"I don't think that's the way to do it."

As I mentioned in a recent post, I recently read a book on game theory and strategy called Thinking Strategically by Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff.  It's an older book (first published in 1991), so some of the examples are a little outdated.  The two authors discussed a controversial (at least at the time) decision made by legendary University of Nebraska head football coach Tom Osborne in the 1984 Orange Bowl.  

Coach Osborne coached the Cornhuskers to an overall record of 255-49-3 from 1973-1997, including 12 Big Eight conference championships, 1 Big 12 conference championship, and 3 NCAA Division I National Championships (1994, 1995, and 1997).  He coached 53 All-Americans, including 1983 Heisman Trophy winner Mike Rozier.  He was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame in 1999, served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives for the state of Nebraska, and returned to the University of Nebraska at the Athletic Director from 2007-2013.

Osborne's Cornhuskers were ranked #1 in the country when they played against the #5 ranked Miami University Hurricanes, coached by Howard Schnellenberger.  Miami was playing in their home stadium, but they came into the game as a heavy underdog.  The undefeated Cornhuskers were led by Heisman Trophy winning running back Mike Rozier, future NFL superstar wide receiver Irving Fryar, and an All-American quarterback and Heisman finalist Turner Gill.  

The 10-1 Hurricanes (they were blown out 28-3 in the first game of the season by the University of Florida) were led by redshirt freshman quarterback (and future NFL star) Bernie Kosar and had the second best defense in the country.  Despite winning 10 games in a row, Miami was a 10 1/2 point underdog.

I remember watching this game live on television on January 2, 1984.  Miami came out strong and took an early 17-0 lead at the end of the first quarter.  Nebraska came back strong in the second quarter to close the gap to at halftime, 17-14.  At the beginning of the second half, Miami fumbled deep in their territory, and Nebraska kicked a field goal to tie the game. 

Miami poured it on and scored two touchdowns to take a 31-17 lead into the final quarter of the game.  Nebraska eventually came back, even though running back Mike Rozier left the game with an ankle injury.  Both teams struggled somewhat at the beginning of the fourth quarter, but Nebraska eventually scored another touchdown (and kicked the extra point) to make the score 31-24.  With their next possession, Miami missed a field goal to give the ball back to Nebraska.  Then, on fourth down and 8 yards to go on the Miami 24 yard line and less than a minute to play in the game, Nebraska ran the option perfectly to score a touchdown, making the score 31-30.

Here is where the controversy came.  Osborne had a crucial decision to make - either kick the extra point to end the game with a 31-31 tie (at this time, college football didn't have overtime) or try for a two-point conversion to win the game.  Remember, as the #1 ranked team in the country, a tie would probably have still resulted in Nebraska winning the national championship.  Earlier that day, Texas, the #2 ranked team in the country had lost to Georgia in the Cotton Bowl and #3 ranked Auburn had a rather unimpressive win.  So what would you have done in this situation if you were Coach Osborne? Would you have played it safe and gone for the tie (and likely your first national championship), or would you have taken the risk and gone for the win with a riskier two-point conversion?

A few years ago, the data analytics website FiveThirtyEight analyzed all the different times that you should (statistically speaking) go for the two-point conversion.  Down by one point very late in the game, the NFL statistics would say that the better option is to kick the extra point.  But remember, the NFL has an overtime (so does college football now, but they didn't in 1984).  So, we are still left with the question on what to do.

Game theory, at least as analyzed by Dixit and Nalebuff, suggested that Coach Osborne should have gone for the two-point conversion after the touchdown earlier in the fourth quarter (when the score was 31-23).  If Nebraska had failed, they could have tied the game with a two-point conversion with the next touchdown (therefore winning the national championship on a tie game).  If they had successfully made the two-point conversion (making the score 31-25), the next touchdown would have won the game!  Dixit and Nalebuff suggest that if you have to take a risk, it's better to do so early.

Okay, what did Coach Osborne end up doing?  He went for the two-point conversion!  Miami's defensive back Kenny Calhoun broke up the pass from Turner Gill to Jeff Smith, sealing the win for Miami.  And, because of all the other losses earlier in the day, Miami jumped ahead of everyone and became the 1984 National Champions!  When asked about his decision, Coach Osborne said, "I don't think any of our players would be satisfied backing into it with a PAT.  I don't think that's the way to do it."

Chances are, as a leader, you will be faced with making a risky decision.  Should you make the safer choice or the riskier one?  I think that decision is entirely up to you, but take responsibility for it regardless of the outcome.  It won't be easy, and there is no question that the "Monday morning quarterbacks" will second guess you if you make the wrong decision.  I've shared a few quotes from legendary NFL Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi in the past.  I will end with another Lombardi quote, "Winning is not everything, but wanting to win is."  Sometimes, you just have to take the risk and go for two.