Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
In general, I mean. Specifically, it's a toss up.
I live in Oregon. This column is the first I've heard of this controversy. Oh, I knew Oregon won the game, because I overhead someone mention it at my son's soccer game.
Now, obviously I don't follow college football. But that only illustrates my point. It's not important. When important things happen, I actually hear about them. I'm not uninformed. I just have priorities. Blown call in a football game? Not so important.
Is this situation disappointing for the Oklahoma team and fans? Certainly. Is it worthy of some kvetching? Probably. People kvetch. I kvetch. No problem. Kvetch away football fans.
The coach is obviously an idiot, and frankly based on his pouty reaction and his million-to-none non-equivalence notion I'm glad his team lost. What a joke.
But beyond him, is this unfortunate sequence of errors worth an embarrassing public hissy fit by the president of a university? Any university, even Oklahoma?
And is it worth a single death threat against anyone?
People are insane. There's a reason why I quit following sports with any real energy (though I still enjoy watching all kinds of sports -- I just don't care who wins anymore), and it's at least partly because of insane nonsense like this.
Death threats?
Hey, everyone wanted replay, right? That's why we've got it now. Perhaps we need to take this a step further. I remember back in the Little League I played in, when a coach disagreed with rulings on the fields by officials, he could note that the game was being played under protest. The game was played out, then sent to those above for review. To keep from having too many protests, a team lodging the protest had to put down a financial stake in the protest.
If the protest was upheld (the call reversed, or whatever), the team got their money back, the part of the game after the protest was erased, the rest of the game rescheduled, the teams met again, and played the rest of the game from that point on. If the protest failed, the rest of the game stood as played.
Think of the excitement this could generate. We could have a special event to see Oklahoma/Oregon play out the last 1 minute 9 seconds again with Oklahoma getting the onside kick and running out the clock. Will they be able to run out the clock, or will a freak fumble derail their plans. LSU and Auburn could possibly meet again, if so ruled. On the NFL side, we could see Pittsburgh and Miami from week 1 replay from the missed Miami instant replay flag thrown but missed by the officials. Think of the TV promos: "This time we'll really get it right (unless there is another screw-up, then we'll have to do this all over again)"
tbrandel said, "While I agree that the officiating mistakes in the OU-Oregon game did not reach historical or biblical proportions, when you examine what's potentially riding on that game, I can't help but agree with the OU people. Because there's no playoff system in college football, one loss essentially means you're out of the running for a national championship. Not that I think OU has the firepower to contend for a national title this year, but they are certainly among the top 15 or 20 teams in the country. That loss effectively dashed their hopes at a national title, and seriously dented their hopes of a BCS bid -- and all of the money/exposure/hype/recruiting value/alumni support/etc. that come with a BCS bid."
One loss eliminates a team from the BCS title game except when it doesn't. Since 1998, 4 of the 8 BCS title games have included a team with one loss (and both teams in the 2003 season, a game that included Oklahoma, no less, and a season with two champions, each with one loss).
This is real life, not a video game. Instant replay can never work, because, as any graduate of high school physics would know (apparently the NCAA and the NFL ditched that class), video is in 2 dimensions and real life is in 3. Ergo, what appears "indisputable" on video may or may not be "indisputable" in real life. I would say to the Oklahoma fans, did you watch the Super Bowl last year? Oklahoma Oregon is only an early season college game, whereas the Super Bowl is a billion dollar industry. And the refs still couldn't get it right.
It's time to admit IR does not work, and let it go...
The game was handed to Oregon? I guess the refs carried Dixon into the end-zone with 90 seconds left in the game. And I guess they blocked that kick which would have given Oklahoma the win with a couple seconds left.
Those were two awful calls -- but King is right to point out that Oklahoma had a hand in their downfall.
BTW, as an alum of USC, I'd day they need to get a grip about Musburger dribbling on during the game. Apparently Tessalone isn't part of the crisis response team working up the Sergeant Schultz defense re: Reggie Bush ("I know NOTHING!"), so I guess he's filling the time as best he can.
BTW, I think that in the event that either the NCAA can actually prove that USC staff knew something, or they decide to go with the vapor trail (ie, it stinks) rather than the paper trail, then the appropriate punishment is for USC games to seen only with Musburger providing commentary. That should ensure that no-one watches.
Finally, a voice of reason! Instant replay is one of the worst ideas to ever happen to football (and the fact that it's spread to a fast-paced, free-flowing game like basketball is even more egregious).
There's a joke in my family that whenever a coach challenges a call on the field, everyone lightheartedly groans, because they know my rant is coming. For instance, during the first game of the season, instead of talking about what a great play the touchdown to Heath Miller was, we got Al Michaels and John Madden discussing whether or not Nick Saban threw a fucking bean bag correctly. Instant replay has singlehandedly shifted the focus of the game to the officiating from the game itself, and that's a damn shame.
And one last thing -- doesn't anyone remember that the NFL tried this once before? Most folks thought it was stupid then, right? Time doesn't make a bad idea good.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
