ThomasM
Retired from college football
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 16,948
I agree. Jimmy Johnson did the same thing as Tom Osbourne in 88. After the refs stole the football from Gary, we got the ball back and scored a late touchdown. Instead of going for the tie (which most likely would have given us the championship), we went for two and missed it. Our only loss that season.
And I wish to God we would have tied them, because we'd have killed them in the rematch. Instead, they played a pansy WVU team and won a title. All we've done since then is complain about the bad Gary call. I swear, we would have mauled them in a rematch, and won the title in 88 had we tied them. Or, they would have ducked us, thus giving us the title. Either way is better than what happened.
In 1988 we would have been living to fight another day, and I would have been 100% fine with that. I'm not fine with losing to them at their place because of a horrible call, and them winning a national title because of it.
I don't have a problem with JJ's decision. JJ was a ballsy coach and Miami is a ballsy program. We won our first title over a missed two point conversion. It would have been out character for us to play for the tie.
There could have been a rematch, which makes it very different. If you can get a tie at their place, under those circumstances, you take it. After you tie them, you go public saying you want a rematch and pressure them to play you again, this time at a neutral site.
Like someone else said, we had like 6 turnovers that game. If you can have 6 turnovers and not leave with an L, you might want to take it. On the road, 6 turnovers... yeah, I'd have been fine with a tie and a rematch.
The players on that team would have NEVER forgiven JJ had he not gone for 2. The same would have applied to former players.
Had JJ settled for the tie the "U" wouldn't be what it is today. Since our first National Championship players who have a win at all costs attitude have been the core of the Canes football program. We've never wanted players or coaches that think about anything other than winning. No moral victories!!! No ties!!!
Bull crap. The players would have been chomping at the bit for the rematch. Might have been a tough pill to swallow for a few days, but once they realized they were getting a rematch and a national title, they'd have been fine with it. Tell me, how do you think they felt leaving there with a loss? How do you think that loss feels to them nearly 30 years later? You're telling me we tie them then beat them in a rematch isn't better than stewing over a loss for 30 years?