I am starting to think there was a bigger reason for the bland game plan. Is there a benefit to opening the playbook and putting a beat down on an inferior opponent? Maybe? You get to run more plays in a game environment, work on passing, etc. But it's also possible you come out of it with a false sense of security. From another thread, we saw plenty of non conference beatdowns with Mason's team, yet this did not necessarily always translate to success in the Big 10.
Maybe what Kill thought this team needed more was to be put in a difficult position on purpose. Perhaps he wanted to challenge the offense in ways that Kent State itself would not. What better way to do that by call a predictable, bland game? We may have well told Kent State what our plays were before each snap. Our offense was essentially left trying to execute with Kent State knowing exactly what we were going to do. This is risky, yes, especially when our offense has trouble scoring. But our defense was SO dominant, there really was very little chance they would ever score on us.
Most importantly we got the W. Second most importantly, we may have become mentally tougher from this, if this was indeed one of the motives. If history tells us anything it's that Kill does not give a damn about being flashy or looking good. Somehow he just keeps winning. Maybe this was all part of the bigger plan.
That, and the injuries. Kill knew exactly what he was doing. And the fans booed him for it. No wonder he was cranky.
