The Arrogance of Bronco

I finally was able to watch his show last night on dvr and when he was asked about the 2 point conversion he said he would do it again in fact every time. It's like he wants to prove to the fans, media, etc, that he made the right decision.

Well, IMHO:

1 - He did make the right choice. It just didn't work.

2 - "Arrogance" is a word only used because the conversion didn't work. Had it worked, the word would have been replaced by "Genius."

3 - I like a coach who doesn't waffle, is able to make quick decisions when needed, and sticks by his decisions. That doesn't mean he's perfect. Just means he is confident.

1967cougar wrote:
Well, IMHO:

1 - He did make the right choice. It just didn't work.

2 - "Arrogance" is a word only used because the conversion didn't work. Had it worked, the word would have been replaced by "Genius."

3 - I like a coach who doesn't waffle, is able to make quick decisions when needed, and sticks by his decisions. That doesn't mean he's perfect. Just means he is confident.

I'm ok with the decision now. But without any timeouts and did not do an onside kick sure brings many questions. He has been getting lit up by the radio hosts and call in shows(probably Ute fans)

Gucci33 wrote:
I finally was able to watch his show last night on dvr and when he was asked about the 2 point conversion he said he would do it again in fact every time. It's like he wants to prove to the fans, media, etc, that he made the right decision.

As I have said in other places, the two point conversion, while not a great call (when considering Boise hadn't moved the ball on us at all and had no kicker), is at least arguable under the theory you go for the win on the road. If the O line blocks, it is a non-issue.



What was boneheaded was NOT onside kicking it when BYU had zero timeouts and there were only about three minutes left on the clock. Do the math. 40 seconds times four plays would leave a whopping twenty seconds left--even if Boise State didn't gain a yard. Tack on four or so seconds of hang time on the punt, and a fair catch, and you might have 15 seconds left with no timeouts to get in field goal range. So were talking about maybe trotting out your own bad kicker for a long one. As I said, not thought through very well. The extra point would have been smarter under these circumstances, but still arguable. I don't see how you can argue that kicking it deep was the right thing to do. Of course if Boise kicks even one of the field goals they should have attempted, this is not even an issue.



There were a lot of boneheaded calls by the coaches on both sides this game, and I really respect both of these coaches. But I am looking at it in hind sight--though I immediately felt the deep kick was egregious.

Gucci beat me to it. I don't think it is Bronco's arrogance that will cost us games. I think it is his inept clock and situation management. We have been lacking in that area for sometime. If he doesn't get that under control, we will have a hard time ever going undefeated because to have an undefeated season you need some breaks to go your way, and you can't squander away opportunities.

I'm not excusing the choices here, but some thoughts I've had...



Onside kicks are essentially pointless now that the receiving team can call for a fair catch. If you want a chance at the ball back if your defense can hold them at the 15 yard line you've got much better field position then if you hold them at the 45.

I have conceded the two points. Conventional wisdom by most coaches is to go for 2 on the road. I think it was a mindset, made up before the event itself. Courage over fear won out. I do like this and value it in the BSU case and within reason and context. But not always as a rule!



However, it's his handling of Riley's injury, his love-fest for Rileys grit vs love of wins, his indulging Riley's begging for "one more series" vs Utah; and mostly his disingenuous reports to the fans about Riley's injury for over two weeks and believing Riley over doctors (does RN really have broken vertebrae?) or "eyes-on" analysis of Riley's ability to produce prior to the game (sitting on sideline most of the days leading up to the games) and then leaving Riley in for so long when clearly his performance was well below average for even Riley. it was as though he was sacrificing the team record for Riley's "Senior year" fantasies/record. Riley was set up for byu college football immortality and Bronck was not going to rob him of that, even if it was an embodiment of Broncos own unmet dreams of college glory.

