Actually the downside to punting was just as bad as the downside to going for it given that it could have been blocked or run back, but it really doesn't much matter because the upside of going for it was so much greater than the upside to punting. IF YOU GO FOR IT AND MAKE IT YOU WIN THE GAME. That is way better than the 20 or so yards you potentially gain from punting. The fact that Texas knifed through the USC defense like it was warm butter shows that Carroll was absolutely correct about not wanting to give Texas the ball back. Texas was not even in a true hurry-up. they had more than enough time to march the length of the field. This is not even a close call. I can't beleive the post-hoc result oriented analysis I'm seeing here.

The officiating I thought was about average for a college game. There's always plenty of bad or at least questionable calls. the knee down lateral play was the only one that was clearly wrong and didn't get reversed. Any USC fan who is whining about the officiating should feel totally embaressed. Your team was up 12 with 5 minutes to go and just blew it.

I totally agree it was a dumb play call to run right into the middle of the defense. Carroll did it because it had worked a couple times before, but precisely becasue it had worked before and also because Bush was inexplicably not in the game, Texas was ready for it. It was just a dumb play call by Carroll. Just as dumb was his wasting of the timeouts. Just give them the 2 points but save that last timeout.

I still think the difference between Texas at the 20 and Texas at the 40 is not worth the possibility of winning the game right then and there by going for it. the fact that White fumbled on the play before is irrelevant. Why should we care about that. He hadn't fumbled all year and if they go for it ten times, they make it the majority of the time. Going for it was the right play, the execution left a lot to be desired.

I could not believe the comments by Joe Theisman after the spitting incident in the Washington-Tampa game. First, he hadn't heard Mike Carey say that #21 had been ejected. Then he wanted the replay booth to get involved, which obviously they could not. Then he just blasted Mike Carey for making a wrong call which could affect the outcome of a playoff game.

Carey was standing right in the middle of the incident. It was obvious that he must have seen something that wasn't picked up on camera. Spitting was the most likely candidate from the begginning. Theisman's rant was just completely out of left field and revealed a level of unmatched incompetence in the broadcasting field.

Simply put, a relief pitcher is usually a relief pitcher because he's not good enough to be a starter. Or, to put it another way, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Righetti and John Smoltz were no better pitchers in relief than they were starters, they were always good pitchers, but as starters they were judged against the other best pitchers in the league, namely starters. As relievers they are judged against other relievers, known in every other sport as "guys coming off the bench." Now that we see that Rick Aguilera, among others, was an effective closer it has become apparent that almost every decent starting pitcher could also be among the best relievers in the league. That is to say, Bruce Sutter and Goose would have been starting pitchers about as good as Dennis Eckersley was, nothing more

Therefore, King is correct, Relievers do not belong in the hall any more than pinchhitters and defensive replacements.

Mariano Rivera is without a doubt the best reliever I've ever seen. As a kid I thought Sutter and Gossage were unhittable, but Rivera, it seems to me has set the bar higher than any reliever ever has. I would agree with those who say he is a hall of fame caliber player. However, I think he would have been that as a starter too. Remember that his first season as a reliever (after he had initially bombed as a starter by the way) was 1996 and he pitched 107 spectacular innings, but not as a closer. Ultimately, I conclude that the Yankees have misused him. I see no reason why he would not be one of the best starters in the game.

A catch is possession of the ball with two feet on the ground. If you make the catch while in the air, you have to come down with it and maintain possession. The same rules apply everywhere on the field. Why does it need to be harder than that?

Why is it that whenever a controversy breaks out about football, somebody has to write in discussing why football should be more like soccer or football is inferior to soccer or some other inanity like that? Enough with the soccer already!

also to all those who turned the game off prior to the conclusion, what the hell were you thinking?