I’ve read a lot of content over the last few days criticizing Penn State’s choice to go for it on 4th down late in the first half on Saturday. Everyone makes (mainly the same two) excellent points: they were well within field goal range and had they kicked a field goal would have led by 14 points going into halftime, and the 4th down stop by the Buckeyes seemed to turn momentum into their favor and the game was never the same after that.
However, I’m going to be a little contrarian, and not just because I haven’t written a post here since Calvin Coolidge was President. I think had Penn State gotten the first down and followed it up with a TD to put the Nittany Lions up by 18 points, no one would have considered going for it audacious at all. And while watching the game live I remember thinking as the officials spotted the ball after the third down play, They’re going to go for it, and they’ll make it. There was no doubt in my mind of this, and I’d wager (were it legal) that the majority of people watching the game live were thinking the same thing, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the Penn State coaching staff did too.
Let’s agree on this: they were owning our asses on both sides of the field up to that point. Owning them. It’s my thinking that there were two directions in which the momentum could have gone after that particular moment. Had they succeeded, Penn State would have kept their momentum alive. But of course they didn’t,  which shifted the momentum back to the Buckeyes. I would contend that three additional points probably wouldn’t have affected their momentum much more than failing on 4th down did.  Let’s not forget, the Buckeyes ended up winning by three touchdowns, so the three points by themselves would have been mostly irrelevant had everything else progressed as it did. So I suppose the question is, would everything else have progressed as they did had Penn State kicked a field goal there? I say yes, others might say no. Had Penn State gotten a TD on that drive, would things have progressed as they did, with the defense coming out fired up and taking initials in the second half? I don’t think so. My guess is it would have been a big nail in the 2010 season’s coffin for many of us.
In other words, did the fourth down decision make a difference in the game, or did Tressel’s going scorched earth in the locker room at halftime do it? I would argue that Tressel’s halftime performance did more, mainly because Pryor and company didn’t exactly light things up immediately following the turnover on downs. This is open to debate, of course, and no disrespect intended to those of you who feel otherwise.
Go!