clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Should Cal have gone for the win in double overtime against Arizona?

Commence debate.

NCAA Football: Arizona at California Stan Szeto-USA TODAY Sports

What are your thoughts about the decision to go for the win?

Vincent S: Disappointed with the outcome, but approved of the process (which is better than the other way around). We hadn't shown too much of a propensity toward stopping the Arizona offense; meanwhile, our run game hadn't been as effective as I think we all would've hoped so guaranteed yards (and sustained drives) were no guarantee. Maybe a different play call would've had a different outcome (imagine if we'd saved the statue of liberty for the 2 point conversion!), but in principle, I think seizing the moment and going for the win was the right thing to do.

HydroTech: I like the idea of going for two points to win the game. Cal were the underdogs and was playing for the win. I suppose my only gripe about going for two at that point was that Cal was in the south endzone by the Arizona fans. My concern there is the crowd noise. It didn't seem to affect the Cal offense since there were so few Arizona fans in attendance (and no false start), but that was my only reservation about going for two right then and there. Otherwise, Coach Wilcox showed cajones by putting the game on his offense's shoulders to gain three yards.

Avinash: Great decision. Arizona's offense was in another level at overtime, and with a short field it was easy for them to march into the end zone. Khalil Tate was just too hard for our defense to adapt and gameplan against. He was too good that night.

There are some gripes about the empty set since it took away the run option, but considering Cal nearly got stuffed at the goal-line on the previous play and did get stuffed on the previous play, I'm pretty sure it was time for Cal to pass. The empty set makes it harder for Arizona to rush, and Ross Bowers did eventually get a clean look.

Ultimately, Bowers probably should've scrambled for the end zone. There was a pathway to sneak through and dive in for the win and be a hero forever.

Oh well, he can save that for Big Game.

Ruey Yen: As much as I was lamenting about Utah's decision to go for two toward the end of regulation in their bid to upset USC the week before, Cal going for two in the 2nd OT was a lot more understandable. With the rule that would require the teams to go for two starting in the 3rd OT, I can see how why Coach Justin Wilcox opt to go for the win on that play rather than to take the ball first in the 3rd OT.

If I am disappointed about anything, it was with the play call. I know that the Bears had already burned their Statue of Liberty play in the first possession. However, you would hope for a better play than for Ross Bowers to throw into coverage. I agree with Avi that Bowers probably could have rush/flip into the end zone instead but this was just not meant to be. I also wonder if the Bears could have gotten a better matchup had they just gone for the two point right away, rather than after calling the timeout.

Golden Bears have had been lucky to win the coin-toss games early in the season. This past Saturday's result is perhaps just a regression back to the mean. Bears have another coin-toss game coming up at Colorado next week. Perhaps they can get a better result.