I don't understand how anybody comes to this conclusion. Hetherman and Dawson BOTH had questionable calls. Both took L's during the game.
With a missed FG and a completely boneheaded INT by his 29 year old QB, Dawson still out-scored/out-gained the opponent and put us in position to win the Natty.
We have no TE, only one WR who's a threat, a mistake prone statue at QB and we were playing the #1 defense in the country. What were yall expecting? 30 points and 500 yards of offense? (in hindsight it actually could have been a 30 point game)
For whatever reason...OC's tend to get more scrutiny than DC's do when their play calls don't work. We don't have the same energy for DC's when they give up a 21 yard run on 3rd and long.
I came to the conclusion for the first two by evaluating the totality of the season. Particularly for Dawson, there is a pattern over multiple seasons.
His offensive schemes, perhaps not in reality or to more learned eyes as coaches like yourself,
but certainly in widely held perception, just go dead/ineffective for extended stretches of games. Miami scores in 1H or perhaps even gets a few 1st downs on Monday night and they might be hoisting #6. Instead, wholly ineffective offensive performance entire 1H and I just don't buy "IU had a better scheme/players".
Not with the firepower Miami had on the offensive roster.
With Heatherman, granted we have a season N=1, but overall, his scheme "belonged", again, from a perception context at least. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, time will tell.
The third point is just self-evident, and maddening that it remains a problem.
The data are what the data are.
