sgm@rayssd.UUCP (01/12/84)
From a fellow netter: Is winning the Orange Bowl as opposed to tying it worth more than winning the national championship as opposed to losing it? If you ask me, Nebraska clearly made the wrong choice. Can anyone out there justify Nebraska's decision to go for two points? ----- It may be an old cliche, but tying the game is like kissing your sister. A solution to this problem would be to play sudden-death overtime in bowl games. If that were the case, I'm sure that Nebraskaa would have kicked the point. Getting back to Osborne's decision, does everyone think that the decision was his alone? Isn't it just possible that during a team meeting they discussed this particular situation? Do you think that those players would have settled for the tie? I can't believe there were more than ten percent of the team who would have played for the tie. In fact, I'd be surprised if ANY one on the team wanted to play for a tie. If you've never played on an organized team before, you may have trouble understanding this. Having played football on my high school team, I can say that playing for a tie in that situation could only be described as "cowardly". Ok guys, on two. Hut hut. -- Steve Myerson ...!decvax!brunix!rayssd!sgm OR ...!allegra!rayssd!sgm