OSU/Texas ending

[DesertZebra]

Originally Posted by 3SPORT

I wish all codes would just change the celebration rules to reflect a true un-sportsmanslike act. Some reactions to a play are true human emotions and not taunting.

I agree with you on that point. But we've got to play with the cards we're dealt right now. The problem is, how can one define the difference between emotion and taunting. I think the rules are the way they are right now is because there is such a fine line... gotta flag all of it instead of some of it.

[TXMike]

Not that it really means anything but the R actually announced "excessive demonstration", which created some interesting discussion in the ref chatroom we had going.

From the Box Score:
T 1-10 O26 McCoy, Colt pass complete to Cosby, Quan for 26 yards to the OHIOST0,
1ST DOWN UT, TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:16.
Unsportmanlike conduct (excessive demonstration) penalty on kickoff.
Lawrence, Hunte kick attempt good.

=======================
OHIO STATE 21, TEXAS 24
=======================

T 1-G T30 PENALTY UT unsportsmanlike conduct (Cosby, Quan) 15 yards to the
UT15.




FYI - ACC has the MNC game (Ron "giving him the business" Cherry at R)

[Forksref]

The number the WH gave for the USC was not the number of the guy who scored.

Ok, which of you is going to flag a coaching staff for being on the field during a dead ball in a big game like this? I think the officials did a good job handling it. Common sense prevails.

Good game. Except for poor defense on the TD at the end, the Bucks played well against a great offense. Texas can't claim #1 because they barely beat OSU which already lost twice before including a blowout to USC.

I think a 4-team playoff is do-able to end this bickering. All you do is rotate the semis among the major bowls each year and have the final the next week. There aren't more than 4 teams that are at the very top in any year.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Forksref

I think a 4-team playoff is do-able to end this bickering. All you do is rotate the semis among the major bowls each year and have the final the next week. There aren't more than 4 teams that are at the very top in any year.

This year I think there could be more than 4 I would like to see in that playoff: Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, USC, Utah and maybe Penn State or Texas Tech. That would have made a great 8-team playoff as well! If you had to go with 4, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama would not have been bad but Utah's win makes that discussion even more interesting.

I've always enjoyed the Bowl games as they are and would be fine if they stuck with that and did NOT have a national champion at all. If they want to have a national champion though, I think they need to go to a playoff. They can keep the other bowls for teams that don't make the playoffs but a national champion for a team sport that keeps score needs to have its champion determined by a playoff.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

This year I think there could be more than 4 I would like to see in that playoff: Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Alabama, USC, Utah and maybe Penn State or Texas Tech. That would have made a great 8-team playoff as well! If you had to go with 4, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama would not have been bad but Utah's win makes that discussion even more interesting.

Or, we could just cut to the chase and have #1 and #2 play, which is what we have Thursday, and cut out the middleman.

Had Florida not been in the BCS title game, I'd have said, "Fine. Shouldn't have lost to Ole Miss at home." (And I went to Florida).

Everybody has a ding on their record. Please don't tell me about Utah. Good team. If you honestly think they're one of the two best teams in the country, fine, but I don't see it.

Dumbass Laura Okmin after the game last night talking about how "nobody thought you should be here," which is completely asinine. Talk to the Big 12 about how they break ties for a division title. You could have put Texas in Thursday's game just as easily as Oklahoma (and maybe Texas Tech, until they got smacked by Ole Miss). These are fine distinctions when you get down to deciding between one-loss teams.

Oklahoma and Florida have impressive bodies of work (as do some other teams). Sorry about your luck if you have an impressive body of work and don't get into the one game at the end, but those are the breaks.

Yeah, I'm pro-playoff. Present me with a format that everybody can live with. Good luck.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Present me with a format that everybody can live with. Good luck.

Wow, that should be easy to do! I wonder if God has a little free time to work on it this year.

I still say, top 4. If you have top 4 or top 8 or top 16, there will ALWAYS be some teams and supporters saying they should be higher than 5 or 9 or 17. I contend that you can pick a top 4 that can be supported by most people who are reasonable.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Forksref

I contend that you can pick a top 4 that can be supported by most people who are reasonable.

We can't pick a top 2, a top 4 might only be 50% less contentious.

The problem is, most people aren't reasonable. Hell, Todd Blackledge during whatever the hell bowl game he was doing said you should take five bowl games (I forget which ones, the usual suspects) and then "take two of those five winners."

