On the Cover3 Podcast reaction show last night, one of the commentators (Tom, an Illinois guy) noticed that Cignetti is a way more conservative coach when we are behind than when we are ahead.
(IU discussion starts at 46:45. Tom's comments are at 55:00 and then they discuss Cignetti).
I think that shows Cignetti understands momentum (which is a weird, woo-woo, probably unquantifiable term in football, but pretty clearly exists in my mind). I used to think he was more conservative against teams with much better raw talent, but I think this explanation (ahead vs. behind and maybe momentum) is better.
By the way, one of the best things about the Cignetti era is that anytime we play a game against a team with a pulse, the media will cover us in detail. I love this site, but it's still pretty neat to see the national guys talking about us so much.
Yea, if we’re playing bad and down, getting aggressive is more risky and could knock us out of the game. I can see how it makes sense to try and hang around and wait for some momentum before taking chances.
I don’t know — it’s probably an art rather than a science at the end of the day. Interesting stuff.
@bradstevens I think he gave a glimpse of his thinking in his PC when he said he REALLY wanted to go for it, but decided to wait due to how early it was, stem the flow, get in to halftime and regroup. I think he'd get more aggressive the later in the game it is and how large the lead. Sounds to me like he subscribes to the Jack Nicklaus strategy of just play your game and let the other guy make mistakes.
@bradstevens I think he gave a glimpse of his thinking in his PC when he said he REALLY wanted to go for it, but decided to wait due to how early it was, stem the flow, get in to halftime and regroup. I think he'd get more aggressive the later in the game it is and how large the lead. Sounds to me like he subscribes to the Jack Nicklaus strategy of just play your game and let the other guy make mistakes.
When the run game is not there it makes those options tougher.
@kkott That was my question to him yesterday and that answer was an awesome look into his thinking.
Thank you for reading Hoosier Huddle
Maybe the best decision was not going for 2. Talk about a momentum killer if failed.
@hoosier-clarion Absolutely. I didn't understand it at the time, and then we score again, and I'm like, oh damn, it sure is nice having that 3pt lead so they can't beat us with a FG! If you need a reminder of how that can happen, check out the ending to the Eagles Jags from this morning! Holy crap, crazy ending!
@kkott Same. I was miffed at the time. I didn't see the downside of going for 2. Guess that's why I was on the couch instead of a sideline on Saturday.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Think we know what to expect in close weather games under Coach.
The issue is the opposing teams having this knowledge also.
Purdue and Odom calling in a local Indian tribe for a rain dance circle chant.
It was his thoughts, in that situation. Not sure we can extrapolate a lot from it. Next time it may be 'we weren't getting much done so I thought this was a chance we need to take advantage of.' And, his feel is good, so next time probably that'll be right too.
I was glad we kicked the extra point. I figured Cig was thinking the parlay of making 2, later still needing exactly three to tie, and then making it in the wind, was a longer parlay than getting a useful point depending on what happened. Such as exactly what did happen.
Seemed like a close decision though. But TD, up three, force them to kick in the wind to tie, seemed so likely he definitely thought of it.
I’ve heard Cig say, “Before you win the game, you can’t lose the game.” I’d say all those decisions fit that philosophy.
On the other hand, Nebraska’s penalties in the second half & Rhule’s decision to go for it on 4th down late, were the opposite.
Once again it’s proven that it’s Cig’s world and we’re just living in… I’ve learned Not to question his decision making…
I agree that Cig gets conservative in tight games. The sequence before halftime in the natty was a frustrating example of it. I thought Iowa last year was also unnecessarily conservative.
but I don’t think that was case yesterday. We were really on our heels and were lucky to only be 7 down at half. It kind of reminded me of the first half of the Northwestern game where we dominated statistically but the lead didn’t reflect it.
I really am amazed by Cig’s ability to keep a sober head about himself and, if things are going rough, figure out how to stop the bleeding without making it worse and get it turned around. Or at the end of a game not chase the points too much.
I'm not recognizing he's conservative in this set of circumstances or aggressive in that situation. I simply believe he is a deep thinker but seldom over thinks the attention needed for decisions. Admirable trait.