Is it arrogance or an entrenched case of Broncos blind, paternal pride ("[Riley's] tougher than all of us") that has Bronco finally accepting what most everybody could see before he did. Bronco was highlighting valor and grit and leadership (Rileys kind) over winning football games. It's a classic example of the quote "Any virtue pressed to an extreme, becomes a vice" (BKP). And Bronco got caught up in a vice. He got stuck, where Insanity is defined as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

He wanted his Senior to be the savior (lower case) juxtaposed to the supposed and self anointed, high-school all-world savior freshman who abandoned ship; AND he didn't want to ever "start a freshman again", in this case Hill.

I love Bronco and I'm glad he is here at BYU! And if the trade off is his commitment to Tradition, Spirit, and Honor, even if it gets "pressed to an extreme" and even if I get ticked and critical, then, I will take it and get over myself and the losses to Utah and BSU.

Maybe it is arrogance--But arrogance is defined as "an assumption that ones self worth is far superior to others; or a false sense of pride." I don't think Bronoc is guilty of that. Indulgence of Riley? Seems pretty clear. Self- indulgent? Maybe. Disingenuous? I think so. But, it's "his team and he gets to do what he wants. If you are labeling that As arrogance, I guess I can see what you mean but not accept it at the same time.

hawkwing wrote:
I'm not excusing the choices here, but some thoughts I've had...



Onside kicks are essentially pointless now that the receiving team can call for a fair catch. If you want a chance at the ball back if your defense can hold them at the 15 yard line you've got much better field position then if you hold them at the 45.

Actually, by rule, the fair catch is only allowed if the ball touches the ground one time after the kick and goes skyward. If it touches 2 or more times--not allowed. So kickers can't just kick it into the ground anymore. Have to old school it and hope for a high hop.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

I finally was able to watch his show last night on dvr and when he was asked about the 2 point conversion he said he would do it again in fact every time. It's like he wants to prove to the fans, media, etc, that he made the right decision.

As I have said in other places, the two point conversion, while not a great call (when considering Boise hadn't moved the ball on us at all and had no kicker), is at least arguable under the theory you go for the win on the road. If the O line blocks, it is a non-issue.



What was boneheaded was NOT onside kicking it when BYU had zero timeouts and there were only about three minutes left on the clock. Do the math. 40 seconds times four plays would leave a whopping twenty seconds left--even if Boise State didn't gain a yard. Tack on four or so seconds of hang time on the punt, and a fair catch, and you might have 15 seconds left with no timeouts to get in field goal range. So were talking about maybe trotting out your own bad kicker for a long one. As I said, not thought through very well. The extra point would have been smarter under these circumstances, but still arguable. I don't see how you can argue that kicking it deep was the right thing to do. Of course if Boise kicks even one of the field goals they should have attempted, this is not even an issue.



There were a lot of boneheaded calls by the coaches on both sides this game, and I really respect both of these coaches. But I am looking at it in hind sight--though I immediately felt the deep kick was egregious.

I think they should have kicked the onside kick, however, there is a problem with your math. There was 3:37 left in the game when BYU kicked off. That equates to 217 seconds. 4 plays, 40 seconds per play works out to be 160 seconds. There should have been 57 seconds left when Boise punted if they had stopped them in 3. Still, with no timeouts, not a very good option, however, not as bad as 20 seconds.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
Gucci beat me to it. I don't think it is Bronco's arrogance that will cost us games. I think it is his inept clock and situation management. We have been lacking in that area for sometime. If he doesn't get that under control, we will have a hard time ever going undefeated because to have an undefeated season you need some breaks to go your way, and you can't squander away opportunities.

Good points.

Lawboy wrote:

I'm not excusing the choices here, but some thoughts I've had...



Onside kicks are essentially pointless now that the receiving team can call for a fair catch. If you want a chance at the ball back if your defense can hold them at the 15 yard line you've got much better field position then if you hold them at the 45.

Actually, by rule, the fair catch is only allowed if the ball touches the ground one time after the kick and goes skyward. If it touches 2 or more times--not allowed. So kickers can't just kick it into the ground anymore. Have to old school it and hope for a high hop.

