moving forward. As @LZIp shared we have the smallest football operating budget in the MAC and little to no NIL.

 

Lacking a couple million dollars for NIL doesn't seem to be the issue. Look at UMass.

 

[kreed5120]

43 minutes ago, exit322 said:

TO BE FAIR, there was 7:14 on the clock.  It wasn't particularly egregious IMO, but it did feel like a letdown.

 

Now, 7:14 wasn't a usual "7:14" since Joe had already blown all three timeouts.  But I would say it was "midway through the fourth."

 

It was late enough in the game that just prior to this Joe felt the need to attempt an onside kick.

[kreed5120]

16 minutes ago, ZippyRulz said:

 

Lacking a couple million dollars for NIL doesn't seem to be the issue. Look at UMass.

 

 

I've stated this numerous times, it's not just about having the money but also knowing how to spend it effectively. 

 

Look at MAC basketball as the prime example. UMass has more money than Akron there as well, but Frank Martin mismanages how it gets spent. Meanwhile, Akron has reportedly the 2nd most NIL money, but Groce spends it wisely retaining players and identifying under the radar pieces that fit his style of play.

 

Now if Groce had next to no NIL then we would be in a similar boat to our MAC peers and forced to turnover our roster every single year. Do you think we would be having the same level of success that we are currently under that scenario?

 

If my earlier comments were construed that the only thing that matters is NIL then I must not have conveyed myself well enough. Both coaching and NIL are important in today's college landscape. A coach won't have sustained success without NIL. At the same time a program with lots of NIL, but a poor coach, will also struggle.

 

Edit: If you have both a poor coach and no NIL then you end up like NIU basketball.

Edited 32 minutes ago by kreed5120