I am. MSU and Clemson in the final 4? I'm cool with that. And an Oklahoma team that wasn't well regarded at the beginning of the year?
NCAA Football: Week 13 Discussion
- Thread starter SoxJox
- Start date
Me too. And if Clemson loses then we are in danger of Ohio State sneaking in.
It was a bad call but let's not overstate it. UNC still needed to go 50 yds in a minute and make the 2 pt conversion just to get it to OT.
You mean that which they had just done a minute before then (except getting the two pointer)?
Oh they got screwed for sure. Just pointing out that their win likelihood was still likely sub 50%.
And plus, even if UNC scores the TD + 2 pt. conversion, it's likely getting vacated at some point...
I was at a party last night with some UNC guys that were leaving early this morning for Atlanta to go to the game.
What a nutshot.
I was at a party last night with some UNC guys that were leaving early this morning for Atlanta to go to the game.
What a nutshot.
I will say this about the play in the Clemson game. At full speed it is easier to see how the line judge missed it. When you stop the video, it's pretty easy to look at it and wonder how he missed it. Switzer tweeted last night that the line judge told the coach, "I could have called several guys offsides", so he clearly he thought those 3-4 guys close got there early. Flag was out before the ball made it ten yards, so its not like he was out to screw UNC or change the outcome. He missed it, but at full speed its not so obvious.
Well, of course it is easier to judge on replay but Herbstreit was on the call in real-time right away. It was an absolute inexcusable call that ruined the ending of a fun game. If that ref thought that there were clearly 3-4 guys offsides, then this football reffing thing is not for him.
Maybe he had already made up his mind that someone was getting flagged for being offsides.
I agree. I'm just pointing out the contrast between the live speed of the play and the still photos all over the internet showing the action stopped. You can stop the action once #30 is beyond the line and the ball is about 5 feet off the tee. Just not as easy live as everyone thinks.
Last edited:
My thing with calling it offsides is, in that situation, shouldn't it have to be 100% obvious that he was offsides? Like, doesn't the line get the benefit of the doubt?
If the guy thought 3 guys were over, I'm guessing he just got fooled. My only thought is the guys moving fast were close to him and the kicker who is moving at a slower pace was obviously farther away, so I'm guessing its almost an optical illusion to the line judge. I think it should be much easier than that, but I don't think its as obvious as the still shots show.
I doubt its a benefit of the doubt deal, I think he believes guys were offsides and he was wrong.
I doubt its a benefit of the doubt deal, I think he believes guys were offsides and he was wrong.
The other thing that most viewers were looking at where the ball was going but this guy's job was to make the right call and he was right there. It may have been a tough call but it's still a call that most refs in his position make correctly. And then to have a system that doesn't allow for review for a non-judgment call only compounds the issue. That was the real problem here. Refs flub calls but there is no controversy if there's a system in place to remedy the bad ones.
True. But on the same play they missed a targeting helmet to helmet hit on a defenseless returner. So when you go to review everything are we going to let them review that. It was more obvious than the bad offsides call and worse than the one on Switzer. 150 plays in the game. This wasn't that big a deal just the easiest talking point.
Bowl predictions
Semi 1: Clemson vs. Oklahoma
Semi 2: Alabama vs Michigan St
Rose: Iowa vs. Stanford
Fiesta: Notre Dame vs. Ohio State
Peach: Houston vs. Florida State
Sugar: Oklahoma St vs. Ole Miss
Semi 1: Clemson vs. Oklahoma
Semi 2: Alabama vs Michigan St
Rose: Iowa vs. Stanford
Fiesta: Notre Dame vs. Ohio State
Peach: Houston vs. Florida State
Sugar: Oklahoma St vs. Ole Miss
Don't these athletic departments take a hit if they don't sell the minimum tickets? I can see a bunch of 5-7 teams declining the chance to play since they'll lose money to do so. If that's the case, could we actually see a team with a worse record than that in a bowl, or is that impossible for minimum win or accepted bid reasons already out there?
Eh, whether you call it a scrimmage or a friendly or the Rose Bowl or the Mr. McGibblets Fancy Kibble Bowl, it's just an exhibition game. Even a 0-win team should be allowed to play an exhibition game.
From the lines it sounds like Oklahoma should have been #3 and MSU #4. I guess they want Alabama and Oklahoma to meet in the Final.