Doesn't the kicking team get a shorter head start with the new rules as well which may make it more difficult? I'm not really sure if that's the case but I thought they shortened the kicking teams head start with this rule as part of the safety/moving the kick up. The moved up starting position would benefit the kicking team though as your not giving up as much field position.

rblack wrote:
I think they should have kicked the onside kick, however, there is a problem with your math. There was 3:37 left in the game when BYU kicked off. That equates to 217 seconds. 4 plays, 40 seconds per play works out to be 160 seconds. There should have been 57 seconds left when Boise punted if they had stopped them in 3. Still, with no timeouts, not a very good option, however, not as bad as 20 seconds.

I couldn't remember how much time there was, but I remembered it wasn't enough to put together a long drive, at least not without anytime outs and with a new QB who was not adept at throwing deep passes yet.



Let's run the scenario, the punt happents with 57 seconds on the clock hangs in the air and rolls for about four seconds (they were doing those Rugby kicks). It will not be blown dead for another second. Now we are down to 52 seconds. 52 seconds is not enough time. I think if you asked 10 people would you rather 1. Bet that your defense can stop their offense on a three and out because one first down and its over, and attempt a scoring drive with 52 seconds, no time outs, and a questionable kicker or 2. Go for the onside kick and have 3:37 to drive the short field for a scoring drive 9 out of 10 would take the onside kick.



There are situations like this game when time is more important than field position. Bronco muffed this one.

I really don't think Bronco is arrogant. I believe he is a humble man who has to make tough decisions and has to rely on others to carry them out. None of us have our professional judgement critiqued by nationwide media, and I am sure it is a hard thing for a private man like Bronco to deal with. Just becasue he felt he made the right call does not make him arrogant.

The call doesn't make Bronco arrogant, its the failure to admit it was the wrong call to make.



If you believe the coach has to give the team the best chance to win then you have to admit that going for 2 was ridiculous. To say that you should based on it being a tuff road game misses the point. The point is in the first 3 plus quarters. Byu's defense was dominate. BSU had zero kicking game. T.H just lead the offense on its best drive of the game. Byu has a kicking game. If Bronco's job is to give the team the best chance to win then they should have kicked the PAT. PERIOD. Win the coin toss and possibly win, lose the coin toss and have your defense dominate again and give the offense another shot...



Bronco saying that uneducated fans (TOOC) are the one's complaining is all I need to hear to call an ace an ace.

The point also is that in 12 of 13 drives, BYU struggled mightily on offense. Only five of those 13 drives lasted five plays or more. Only one drive gained more than 25 yards. Only four drives gained more than 10 yards.



Our best chance was to keep the only offensive momentum we had going.



What Bronco should have done was during the timeout that BYU called with 4:50 to go before the 4th & 3 from the Boise 18 was let the team know they would go for two.



Bronco has stated he knew he would go for 2 at the 20. So it reasons to be that he could have communicated this decision to the team during that timeout. Maybe he did, and a young and inexperienced Hill forgot, but he and several OL didn't seem ready for that play from a mental stand point.



I think going for the win was an aggressive decision and I want aggressive coaches.

SpiffCoug wrote:
The point also is that in 12 of 13 drives, BYU struggled mightily on offense. Only five of those 13 drives lasted five plays or more. Only one drive gained more than 25 yards. Only four drives gained more than 10 yards.



Our best chance was to keep the only offensive momentum we had going.



What Bronco should have done was during the timeout that BYU called with 4:50 to go before the 4th & 3 from the Boise 18 was let the team know they would go for two.



Bronco has stated he knew he would go for 2 at the 20. So it reasons to be that he could have communicated this decision to the team during that timeout. Maybe he did, and a young and inexperienced Hill forgot, but he and several OL didn't seem ready for that play from a mental stand point.



I think going for the win was an aggressive decision and I want aggressive coaches.

You can use the offensive momentum from 1 drive OR use the defensive momentum from the whole game. Also BSU had NOOO offensive momentum.

