There has been lots of talk around here about the fake punt and questioning the call based on field position/timing. I can agree with some of that, but I also think its important to look at the design of the play and why we might have chose to run it.
First, this wasn't a call on a whim, it was likely predetermined by many factors. Keep in mind that coming into the game Texas had defended 57 punts and we had likely watched every one of them. Those were broken down by field position, what type of formation the punting team utilized, when UT went for blocks, and when they returned just to name a couple of factors. Based on all the information that we gleaned, I'm sure Prince, Tibesar, and the rest of the staff had some preditermined thoughts on when and where we might utilize a fake. Everyone has to be on the same page with a call like that.
The field position is the biggest question, but I think it plays into Prince's thought to be unpredictable b/c few teams will fake inside their own 40. Heck, we faked inside our 20 this year, so the call didn't shock me. The rational that UT was playing a new QB and we had stopped them twice is used a lot for why we shouldn't have called it, but IMO that is probably precisely WHY Prince decided to go with it after consulting his coaches. In their mind worse case scenario you have an incomplete pass and you have to stop UT at the 30; at worst you give up a FG.
Finally, the design of the fake was perfect. We shifted both gunners to the left side of the formation forcing UT to take one of their players out of the box. The key here is that we had both gunners on the LOS, so essentually the inside gunner was a decoy. If UT recognizes that he is inelgible, then they don't cover him up, we call timeout, and do a regular punt. However, he was covered so that meant we had numbers on the open side. B/c we had both gunners to one side on the LOS, our RT was uncovered and the primary reciever. We had two upbacks to the open side and one to the gunner's side. Right before the snap UT shifted and the only safety they had to defend a fake was on the gunners' side, again playing right into the call. Unfortunately, despite great planning and having UT right where we wanted them, the play broke down b/c of lack of execution. First, our RT stumbled and fell after selling punt protection for a second. Even though a defender recognized it, he was completely turned around so the RT (Norwood I believe) would've been WIDE open had he got a clean release. The 2nd breakdown came when our right upback didn't get a good enough block on his defender allowing him to get into Reyer's face quickly. Essentually he released him up the field right into Reyer's face as he rolled out and as a result Reyer didn't even have time to throw the ball away, which I'm sure was option #2 if the play broke down. As a result we had the fumble, then the penalty on top of that, giving UT the ball inside the 10 for an easy score.
Again, I think its valid to question the call, especially considering the field positon and momentum in the game. However, I also think its valid that based on UT's tendancies and a belief his kids would execute, Prince made a bold call and to look on what we were actually trying to do. It wasn't on a whim, and he believed he needed plays like that to win the game. Based on his criteria I'm sure he'd call the same thing again if he had it to do over again, believing his players would execute after getting UT exactly where we wanted them. That was obviously his mindset as we saw with some calls later in the game.
These are the chess games I enjoy watching as a fan, and calls like this are just part of Prince's plan, especially to defeat a Top 5 team like Texas. I'll be anxious to see how (of if) Prince's "riverboat gambler" mindset changes as he gains more experience and gets more of his players/talent into the program. That will be fun to watch.
