I continue to be perplexed by the decision to go for 2 early vs Tech.
Down 17 to Tech, we scored with 9:53 in the 3rd and went for 2. Kirby referenced the chart. (I disagree with the chart, BTW).
Down 17 to ND, we scored with 9:36 in the 3rd and kicked the XP. Did we learn from our ways? What changed?
Conventional wisdom says we weren’t sure we could stop Tech, and thought we might get to 24 with 3 scores instead of 4. And we felt like we could stop ND. The whole thing still seems weird to me, and I just want to know. I like understanding ball, and I don’t get the change of decision unless we learned from a mistake, which is a good thing.
Down 17 to Tech, we scored with 9:53 in the 3rd and went for 2. Kirby referenced the chart. (I disagree with the chart, BTW).
Down 17 to ND, we scored with 9:36 in the 3rd and kicked the XP. Did we learn from our ways? What changed?
Conventional wisdom says we weren’t sure we could stop Tech, and thought we might get to 24 with 3 scores instead of 4. And we felt like we could stop ND. The whole thing still seems weird to me, and I just want to know. I like understanding ball, and I don’t get the change of decision unless we learned from a mistake, which is a good thing.
