Norm Peterson

To answer my own question, I think you have to go for it. This was brought up, so let's be clear: money isn't an object. You're a pro golfer; you had to win in order to qualify to play in the Masters. So, assume that the difference between finishing 2nd and finishing 5th (or whatever) isn't a large enough difference to be determinative. You have the money. BTN has paid something like $55 million to have their logo on your shirt, so money is not the issue. You have the money. If you lay up, you're effectively giving up a shot at the Green Jacket and are playing for 2nd because the leaders behind you are probably going to come through and birdie this hole. You have to figure out a way to get up and down from 235 yards out, right here and now on #15, if you have any hope of catching the leaders. It's worth the risk because the number of times you've been in this position before (zero) is likely a reflection of the number of times you're likely to ever get there again. And when you have a legit shot at putting yourself among the leaders late in the day on Sunday at August National, you have to take it. I should mention this: when I said you'd never been in contention at a major championship before, that wasn't actually true. You have been in contention before, but it was many years ago. In 1986, you made the tourney but missed the cut. You also played but missed the cut in 1993, 1998 and 2014. But, in 1991, you briefly held the lead on the front nine on Saturday before picking up a quad-bogey on 12 from which you never recovered. In 1992, you made the cut again, but you never seriously challenged for the lead. Same thing in 1994. So, once in the last 33 years, you had a taste of what being a leader on the course at the Masters was like. You're not in this position often. You gotta go for it. Because it might be a long damn time before the circumstances line up again where you have a chance to pull even with the leaders on Sunday at the Masters. Two shots off the lead, with a chance to be putting for eagle on #15 on Sunday at the Masters, you'd be an idiot to pass up that opportunity. You don't lay up. Even if it doesn't work out and your ball winds up wet, you'll know it was still the right decision because you were playing to win, not playing to not lose.

A-freakin-men. Can you people acknowledge it might take a game or two to figure out how to win without Copeland? How we managed to win two games without him is an amazing thing to me. And some of you act like, if we had a good coach, we'd be undefeated or something. Unbelievable.

"Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." Tim Miles

I don't know how good of a coach he would be, but I bet Tony Bennett could crush singing the National Anthem.

Same. Except you got me on that one.

Dang. You're right. Why did I think Lauren Roberts? Maybe because that was like 30 years ago. Glad I have my fact-checkers on board. I should have run it by you first. ?

Knowing the story I mentioned above about Sarazen's "shot heard 'round the world" let me ask ALL of you this: If Sarazen's shot falls short and he saves par rather than getting a possible birdie, does that make it the wrong decision? Do you judge the decision by the outcome? Or do you judge the decision by assessing the situation and the odds at the time you make it? He's 3 shots back. He could go the safe route, lay up, and play for 2nd. Or he could go for glory and take his chances. Was Tom Osborne right to go for 2 against Miami in the '84 Orange Bowl? Or should he have kicked the extra-point and backed his way into a National Championship?

There are probably some statistics somewhere that show how many people in the final 2-3 groups who eagle #15 on Sunday go on to win the Masters. In all my years of watching the Masters, I can only remember one guy in contention -- Chip Beck -- lay up on 15. And the announcers gave him hell for it. One of the most famous shots in the history of golf (if not THE most famous shot) occurred in 1935 on #15 at Augusta national. On Sunday. Gene Sarazen was playing #14, 2 shots back of Craig Wood, when he heard the crowd roar on 18 as Wood rolled in a birdie to go up 3. On #15, Sarazen could have layed up and played for runner-up, and conceded the Green Jacket to Wood. Instead, for his second shot, he striped a 4-wood 235 yards, carried the water hazard, landed on the green and rolled it in for double-eagle 2. He walked onto the 15th tee 3 shots back; he walked off the 15th green in a tie for the lead. Sarazen parred out, sending the 1935 Masters into a playoff, which he then won. And nobody remembers Craig Wood. Edited: Hat tip to HB for correcting me on Chip Beck.

So, give 10 more minutes to Brady Heiman and the other 21 to ... Thor? And Jordan Murphy goes off for 40 points and Minnesota wins by 20.

Hey. You are in luck. As it happens, you won $1.6 million at The Memorial last year in order to qualify for the Masters field. In fact, you had 5 top-10 finishes last year including a runner-up at the Northern Trust Open, and you currently sit in roughly the top 50 on the money list. AND you get paid more for the colored thread your sponsors had stitched into your shirt, your golf hat and your golf bag than what the Masters green jacket would pay. (Thank you to the generous people at Mutual of Omaha and Rocket Mortgage.) So money, for you, is NOT an issue. Does that change your vote?

It's the 69th hole at the Masters. You're 2 shots back. You've never won a major championship in golf; in fact, you've never even been in contention before. But here you are. On Sunday. At Augusta National. And you have a choice to make. The biggest decision you may ever face. You hit an alright tee shot. You're in the fairway with a decent lie. But the 15th green is notoriously slick and there's water protecting it in front. Laying up means you put yourself in position for a probable par, possible birdie, and you stay in contention, but you don't gain any ground on the leader. Going for it in two involves risk. Come up short, even if you reach the green, and there's a chance it rolls back into the drink and you're looking at bogey or worse. Go long and there's a good chance your come-back shot could wind up wet. And then you're looking to save double bogey. But, if everything goes right and you stick the shot, you have a chance at eagle and a tie for the lead. On Sunday. At the Masters. At the mother effing Masters. So, what do you do? Do you lay up? Or do you go for it in two?

Whether we're on offense or defense.

It appears he’s saying your “high school basketball” and “Super Bowl” threads are so similar they should have been merged.

He didn’t have to research it. Fran McCaffrey knew it.

We could really use a dude like that right about now, huh? Funny you should ask, though. My understanding is it came down to Nebraska and Iowa and our coach didn’t get an extension and theirs had a full contract. So ...

About year 6 or 7 of a coaching tenure, this place just starts to suck the life out of ya. Hit me up if something interesting happens. See ya.

I'd rather have a unity crew out drinking to their unity and then drikning to ther untity somemore than a ginger driving the energy bus into a brick wall. But just barely.

So, the guys who tells me to unzip my coat before I'm even in the door should be worried about their job security.

Nobody seems to know what his job is but everyone is quite sure he isn't doing it very well.

Streisand effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

If the rumors aren't true, I don't want to add to the public smearing of someone's name. However, the fact that Ronnie and Hank felt the need to come out and defend the guy suggests that the rumors had gotten spread pretty broadly, perhaps even in the donor community. Actually, I can say I initially heard it from a donor, so I can say definitively that the rumors were circulating among the donor community. But the rumors are actually two-fold: One rumor is the issue of concern; the other rumor is that the powers-that-be intended to take action to address the issue of concern. So, while Ronnie and Hank denied rumor #2, they never said anything about rumor #1. So, they're not denying that part, and I guess if Moos and boosters enjoy each others company in the consumption of adult beverages and Ronnie and Hank don't care, who am I to judge?

Right now, social media is laughing at all the dumb jerks on social media who relied on rumors on social media to assume something was amiss. Or amoos, if you'd rather. So, now, social media provides us the answer that what was said before on social media was just a vicious rumor, showing once again that you can't trust social media. Unless Moos leaves on his own accord. In which case, maybe social media was right? But … which social media? ? In other news, I'm surprised Ronnie and Hank didn't say "we won't comment publicly on any coach or athletic department official until the season is over. Or a couple weeks after the season, whichever is later. Unless we comment earlier."