If the #4 team is favored over #1 by Vegas are the rankings flawed? Clemson beat Oklahoma by 33 points last year in the bowl game. Watson and Mayfield didn't play. Not sure I would make OU favorite. Clemson D coordinator came from OU.
What's your definition of an exhibition game here? It counts as a game in all-time and seasonal records, as do players' individual stats.
Most of those still affect other teams' ability to win the championship, or at least they do when they're scheduled. These are games that are scheduled after the involved teams are already eliminated from contention. For all intents and purposes, they're exhibitions.
Well, they're playing for their own championship (by choice).
Take out the tradition; if at the end of the MLB season they said that not only are we having the playoffs, but they're also playing extra games between some of the other teams (say, #6 in the NL plays #6 in the AL, and after that the top team leftover in the AL East/Central/West plays their equivalent from the NL East/Central/West), everyone would recognize those as meaningless exhibitions. The bowls are exactly the same.
Take out the tradition; if at the end of the MLB season they said that not only are we having the playoffs, but they're also playing extra games between some of the other teams (say, #6 in the NL plays #6 in the AL, and after that the top team leftover in the AL East/Central/West plays their equivalent from the NL East/Central/West), everyone would recognize those as meaningless exhibitions. The bowls are exactly the same.
So all interconference Ivy League games are exhibitions, or are you going to move the goalposts on your argument again?
I don't know how their final standings work, but if those games don't affect them then they're basically exhibitions, yeah.
Well, I mean, how would you distinguish exhibitions? Games either count toward the championship or they don't.
Honestly if it weren't for the tradition of the bowls nobody would even think of saying that tacked-on games outside the tournament are anything else.
The Rose Bowl Champion is the Rose Bowl Champion. The NIT Champion is the NIT Champion. The Pinstripe Bowl Champion is the Pinstripe Bowl Champion. And since at least 2002, Bowl game statistics have counted in the NCAA record books.
But it's duly noted that these are exhibitions to Sumner, and he is still yet to advance an inconsistent or less than wholly-considered argument.
But it's duly noted that these are exhibitions to Sumner, and he is still yet to advance an inconsistent or less than wholly-considered argument.
The record book thing is neither here nor there; postseason stats in MLB (and other sports) don't count in the record books, but they're clearly not exhibitions in most people's minds.
I'm definitely not saying that my definition is exact or wholly considered, just that typical people mean in real life would pretty clearly considered tacked on games by teams that don't make the postseason to be exhibitions in any other case, whether they gave them a separate "champion" title or not. It's the traditions of the bowls that make people think of them specially. Once you get past that, you can get a lot less angry when they decide to play a few more bowls because people want to watch them (which is where this all started).
I'm definitely not saying that my definition is exact or wholly considered, just that typical people mean in real life would pretty clearly considered tacked on games by teams that don't make the postseason to be exhibitions in any other case, whether they gave them a separate "champion" title or not. It's the traditions of the bowls that make people think of them specially. Once you get past that, you can get a lot less angry when they decide to play a few more bowls because people want to watch them (which is where this all started).
I don't "typically" get angry about bowls one way or another. I'm also pretty confident that the great majority of "typical people" don't consider Bowl games exhibition games.
Yeah, the topic wasn't broached in response to you.
Now I'm not sure if you're gaslighting me or what. Nobody's disputing that--that's the whole point of the conversation.
FWIW, there's some historical basis for Sumner's argument. For many decades, the bowls were considered exhibitions and the polls voted on the national champion before the bowls were played. The AP didn't start awarding its national championship after the bowls until 1968 and the coaches poll didn't until 1974. Until 1969, Notre Dame had a long-standing practice of not playing in the bowls at all, which obviously didn't have any effect on the program's success. It was only in 2002 that bowl statistics started to be included in seasonal and all-time records.
That's not historical basis for his argument, that's begging the question. When someone says "it's an exhibition because it doesn't impact the national championship," you don't prove the point that it's an exhibition by showing it didn't impact the national championship.
And yeah, I already stated above that the NCAA started including bowl games in their statistics in 2002. That doesn't help his argument that bowl games are now exhibition games. Also, the Rose Bowl, for example, has been in existence for longer than the NCAA. And nearly all of the teams that participated in that game were including stats in their official records long before the NCAA--which has had an ambivalent relationship at best with bowl games, because $$$--decided to do so. So, Notre Dame notwithstanding, the Big Ten disagrees.