I don't understand why bloggers keep writing that the best way to slow down WVU's offense is to keep them off the field. It's not that the phrase itself is necessarily wrong (sure WVU will score a little less if you slow down the game and give them fewer possessions), but writers often pen that phrase as if slowing down the game actually gives Texas (or whomever the opponent may be) a better chance of winning. Is that even true? Maybe marginally if WVU was a huge favorite. But, in this case the two teams are evenly matched, so Texas shouldn't give two shits about time of possession or number of possessions.
They need only worry maximizing their point equity in each possession.
Mack should anticipate that WVU is going to put up at least 30 points, which should influence many of his decisions as it pertains to punts (don't pooch punt it on 4th and 2 from the 39 yard line...please Mack, please!) and FGs (only kick if its 4th and long between the 4 yard line and the 20 yard line)
To me, slowing down the game and trying to manage time of possession is a bull shit approach that shitty teams use when they're trying to keep the score looking reasonable (ie heh we only lost 38-14 instead of 76-28). It has very little to do with improving the actual odds of victory. I wish bloggers would stop pointing to this strategy as some viable cure all for defenses facing a high scoring offense. It means very little as it pertains to determining the winner of the game, not to mention, that slower games are boring to watch so why would fan sites advocate it as some viable strategy?