Good question. Of course, few decisions in football are per se truly fatal, and any tiny change in one of the three overtimes could have led to a W for the Hawks. But it's interesting to ask whether fellow coaches -- even just Big 10 coaches -- would call it fatal...not when asked by a reporter, but spoken to himself while watching the game in the stands or on the couch. My guess is that, having watched our defense give up touchdown, touchdown, makeable but missed FG, makeable but missed FG on the previous four Cyclone drives, most coaches would say (as so many of us did): Iowa will lose.
One of the most compelling arguments I've heard yet relates to the fear of making a mistake. This was obviously Kirk's reasoning...any mistake -- a fumble, an INT, botched snap, etc. -- could leave ISU in the position to kick a game-winning FG. One mistake, game over. But, if you think about it, this same risk exists in overtime...except now the margin of error is even smaller. A sack when trying to drive down the field with 1:17 remaining hurts but is not itself necessarily fatal. But in overtime, a sack often seems to be a game-ender (see OSU in '09). So the risk of making a mistake is the same in each situation. If we accept this, and if we agree that, in both situations, one mistake ends the game, why even the playing field by sitting on the ball?