How the hell is that going to solve anything?

There's always going to be somebody who *****es, and usually quite loudly from a bully pulpit, even if they're full of crap.

The bottom line is this: ESPN has just made a major financial commitment to the current system. It's not going to be used as a preliminary to a "real" top two or top four or top eight situation because that devalues their investment and they're not going to throw more money on top of that IF the powers that be come up with a Plus-1 or whatever.

I chuckle when I some talking head says, "Man it would be great to have (insert team here) play the winner of Florida/Oklahoma." Yeah, but why? How many shots are you going to get?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

Or, we could just cut to the chase and have #1 and #2 play, which is what we have Thursday, and cut out the middleman.

Had Florida not been in the BCS title game, I'd have said, "Fine. Shouldn't have lost to Ole Miss at home." (And I went to Florida).

Everybody has a ding on their record. Please don't tell me about Utah. Good team. If you honestly think they're one of the two best teams in the country, fine, but I don't see it.

Dumbass Laura Okmin after the game last night talking about how "nobody thought you should be here," which is completely asinine. Talk to the Big 12 about how they break ties for a division title. You could have put Texas in Thursday's game just as easily as Oklahoma (and maybe Texas Tech, until they got smacked by Ole Miss). These are fine distinctions when you get down to deciding between one-loss teams.

Oklahoma and Florida have impressive bodies of work (as do some other teams). Sorry about your luck if you have an impressive body of work and don't get into the one game at the end, but those are the breaks.

Yeah, I'm pro-playoff. Present me with a format that everybody can live with. Good luck.

Seed the 4 BCS bowls with the top 8 teams and move them to December
23rd and 24th. The winner of those 4 bowl games play January 1st and 3rd. The winner of those two games plays January 16th. This pushes the season out only 8 more days. It could have been done this year. There were only two bowls on the 23rd and 24th(Poinsettia and Sheraton Hawaii bowls). These could have been moved to December 22nd.

I don't believe anybody can argue that the best team in college football will be ranked out of the top 8.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by rwest

Seed the 4 BCS bowls with the top 8 teams and move them to December 23rd and 24th.

Very possibly a non-starter for the bowls involved.

We could come up with formats all day long.

The problem is getting buy-in from everybody involved.

I doubt very seriously that 4 BCS bowls would have been all in favor of moving from their dates to December 23 and 24. Just a guess.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Texas can't claim #1 because they barely beat OSU which already lost twice before including a blowout to USC.

Except if Oklahoma, aka Texas North, beats Florida and then you recall that UT beat OU 45-35 on a neutral field.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Ok, which of you is going to flag a coaching staff for being on the field during a dead ball in a big game like this? I think the officials did a good job handling it. Common sense prevails.

Not me, but I'm at least going to make an effort to GET THEM OFF THE FIELD and NOW. The officials stood there like the guy in the commercial getting yelled at by his wife.

Now, week 3 in Podunk, WI? We won't need to measure anymore.

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by Forksref

The number the WH gave for the USC was not the number of the guy who scored.

You're right. Here's the video. He calls it on #7.

Texas' #7s are junior CB Deon Beasley and sophomore QB John Chiles, neither of whom, presumably, was in the game at that point.

The official play-by-play sheet says it was Quan Cosby (who's 26 years old, BTW, and should know better), who is #6 and that makes the most sense.

I saw the play and thought, "Well, that there is one of those showboating dives into the end zone with no defenders present that could get him a USC" and when the flag was thrown, they also showed the Texas sideline kind of all over the place (I couldn't tell if they went out onto the field or how far) so I figured somebody was going to get hit and either one would have worked.

And I thought the forward progress spot on the fourth down play was good.

I don't think the flag was on the receiver for jumping into the end zone. The number announced by the white hat and the number that receiver was wearing didn't match. Maybe an error in reporting, or they picked out one person for the sideline rush?

[TXMike]

Box score has foul as being on the scoring player. Probably just a missed announcement by the R.

[OverAndBack]

Like I said - "#7" was either a junior corner or a sophomore quarterback, neither of whom was in the game.

I don't know that either that corner or quarterback would have been the only guy who stepped onto the field, or that you'd single out any one person for that at random just because.

The simplest explanation (which may or may not be the correct one - only the simplest one) is that the WH gave the wrong number. The official play-by-play sheet has it as being on #6. (And that's not the gospel, either.)