UCLA had just scored to cut Oregon’s lead to 14-7, when Bruins’ coach Rick Neuheisel channeled his inner Evel Knievel.
Neuheisel called a disguised onside kick, only to see the ball ruled out of bounds at the Bruins’ 42-yard line, setting Oregon up with a short field that led to a Duck touchdown. (A UCLA offside penalty moved the ball to the 37.)
And then the second-guessing began.
On ESPN.com’s College Football Nation blog, Ted Miller wrote the “kick was a bad call, and not only because it didn’t work.”
Broadcasters argued about the timing of the move, and Internet message boards lit up with comments like, “Why in the world would any coach in his right mind do that?” and that it was “the worst call I’ve seen in years.” So former UCLA coach Karl Dorrell was too conservative, but Neuheisel is too audacious?
If UCLA had successfully recovered the kick ““ not an unreasonable outcome ““ the Monday morning quarterbacks would be lauding Neuheisel as a genius.
In gambler’s parlance, this argument is results-oriented thinking, and it’s fundamentally flawed. The decision was either a good one or it wasn’t.
This was a brilliant bit of chicanery, a reasonable gamble that has worked in recent years.
Two years ago, Sean Payton’s New Orleans Saints pulled it off in the third quarter of a Sunday Night Football upset of Dallas. Last year, the Philadelphia Eagles called a surprise onside kick against the New England Patriots, and it worked. The play gave the Eagles an extra possession, keeping the ball away from the historic New England offense.
Consider this: Oregon’s average starting field position when UCLA kicked off was the 29-yard line. UCLA’s onside kick attempt went out of bounds at the Bruins’ 42. What coach wouldn’t value possession of the ball over 29 yards of field-position?
This is not to suggest that Neuheisel’s choices are above second-guessing.
Ironically, it was a non-onside kick that may have been his most questionable decision Saturday night. Down 24-17 with 2:36 to play, UCLA kicked off to a powerful Oregon offense that ran for over 300 yards, at a time when a first down or two would ice the game for the Ducks. The next play Oregon scored on a 69-yard touchdown run to make it a 14-point game.
This green UCLA team is still inconsistent and undermanned. Neuheisel’s crafty attempt to seize any edge possible wasn’t misguided, it was resourceful. Such bravado is commendable, and more coaches with struggling teams should look to push the envelope.
The missed onside kick had little to do with the Ducks running through UCLA’s defense. If anything, the offense adopted Neuheisel’s go-for-it attitude after the kick failed, charging down the field with an impressive 87-yard drive on its next possession, and tallying 17 more points in all after the play. This, after not scoring a point in their first road game.
In one sense, the seven-point defeat was a 52-point improvement from that infamous first road performance in Provo.
Perhaps some naysayers would rather watch predictable football with deliberate results.
I, for one, would not.