King, another good column today. I'm not a Jets fan, but the point you made about Saban is equally applicable to the end of the jets-chargers game yesterday.

As I'm sure you know the Jets had first and goal from the 3 needing a TD to win. They ran on 1st down for nothing then had Brooks Bollinger throw 3 times all incomplete to lose the game. You've got Curtis Martin but you let Bollinger try ot make the game winning play. The thing about passing in that situation is that if it doesn't work coaches always seem to feel like they have to keep passing. If you run, you usually get a little closer making the next play that much easier.

On the Chiefs game, their chance of scoring on that play was even higher than usual because the Raiders were expecting a pass.

I was also wondering whether anyone noticed a clock malfunction with about three minutes to go in the Redskins-Eagles game where the Redskins were able to take almost a minute off the clock between their third down play and a punt. It seemed as if the play clock reset as it was running down allowing an extra 20 seconds to run off the game clock.

In response to NYCprof, I don't think you can really get on Schottenheimer's case for kicking the field goal. The game was in the 4th quarter and the difference between being up by 8 and being up by 11 is huge. The only thing which might make me doubt that would be the fact that if it failed the Jets would get the ball at the 1, but I just think the difference between a one posession lead and a two possession lead makes Marty's decision clearly defensible.

On a sort of related note. Has anyone thought that maybe instead of a team punting from way back in the end zone it would be advantageous to take an intentional safety and punt from the 20. I would love to see an analysis of this. Think about it. You've got 4th down on your own one yard line, the punter never gets a good kick in that spot since he's so concerned about it getting blocked, the other team usually gets it around the 40. Taking a safety would buy you around 25 yards on average. I think there's a good chance that would be worth it.

I remember the '84 Orange bowl almost like it was yesterday, without question one of the greatest college game ever. The Nebraska team was just a powerhouse which had dominated the competion all year. An offensive juggernaut. They scored 49 points in one quarter during the year.

Osborne was both praised and criticized for that decision. But he was universally respected. Part of the reason for that was his candor. He said that he wanted to win the game and not the national chamionship. While this may seem foolish, the national championship did not, and of course still does not exist, since it's not determined on the field.

If he had kicked and the game ended in a 31-31 tie, Nebraska would have been the undisputed (mythical) champ, as they would have certainly been No. 1 in both polls. They actually received many first place votes even with the loss, no doubt because everyone recognized the gutsiness of Osborne's call.

One thing I would like to see, and that would game would have been a great place to do it, is to fake an extra point and try to get the two points that way. I saw it in High school once and with the element of surprose it worked to perfection.

Another thing that made Osborne's decision even gutsier -- also possibly unwise -- was that his best player and Heisman winner Mike Rozier was out of the game with a sprained ankle. I always thought that pass to Fryar had very little chance of success as Turner Gill's throw was a good one but it was easily batted away by the defender.

King, thanks for tracking down that explanation on the clock issues. That explanation by the NFL regarding the extra time winding down in the Skins-Eagles game could not be more lame. How could the ref have not realized that the skins were just letting the clock run? That is something that happens in every NFL game. Also, how could the ref have thought that the Skins were being affected by a slow spotting of the ball? since the Skins were just standing around obviously they had plenty of time.

It is also too easy to just say that it had no effect on the game. It had to have some effect, we just will never know What effect that was. For example, the Eagles hiked the ball with 2:03 and threw an incomplete pass followed by the two minute warning. Assuming everything else had been the same, if the clock had been right, that play would have ended with 2:12. They could have run another play or two before the two minute warning. After that everything would have been different.

Also, even if you just say McNabb would have thrown the interception with 1:40 left rather than 1:25, because the Eagles still had a TO (timeout, rather than the kind that speaks), the Redskins may not have been able to run out the clock by falling on the ball, they may have ran the ball.

I see they actually did run on first down, which is inexplicable since they unquestionably could have fallen on the ball three times and ended the game. I see this quite often, more so in college, but in the NFL too. This is not calculus. It makes you think that these coaches flunked math in junior high. Do these coaches not remember a guy named PISARCIK!