Did ISU seriously run instead of kneeling and blow it?
- Thread starter El Simbolo
- Start date
Yep, then the dumpster exploded into flames again after a fumble set up KState with the GW FG.
I don't think they could have ran it out with 96 seconds left if KSU had a timeout left. If this were the NFL I would have thought ISU was tanking the last two weeks in order to improve their draft position.
Lazard has to be wondering why he went there.
Lazard has to be wondering why he went there.
Yep. And their fanbase doesn't get it. Still.
Wait, is an Iowa fan complaining about a coach "going for it" on the road in a tie game at the end?
No, I think they're complaining about the series prior when they were up by 7 with 96 seconds left.
The game might not have ended if ISU took a knee 3 times - there might have been ~10 seconds left in the game and it would be 4th and long.
Rhoads said they ran the ball because they didn't want to punt, but I think thats crappy logic. I would take 10 seconds left in the game and a touchdown lead every time.
Rhoads said they ran the ball because they didn't want to punt, but I think thats crappy logic. I would take 10 seconds left in the game and a touchdown lead every time.
Rhoads is a very poor, dumb coach. I hope he stays at Iowa St. a long time
If my math is accurate, the game would most certainly have ended with four plays. There was 1:22 on the clock when Warren fumbled. Say you had not handed off but instead had Lanning kneel. It should take a couple of seconds longer, getting you down to about 1:20. KSU calls their last timeout. Same play with about four seconds running off the clock before he kneels, then no clock stoppage, another 40 seconds tick off. You snap it again and use 4 seconds, followed by another 40 seconds ticking. It is now fourth down and long, but you don't have to snap the ball again because time will expire. I would have thought at least one of the ISU staff could have done the math. My cynical side thinks that Rhoads wanted Warren to go over 200 rushing for the day. In any event, when there are fewer than 120 seconds left in the game and you can consume them all without making a handoff or otherwise exposing the ball for a turnover, you should do it.
Or on fourth down, you have the QB run around a bit before going down.
I really feel sorry for Warren. He's had one hell of a season, and he was having a terrific game -- close to 200 yards rushing. I'm not sure the fumble call was correct, for that matter (no, I am NOT, repeat NOT blaming the officials for ANYTHING. Talking about Warren here).
There's a bigger issue here, anyway. ISU lost two games it should have won -- Toledo and KSU -- and two games it could have won -- Iowa and Okie State. The team has been shooting itself in the foot all season long. The coach doesn't miss chip shot field goals or fumble the ball or line up offside, but at some point, the buck gets to the coaching staff.
Actually, I think the most significant statistic of the season is the way other teams adjust and ISU doesn't. Yesterday, ISU scored 35 points in the first half and none in the second. Against Iowa, the numbers were 17 and 0. Against Okie State, 24 and 7. And against TCU, we scored 21 in the first quarter and never scored again.
There was 1:31 left (91 seconds) when they took over. KSU calls TO after 1st down, ISU runs off all 40 seconds on the play clock (take the delay of game), that leaves 11 seconds to run off from the time they snap the ball to the time they blow the play clock.
They could have gotten into victory or a regular tight formation, Lanning could have taken the snap, backpedaled to assess the rush, run to a side away from the rush, and dropped. That would have most certainly taken 3 seconds per play.
They could have gotten into victory or a regular tight formation, Lanning could have taken the snap, backpedaled to assess the rush, run to a side away from the rush, and dropped. That would have most certainly taken 3 seconds per play.
The freshman running back who had already fumbled in the 4th certainly should have told to not fight for extra yardage. If the idea was simply to burn more time running than just kneeling then they should have communicated that better. The QB was quoted after the game that "coach wanted us to get a first down"
Not so outrageous, then. You can't run out the clock and you don't want to give them a Hail Mary attempt. You should be able to trust your offense to run three plays without fumbling.
Still pretty outrageous. Iowa State took over with 1:31 left (i.e., 91 seconds), with 3 offensive plays to run before 4th down. From there, all it takes is some simple math:
- 3 plays x 5 seconds per play = 15 seconds
- 3 plays minus 1 Kansas State timeout means you get to run 2 full play clocks down to zero
- 2 full play clocks x 40 seconds per play clock = 80 seconds
- Tell your all your blockers to hold because KSU can't accept a penalty. If KSU were to accept a penalty, they would repeat the down and the clock would continue to run.
- Tell your QB to run around as long as he can - with all blockers holding, this should result in a minimum of 5 seconds running off the clock.
- Tell your QB to go down on his own accord. If no defender touches the QB, there is virtually no chance of him fumbling.
One of the things that saddens me about the state of college football and its "fans", people demanding that a team cheat, yes cheat, in order to win. To hold and to even get caught to try and run more time.
Bet those people are huge fans of Bielema.
Bet those people are huge fans of Bielema.
Good question. I was under the impression that the 25 second play clock would only be applicable if the penalty were accepted; if it is also applicable after a declined penalty, then obviously this strategy would not be optimal.
Actively accepting the punishment for an infraction is not cheating. Just as fouling in the last minute of a basketball game is not cheating, or draining the play clock and accepting the delay of game is not cheating, I don't view intentionally holding at the end of the game in an attempt to run out time as cheating. I also don't think Kirk cheated when we beat PSU in 2004 and he instructed his team to hold when we took an intentional safety late in the 4th quarter.
I do, however, think you are being over-dramatic.
Sure, you have a point when the "punishment fits the crime", not when you use it to directly affect the basics of the game.
Such as Bielema jumping offsides on kick offs repeatedly until time runs out. He abused a rule change in order to inherently change the constricts of the game.
Holding to waste time, as the poster suggests, does not simply "actively accept the consequences" because those consequences only favor you. A safety doesn't fall in to that category.
Come on man. I was with you until you said ISU could have beaten Iowa. ISU was shut down the entire second half. They were never a threat. Read wide right natty lights "fire Rhoads " article last night.
There are many games that aren't close no matter what the score is. Iowa is involved in those quite often.
OTOH, guys like you try to claim that 2013 in Ames was tight because ISU scored a garbage TD late to make it look better. JfC
Even better, throw a bomb after running around. If high enough it would easily take 3 or 4 seconds.
This is correct on 4th down. Of course, being ISU, they'd do it on 1st-3rd downs and stop the clock!
So.....if next Saturday in Lincoln, with 9 minutes left and the score tied, the Hawks have a first down in decent field position....and you're going to turn off the TV because obviously, they can't win because Nebraska has dominated the second half.
Got it. JFC, indeed.
Last edited:
It's one thing to say 'iowa only won by 14" it's another to say "ISU should have won"
Absolutely. And absolutely irrelevant because I never said ISU should have won, and I don't recall seeing anyone else say that.
I have been extremely careful NOT to lump the Iowa game in with Toledo and Kansas State. Those games ISU should have won. Iowa and Okie State are games ISU could have won. I have, several times, said Iowa dominated ISU in the second half, was the better team, and deserved to win. But the fact remains that until very late in the game, it was still up for grabs.
