Kentucky kicking the extra point

In Kentucky's 40-34 win over Louisville, Kentucky kicked the extra point with 28 seconds left instead of going for two to try and go up by seven points. Bill Curry, calling the game on ESPN Classic, is rightfully questioning the decision as they are lining up to kick the extra point.

In the six articles on the game that I saw online from the Lexington Herald Leader, I didn't see a single mention of this decision. Obviously it was a huge win for Kentucky and the newspaper coverage was correctly focused on that story, but that was a pretty major oversight by the Kentucky coaching staff. Seems like someone should have questioned Rich Brooks about his decision. Not sure how he could have defended it.

EDIT: Did see a second-day story where someone talked to Brooks about the decision. Brooks admitted he made a mistake.

 

Lighten up Blue. Twenty-eight seconds is too early to start chasing points.

 

That was a complete and total brain fart by Brooks. He was so busy celebrating the go ahead touchdown he forgot to think. He'd have been crucified for it if Louisville had scored a winning TD.

 

Meanwhile, in the UCF-Texas game, Mack Brown, up 11, went for two instead of kicking, which would have forced UCF to score two touchdowns. Instead, it just needed a TD with a two-point conversion and a field goal. It got the eight points, but didn't get the onside kick down three. Big oversight there.

 

If Kentucky had lost the game because of that, I'm sure it would have been mentioned. But on that tight deadline with very little time for quotes, the huge win was the main thing.

They at least followed it up.

 

But if Kentucky goes for two and misses, it is still ahead five points and Louisville wins outright with a TD. At least up six it has to kick the extra point.

I wonder sometimes, when up 4 or 5 points and little time left, teams just don't take a knee on the PAT. I've seen PAT's blocked and returned for two points, or turnovers on two-point conversion plays, that would enable the trailing team to pull within two or three points and win/tie with a field goal.

 

Yeah, but how often does that happen?

 

What a ridiculous way of rationalizing a mistake.
They should have gone for 2, end of story.

 

Not rationalizing anything. Just presenting a reasonable alternative possibility. Teams make the 2-point conversion about 35-40 percent of the time. If they fail, and if Louisville somehow scores, the Cardinals still have to kick the PAT to win since Kentucky kicked the PAT.

Hardly ever. But why not take a knee and just eliminate the possibility completely?

 

Micro, when I first saw this, I had the same rationale as you. But then, what has a greater likelihood of happening? Converting a two-point attempt, or blocking an extra point? How often do you see missed PATs?

 

You want to be the writer who asks that question after Kentucky's biggest football victory in maybe 10 years? The writer who asks that question in that situation deserves to be reamed out by the coach who is asked and rejected by his audience.
It's not always about being the smartest guy in the room. It's about telling the story of the game. When Louisville failed to score, that point became inconsequential.

 

Very rarely. But as I said, in certain situations, why not just eliminate the possibility altogether when you have absolutely nothing to gain by kicking the PAT, such as when you're up four points with less than a minute to play?