I don't mind aggressive play calling, but timing is key to being aggressive. Play the odds. Odds were in Byu's favor to not only make the PAT but they also had a 50% chance of winning the coin toss and getting the ball first and continuing the offensive momentum they just established. If you lose the coin toss you already have the momentum on defense AND the momentum of emotion by getting the game to overtime in the first place.

If Byu had no right challenging BSU in that game because Boise was a better team than going for two makes sense. Byu was the better team. They controlled that game.. Boise only scored because Byu gave them the INT. Byu got the chop block on the 1 yard line, penalties penalties etc.. Byu was in control of its own destiny in that game. They gave it away by "RISKING" THE 2 POINT TRY. Risk vs reward..... poor call and Bronco knows it.

stgeorgefan wrote:
Byu has a kicking game.

We do?

rblack wrote:

Gucci33 wrote:
I finally was able to watch his show last night on dvr and when he was asked about the 2 point conversion he said he would do it again in fact every time. It's like he wants to prove to the fans, media, etc, that he made the right decision.

As I have said in other places, the two point conversion, while not a great call (when considering Boise hadn't moved the ball on us at all and had no kicker), is at least arguable under the theory you go for the win on the road. If the O line blocks, it is a non-issue.



What was boneheaded was NOT onside kicking it when BYU had zero timeouts and there were only about three minutes left on the clock. Do the math. 40 seconds times four plays would leave a whopping twenty seconds left--even if Boise State didn't gain a yard. Tack on four or so seconds of hang time on the punt, and a fair catch, and you might have 15 seconds left with no timeouts to get in field goal range. So were talking about maybe trotting out your own bad kicker for a long one. As I said, not thought through very well. The extra point would have been smarter under these circumstances, but still arguable. I don't see how you can argue that kicking it deep was the right thing to do. Of course if Boise kicks even one of the field goals they should have attempted, this is not even an issue.



There were a lot of boneheaded calls by the coaches on both sides this game, and I really respect both of these coaches. But I am looking at it in hind sight--though I immediately felt the deep kick was egregious.

I think they should have kicked the onside kick, however, there is a problem with your math. There was 3:37 left in the game when BYU kicked off. That equates to 217 seconds. 4 plays, 40 seconds per play works out to be 160 seconds. There should have been 57 seconds left when Boise punted if they had stopped them in 3. Still, with no timeouts, not a very good option, however, not as bad as 20 seconds.

It's not 40 seconds x 4, it's 40 seconds x 3, because the clock isn't running prior to the 1st down snap. It would be something like this:

1st down play ~ 5 seconds

40 second play clock

2nd down play ~ 5 seconds

40 second play clock

3rd down play ~ 5 seconds

40 second play clock

Punt ~ 5 seconds



That's about 135 seconds, or 2:15. That leaves us with almost 1:30 on the clock - plenty of time, but with no room for error with no timeouts. Given that situation, Boise's awful kicker, our awesome defense in defending short fields, our awful passing game, and their excellent punt and punt cover play, you kick the extra point. If you must go for two, and you fail, you better onsides kick it, because one first down and it's game over. Even if you hold them to 3 and out, they'll start at the 25 or better, and can probably net 50 on a punt, leaving you to go 75 yards in that 1:30 with an awful pass game and no timeouts.



I know it's hard to consider all of these things in the heat of the moment. That's why you have to account for as many as possible before you even play the game, and know what you would do given various situations. It's Sun Tzu 101. And I would be very surprised if Bronco hasn't read The Art of War.

Like I said in the podcast, it's not the call I would have made, but to call the call wrong or arrogant is incorrect, especially when arguably the best coach in college football says that he would have made the same decision.



The only reason it was "wrong" was because it didn't work.

hawkwing wrote:
Like I said in the podcast, it's not the call I would have made, but to call the call wrong or arrogant is incorrect, especially when arguably the best coach in college football says that he would have made the same decision.



The only reason it was "wrong" was because it didn't work.

I figure it's like going all in with a small pair in a poker game. You could scare everyone else into folding, or get lucky, but your odds are better if you play it more conservatively at that point.