3rd OT: 1 yard > 3 points

The headline at the top of Page 4 of the Gazette's Sunday sports section struck me as interesting.

Playing percentages didn't work out this time

That was a reference to two decisions Iowa football coach Kirk Ferentz made late in the Hawkeyes' 44-41 triple-overtime loss at Iowa State.

The first was Iowa tucking it in on offense in the last 1:17 of the fourth quarter, going with a running play on first down at the Iowa 20. The Hawkeyes had two timeouts left, which meant they had ample time to use pass plays to drive into field goal range and try to break the 24-24 tie.

Marcus Coker ran for two yards, the Hawkeyes sensibly ran another rushing play on 2nd-and-13 after a 5-yard penalty, and let the clock elapse to settle for overtime.

Was that playing for percentages? Maybe. If you get intercepted on first-down, which James Vandenberg didn't do in 28 passes, Iowa State has time to get in field goal range. Then again, rushing plays aren't turnover-proof, either.

But the conservative approach there wasn't shocking for a college team. Some would have taken at least one shot downfield, some would have been happy to go to overtime on the road. All NFL teams would have thrown the ball once and maybe more, but they're playing with NFL players at every position, players who have spent a lot of time in their careers running two-minute drills in practice and in games.

Besides, that end-of-regulation strategy looked better and better as the Hawkeyes efficiently drove to touchdowns in the first two overtimes.

However, I'll join the many who have questioned why Iowa didn't go for a first-down instead of a field goal on 4th-and-1 at the ISU 16 in the third OT. I don't see how that was playing percentages at all.

On 4th-and-6 before the Cyclones' 5-yard penalty for having too many men on the field? You kick it. On 4th-and-1, knowing your defense will have to hold Iowa State to zero or three points in the third OT after having allowed 448 yards to that point? Going for the field goal in that spot was actually a risky move.

Trying to gain one yard when your offense had successfully navigated the 25 yards for touchdowns in its first two possessions in overtime strikes me as the safer option than a Mike Meyer field goal try of 34 yards (he's 6-for-6 in that statistic, by the way), whether it turned out to be good or not. So maybe Ferentz is a riverboat gambler after all. Well, no.

In the big picture of dissecting why Iowa lost to Iowa State, those decisions take a backseat to a lot of things. Despite making two more turnovers than Iowa, missing two field goals, and having 11 penalties that included some several especially hurtful ones, the Cyclones played better. They were faster, sharper, and down the stretch, more physical.

All that said, seasons hinge on how you do in close, winnable games. In 2009, the Hawkeyes were 5-2 in regular-season games decided by one score and went to the Orange Bowl. Last year, they were 1-5 in regular-season games decided by one score, and went to the Insight Bowl.

One close, winnable game this year for Iowa, one loss. And with the way the defense played against ISU's up tempo and self-termed "jet tempo" offense, you might be happy just to get in close, winnable games with some of the offenses that await in the Big Ten season.

But back to strategy. I didn't join the crescendo of criticism in 2009 when Ferentz opted to run out the clock late in the fourth quarter when Iowa had the ball at Ohio State in a tie game. Freshman Vandenberg was making his first college start. He had played beautifully under the circumstances, but I thought it was an understandable choice to not risk an interception and a possible defeat in regulation. I also thought debate about it was more than valid.

Hindsight was never clearer than when Iowa's offense was stymied in the OT and Ohio State made a field goal for the win. But it was more than a fair debate for people to ask why Iowa didn't take a shot or two downfield then to get in field goal range. Football is built on aggression, and sometimes you have to match your aggression on the field with some from the sideline in important moments.

Ferentz has built a strong program on consistency, in all areas. He wants everything done certain, specific ways, what he firmly believes are the right ways, and it pays long-term dividends. Many a major-college athletic director would love to get that kind of consistency built into their football programs. But no one is infallible.

Having written all that, a concluding plea for sanity might be in order here. Given the extremely serious health situations that developed with former Hawkeye player Brett Greenwood and current Minnesota Gophers coach Jerry Kill over the weekend, how bent out of shape should anyone get about a play-call or a defeat?