NCAA Football 2005 Season (1 Viewer)

[Matt Stone]

Robert,
If in some hypothetical world Tennessee played Penn State and beat them in the Orange Bowl, would they have been deserving of being in that game? Whether the answer is yes or no, you are retro-fitting your opinion to fit the situation. It's really easy to say that WV deserved to be there after the fact. Do I think Oregon got screwed out of a BCS game...most definitely. Do I think that WV and FSU were deserving of being there instead...under the BCS rules, sure. The BCS put together some great matchups that provided great games, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether they deserved to be there or not.



I don't think anyone is holding a grudge against FSU or WV.

 

[James St]

Texas: 38
USC: 34

 

[Patrick Sun]

USC 45
Texas 34

 

[Robert_Z]

That's if things were done based on popular opinion. The only way to judge if they deserved to be there is by the rules of the BCS. We can argue all day about top 8 teams and automatic bids, but at the end of the day, it means nothing.

They deserved to be there based on the current rules. As I said to George, if the rules of the BCS upset you to the point that you want a complete overhaul of the way things are done, advocate the end of the BCS and the creation of a new and improved system.

Semantics or not, that is the only strategy that makes any sense. I know George likes to use apples-to-oranges comparisons. I don't do that very often, but these continual cries for a BCS overhaul are like appealing to the US government to "tweak" our democracy into a dictatorship or to convert from capitalism to communism. These are not tweaks; they are fundamental changes.

Same with what everyone is wanting from the BCS -- not small tweaks, but something completely different.

 

[Robert_Z]

Texas 42
USC 21





Be grateful you don't live and work in Austin. :frowning:

It will be a long offseason.

 

[Shane Martin]

42-21, USC over Texas.

 

[Matt Stone]

Robert,
I'm not arguing about whether the BCS should be replaced or tweaked or whatever. I was responding to your retroactive assessment that WV and FSU deserved to be there. First let it be known that I never said they shouldn't be there. I felt for Oregon, but I wasn't vocal either way. I watched WV all season and didn't see any reason why they didn't belong. I'm just saying that any team can perform on any given day. It's futile to make statements like "so and so deserved to be there more than WV" or vice versa.

 

[george kaplan]

You miss the point. You as a fan in general weren't cheated - only the schools that got left out though they were ranked much higher than #22, and the fans of those schools were cheated.

 

[Matt Stone]

Trojans on the board first. They looked pretty rusty before that turnover. Much better afterward.

 

[Matt Stone]

Great pitch by Young. Too bad he was down. I'm really surprised the refs didn't review that one.

 

[James St]

That play should have been reviewed. Texas tried to kick the extra point so fast they missed it.

 

[mattCR]

Yep. But that's what a coach plans, to get the kick off so that no review can occur if it's questionable; they do it in the NFL all the time.

Texas scores (again) and made it look easy on the drive. Really, I think they would have scored on the other drive fine even without the call.

So, I'm waiting for this USC that crushes all that come before it to show up.

(Then again, USC is one of the greatest at half-time coaching, so I still think they have more then a betting chance of winning this, and think the missed - hurried - PAT may come back and bite Texas)

USC can't complain too much; they had a clear interception get a "no-call" the ground can't cause a drop, but they let it pass.. resulting in 3 pts. for USC.

 

[Carlo_M]

USC has been the benefactor of MANY ref calls [not least of which was the Bush "nonfumble" last season vs. UCLA that would have been returned for a TD and probably cost them the game] --so much so that even the local LA papers have noted it--that I count that pitch by Young as karma coming back to them...finally. And as evidenced by the following TD drive, I think UT scores on that drive anyway...one or two plays later. And I think the refs kind of ignored that INT as a "makeup" anyway.

What I thought would happen is happening so far: USC is finally matched up with equal athleticism and strength (and actually UT looks stronger, at least initially). Their finesse/speed stuff isn't cutting it. I'm surprised they don't feature White more, who is the one guy who actually can be as physical as UT is. Both teams have had their share of boneheaded plays, the pitch by Bush, the multi-fumbles of UT...

One great thing about this coverage: THEY SHOWED THE SCHOOL BANDS! (though I hate SC's). One of the great things about going to CFB games (I have season UCLA seats) is the band performances, and I always hate those pop-star halftime crap that they sometimes pull. Thank you ABC + Rose Bowl for not going with the typical pop stuff.

 

[Matt Stone]

Whether it was a "make-up" call or not, it was a bad call. Period. So was the Texas non-interception call.

That being said, I agree...Texas probably would have scored on that drive anyway. Still, I'd rather see the correct call, or at least a review.

 

[mattCR]

Yep.

USC Scores!

And then Texas marches right back where USC basically couldn't stop them as Vince Young gets off a TD pass.. 23-17.

 

[Patrick Sun]

It's turned into rockem-sockem football in the 3rd quarter. USC retakes the lead by one.

 

[mattCR]

Texas misses a FG to end the 3rd.

 

[Carlo_M]

That kicker and the one from Florida St. need to go into witness protection...

 

[Matt Stone]

No defense whatsoever in the 3rd quarter. Both Ds look pretty tired. VY is having a hell of a game.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Wow! Reggie finally uncorks a great run into the endzone!