Listen to what you are saying PC. You don't want to take the timeout before the third down play because if you don't make it, you could leave time on the clock for the other team. Now, I don't remember how many timeouts ISU had...but really that shouldn't matter. It's the end of the first half, not the second..you are down 4 points and you have an entire second half to get it right. It's not like we are playing Oklahoma or some quick scoring team, unless you completely have defensive busts.
The fact of the matter is that he should have faith in his team...in his offense to convert the 3rd down. And in his defense to stop the other team if we leave 40 seconds on the clock. Give your offense the opportunity to run as many plays as they can to score a touchdown. I ask people...did not leaving time on the clock even enter your reasoning at that point? I'm like Iowa's given up 7 points on a trick play because a freshman got burned...and all the sudden you think Purdys going to throw ropes all over the field to score immediately?
That would have been a huge thing to go up at halftime. Play to win. I just don't understand anyone justifying that end of half decision making. It's defeatist.
But you are bringing emotion into it.
Talking about, "faith in your team" and "defeatist attitudes." Those things certainly matter, because football is an emotional game. But the Bill Belichek's of the world try to make these decisions as analytically and devoid of emotion as possible. The only question is, "What is the projected net point differential, i.e. points we are likely to score vs. points they are likely to score, if I select option A vs. option B?"
Now I am not going to take a side as to which decision is right in this case. But I think it is pretty clear that both are justifiable.
Iowa got inside ISU's 25 yard line 5 times, and they only got 1 TD out of those. If we take away end of 1st half and chalk that failure to get into the endzone as bad time-management, that is still only 1 out of 4 RZ opportunities turned into TDs. So it is safe to say ISU was pretty stingy in keeping us out of the EZ. So say they start using their timeouts after Smith's catch for a 1st down at ISU 35 (about 2 minutes left). If they do so and fail to get a 1st down, ISU has a minute left. If they do so and turn it over, ISU has more time left. If they do so and get a 1st down, they have more time to take shots at the endzone, but as we saw throughout the rest of the game, there is no guarantee that leads to a TD. I said I wouldn't take sides, but I actually think they should have started taking TOs earlier, not because they would have absolutely scored a TD, but because a 40+ yards FG is substantially lower probability than a <40 yard FG.
And you mention we had only given up 1 big play for a TD to that point, implying, "What are the odds they would give up another one in 40 seconds before half?" Well, ISU's first drive of the 2nd half was 2 plays, 76 yards, and less than a minute. So, it is certainly not beyond the realm of reason.
So are people upset because it was the wrong decision, or because it wasn't the gutsy decision?
I think mostly the latter. Whether it was right or wrong is very debatable, and I don't think anyone has enough information that they could have said conclusively, in the moment, that taking the TOs at 2 minutes absolutely would led to a higher projected net point differential than not taking the TOs.
If people are upset because it wasn't the gutsy call, they are right. But gutsy is not always right, and sometimes emotions get in the way of good decision-making. But on the flip side, football is an emotional game, and perhaps making that call energizes the Hawks and demoralizes ISU. I tend to side more with the school of thought that things like emotion and momentum are overrated for a well-coached, focused team, but I am not so naive as to think they don't matter at all.
