Boren is a moderate democrat, and was a very popular governor and senator in the 1980s and 1990s. He was widely discussed as a possible presidential and vice presidential candiate before he left the senate. Over the years he has been dogged by rumors of homesexuality, which I do not believe. He's married and has adult children.

I personally wish Boren would not have gotten involved, but it is not like this controversy really distracts him much from the educational mission of the school. If Boren personally feels that his institution, fans and team were deliberately shafted, I have no problem with his letter.

Also, does it matter to people whether the blown on-side kick by the re-play booth was simply a mistake, or was deliberate? It should.

Mistakes by referees and umpires happen during games. You deal with them and move on.

This MAY be different.

It does not seem to be a valid comparison to equate a blown call on the field of play, with a blown call following video review, especially when, as King noted, the proper ruling was so clear.

I am not aware of any video replay ruling being so wrong and so effectively altering the outcome of the game.

The PAC 10 says ample video shots were available to make the correct ruling.

The re-play official claims he got only one view, and his supervisor refers to some type of mysterious mis-communication in the re-play booth.

However, there are some reports that all of the ABC video shots were actually available. Perhaps more information will be available.

There are also tapes and recordings that show what the re-play booth personnel were looking at and talking about, but they have yet to be released.

In the end, OU played well enough to win if the video review system had worked like it should have, regardless of how badly OU played before or after the on-sides kick.

The game is over for all practical purposes if the video review is properly handled.

It's illogical to excuse the video replay debacle by claiming that OU should have never let the game get that close, that OU should have played better or that OU still had a chance to score following Oregon's kick-off with about 45 seconds left.

You need video re-play to work its best in close games. The ruling would have been irrelvant if this would have been a blow-out game.

The video replay ruling gave Oregon the opportunity to when the game.

Finally, football and this game are not that important in the grand scheme of things. However, there is nothing wrong with spending a few days griping about this issue, "Fan" is, after all, short for "fanatic."

"Cyclists may use drugs, but at least you know who won at the end of the day".

Huh? I still don't know who really won this year's TDF.

This whole blown-call thing makes me think of the reactions of two of the current class-acts in college football: Pete Carroll and Charlie Weis.

In reference to the following plays:

1) Vince Young throwing from his knee for a Texas touchdown against USC in the 2006 Rose Bowl, and

2) The "Bush Push" in the 2005 USC-ND game,

The response of both coaches says it all - that those plays weren't the reasons behind each team's loss (even though if both plays were called for what they were, the outcome of each game would have been different). If you are such an elite program, don't put yourself in the position to be effected by bad calls or non-calls.

To DZ:

You wrote:

Anyone who sends a death threat based on anything to do with any sporting event should be hung in public. Sick, sick, sick

Um, I guess we string you up first for proposing death (a death threat) in an online thread relating to a sporting event. Nice. Death threats are bad. Including yours.

To Elmore:

Someone who wrote the sentence example you gave would simply put a comma after 'Theresa' if those two were in fact their parents. No comma there makes it clear that the pope and M.T. are not the writer's parents.

To OK football fans:

HAHAHAHAHA. Your turn to get screwed. Happens in sports to everyone's team at one point or another. Keep it in perspective.

Bad ideas (instant replay) lead to more bad ideas, so I have a proposal to combine bad ideas: instead of bungled instant replays leading to death threats against officials, why not have INSTANT DEATH PENALTIES for offending replay officials? That's right, just kill'em, straight out, right then and there. Maybe have the official's chair wired so they can RIDE THE LIGHTNING into the next world if they screw up a call. If this had been in place this weekend, OU would still have lost that game to Oregon, but fans would have the satisfaction of knowing that the particular replay official would never screw up the alcohol buzzes of so many loyal fans again. Thus, it would have a DETERRENT EFFECT for that particular official and future potential offenders. Who makes the call, you might ask; simple, elected officials, drunk or sober, in attendance. Not bad, eh?

"I would like to thank my parents, the Pope and Mother Theresa for this wonderful honor."

Yeah, who needs that pesky comma.

You can't root for a college team, and you especially can't make death threats on said team's behalf, unless you

A) Attended the school for at least one semester

B) Have a child who attends the school and/or plays on the team

Otherwise, pick a pro team in your city to waste your life obsessing over.

The ONLY reason instant replay was ever called for, and then instated, was because television viewers got to see replays a dozen times over, in slow motion, and from every conceivable angle. Show a game on TV in real time with no replays, and barely a peep would be heard from anyone.

So the media has altered the game it's supposed to cover objectively. No news here, but officiating-by-replay is an interesting case study.