I've heard some rumblings, and seen some editorials such as this one, that Utah coach Kyle Whittingham got too cute by calling two timeouts in an attempt to ice Pitt's kicker. After the game, Whittingham joked that he was '1-1' with the timeouts after one of Dan Hutchins' kicks went through and the other didn't. He got another chance after that failed attempt thanks to Whittingham's timeout and made good on it to send the game into overtime. Whittingham said he was going to 're-evaluate' his habit of calling timeouts to ice kickers (he has done it several times in the past) while his own kicker, Joe Phillips, said he actually likes teams to call timeout because it helps him. He gets a good look at the kick, he said. Personally I don't think it's that big of a deal at all. Mind games are a huge part of sports and if a coach thinks he can freeze a kicker then he should be allowed to burn his timeouts. Really, what is the difference between calling a timeout, using the reverse and faking a handoff? All are attempts to throw off the opponent. If anything, teams should do a little scouting of opponents and find out which kickers have been successfully rattled in the past by a little trickery and which, like Phillips, are unfazed then decided whether to use timeouts or not. What do you think? Is there a place for such mind games?