OSU/Texas ending

[DesertZebra]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Hey DZ...do you know what exactly they were complaining about? It looked like the initial spot by the LJ was about a half yard short of the LTG. I thought he reached the LTG so my initial reaction was bad spot. When the camera came back to the ball though, it was marked where I thought it should be marked. I assumed Tressel's reaction was due to someone changing the initial spot made by the LJ even though I thought it was the correct spot. I could understand why he was upset if he thought he was getting jobbed but a changed spot but in the end, the officials got the right spot.

That's exactly what I think happened. The spot was changed (rightfully so) and Tressel nearly flew off the handle when it did. My guess is that the LJ wasn't perpindicular to the play because it was coming right at him and he didn't want to get clobbered. He was probably given help by the HL or U on the spot. Again, great spot.

I wasn't worried about Tressel being flagged for being on the field, but rather what words might come out of his mouth.

[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?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by OverAndBack

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?

Exactly! And what about the year where there really are 2 undefeated team and one of them wins the game? Is it fair for them to have to play a game against a team that has already lost once just because we HAVE to have a +1. I definitely don't like that option. Either have a playoff (I prefer at least 8 teams) to determine a national champion or have a bowl system with no national champion.

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.)

[sloth]

Originally Posted by DesertZebra

Hey, no complaints here. I won a pretty penny on that game. Bucks covered the spread easily.

Not trying to be a jerk, but as an official, you may want to think about these sort of activities if you plan to advance up the ranks.

[OverAndBack]

You're right.

Sincerely,

Stephen Pamon

[golfnref]

Originally Posted by sloth

Not trying to be a jerk, but as an official, you may want to think about these sort of activities if you plan to advance up the ranks.

Agreed. Bad practice and even worse to boast about it.

[DesertZebra]

Friendly wagers, no biggie. Stop making mountains.

[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.

[SethPDX]

Originally Posted by DesertZebra

Friendly wagers, no biggie. Stop making mountains.

So you know, the NCAA does not consider any wager to be "friendly" or "no biggie." Not making mountains, just giving you something to keep in mind as you keep officiating.