My Philosophy: I believe that when a team scores to take a seven point lead towards the end of a game, the team should subsequently go for two, possibly taking a nine point lead and making it a two possession game.

In the scintillating Michigan-Wisconsin game on September 27, Michigan capped its miraculous comeback with a Sam McGuffie touchdown run to put the game score at 26-19. Coach Rich Rodriguez promptly sent in K.C. Lopata to kick the extra point, putting the score at 27-19.

The extra point here, though seemingly unimportant, drove me crazy. I sat on the edge of my seat screaming, "GO FOR TWO DAMMIT, GO FOR TWO!" In my mind, I was thinking that RichRod could have made it a two possession game with five minutes to go against an impotent Wisconsin offense; essentially, Game Over. Of course, Wisconsin drove down and scored...and they would have tied the game had an illegal procedure penalty not wiped out a successful two point conversion attempt.

I called a friend with my philosophy about going for two in a late game situation like this. My friend is a football referee who not only knows a lot about strategy, but discusses football with many coaches. His response? "I disagree completely with you and I don't know one person who would go along with your line of thinking."

This drove me crazy - but not nearly as crazy as I would go during the Oregon State-Utah game a week later. The Beavers, playing on the road, scored with 2:23 left in the 4th quarter to make it OSU 27, Utah 20. Nary a pause by respected coach Mike Riley and out came kicker Justin Kahut to give Oregon State an 8 point lead. Utah stormed down to score, tied the game with a two point conversion, and kicked a field goal in regulation to upset their Pac 10 foes.

Going For Two: Logical and Ballsy

I have two main reasons for why any coach in his right mind should go for two in most situations like this.

It's time for coaches to do what's logical, not what's common practice. Your team scores, you have a seven point lead and sure, an eight point lead is nice, but your giving the other team hope in the waning moments of the game. All they have to do is catch one break and bam, it can be a tie game with a two point conversion. If coaches follow my idea and get the conversion, they have doubled their chances of winning because the opposing team now has to score twice under intense endgame pressure. Your decision can quickly be a backbreaker. Plus, that shows guts, which leads me to my next reason.

Coaches should lead with chutzpah and not fear the media. I believe the main reason Riley didn't go for two is obvious. If OSU had failed on a two point conversion and Utah had driven back to score a TD while gutsily converting the two point conversion, Riley would have taken the blame from the media. The press would claim Riley made an imprudent decision that led to a loss, when he could have simply kicked the extra point and played for the possible tie. Riley made the "safe play," the play which will take the blame off him and put it on the players. When reporters ask him about the endgame breakdown, he can say standard things like "The defense has to do a better job in pressure situations" or "I feel like Utah played better than us in the 4th quarter"....thereby absolving him of any blame.

Throw the Knockout Blow

In some games, kicking the extra point is appropriate. If #2 Alabama scores in the late 4th quarter  to take a seven point lead over North Texas, kicking the EP is logical. Logic dictates that if somehow North Texas ties the game, 'Bama will win win in OT.

But in Wisconsin-UM, the Wolverines were a 1-2 team trying to upset the #8 Badgers - C'mon Rich, man up and throw the roundhouse punch to the chin. In OSU-Utah, the Beavers were on the road against an explosive offense - Mike Riley was in position to end the game with a successful two point conversion. Being a football coach is a tough job, with many judgment calls made constantly. Why not follow logic and throw the knockout blow in these endgame scenarios?