Were you in favor of going for 2 at the end of regulation?

[Buffnik]

Because crazy chit happens in overtime. Unless you have a play that you're extremely confident in running, take the easy points. JMHO.

I think they did have that play and they botched it.

 

[CUAviator]

Wanted 2 in the first OT. We had already missed 3 FG in the game, and our D was not able to stop anything. The longer OT played out the bigger advantage to Cal.

Your defense had given up 52 points or whatever at that time, why put the game in the hand of your defense?

At the end of regulation, I was hoping they'd go for 2. IMO it seems that when you're on the road, that you have to take the opportunity to win while it's there. I feel like OT seems to favor the home team.

Don't get this. If you're in OT, it means their D is just as horrible. And your team CANNOT/WILL NOT score in the red zone, why keep trying to force. The percentage chance that Oliver misses a 4th field goal (take a false start to back up if you need to) vs the chance we punch it in on 4th and inches or a 2 pt conversation is much lower.
Both defenses were playing the same at that point. If they were able to stop us, chances are we'd be able to stop them.

 

[MtnBuff]

Don't get this. If you're in OT, it means their D is just as horrible. And your team CANNOT/WILL NOT score in the red zone, why keep trying to force. The percentage chance that Oliver misses a 4th field goal (take a false start to back up if you need to) vs the chance we punch it in on 4th and inches or a 2 pt conversation is much lower.
Both defenses were playing the same at that point. If they were able to stop us, chances are we'd be able to stop them.

I think the issue at the end of regulation is that you had their defense reeling. They had no clue where Sefo was going with the ball next.

The time involved with finishing the game, starting the overtime, and playing allowed them to get themselves back together and they stuffed us on the short yardage running plays setting up their win.