It's funny how film changes things come Monday morning. I left that game thinking the gap between the teams was wider than it actually is. Please don't think I'm taking anything away from CAL, because I'm not. They were the better team and they deserved to win. I'm just saying MF was in that thing more than most realize and the notion that it was a beat down is being vastly exaggerated.

Never being able to flip the field off our punts and forced to go for it on 4th down deep in our own territory made the final score less respectable then it could have been.

It's funny how film changes things come Monday morning. I left that game thinking the gap between the teams was wider than it actually is. Please don't think I'm taking anything away from CAL, because I'm not. They were the better team and they deserved to win. I'm just saying MF was in that thing more than most realize and the notion that it was a beat down is being vastly exaggerated.

 

I agree. The INT return for a TD was definitely the changing point and you are exactly right on field position. Mayfield was not out til about 3 minutes to go.the score was not any indication of how the game was pkayed

I agree. The INT return for a TD was definitely the changing point and you are exactly right on field position. Mayfield was not out til about 3 minutes to go.the score was not any indication of how the game was pkayed

 

To both of your points, I made a similar argument about the CAL vs. SK game at the beginning of the year. CAL had the ball inside/right at SK's 10 yard line twice and came away with 0 points, while SK converted twice on 4th and long for 30/40 yard TD's. That's a 28 point swing and a completely different game; however, this is if CAL played perfect. Do I think SK still would have won? Yes, more than likely their depth would have gotten to CAL. But, if you are a 2A school trying to beat a 6A power you have to play nearly perfect mistake free football and can't leave points on the board and have to get off the field on 3rd/4th down.

 

Just as you both said sometimes the score does not indicate how the game was played or how the teams matched up.

 

Congrats to Mayfield on a great season. I played at Murray State, so many of my friends are Mayfield grad's - nothing but class!

After watching this game, I agree, Mayfield was in it till late. While CALs DL gave Arnett a lot of trouble with their pressure, there were numerous times that the Cardinal OL more than held their own and actually moved the ball pretty well on the ground, considering the size differential. And, at times, Arnett had good protection in the pocket, so, after further review, I take back my statement that this game was won in the trenches. CAL definitely got the better of it, but, not as much difference as I originally thought.. What killed the Cardinals in the 2nd half was field position and some very poor punts. When you are consistently starting from your own 20 on kickoffs and when you don't move the ball, you shank 3 punts that gives the other team the ball inside the other teams 40 yard line, yeah, that makes a big difference. CAL didn't have too many drives where they had to go more than 40 yards or so. Poor field position, poor special teams(punting), turnovers(3 picks) and CALs kicker(consistently hitting balls into end zone, giving Mayfield long fields all night long). CAL did a lot of good things and they were the better team, but, it was closer than most on here are thinking, simply looking at the final score..

Congrats to CAL and further illustrates why "on paper" means absolutely NOTHING and ALL games must be played! "On any given night" ANYONE can get beat.