Holiday Bowl: Texas v. Arizona State (+1.5)

[BB73]

I'll explain this.

Had Texas beaten the Aggies, they would have been a favorite for a BCS at-large and, after watching this game, I think they could have done well in a Fiesta or Orange Bowl... if only they hadn't gagged in College Station.

A bowl would have had to bypass both Kansas and Mizzou in order to select them, and that would have caused quite a stir. I don't think they would have been given a BCS at-large bid, given the two per conference limit.

 

[KreagerBuckeye]

A bowl would have had to bypass both Kansas and Mizzou in order to select them, and that would have caused quite a stir. I don't think they would have been given a BCS at-large bid, given the two per conference limit.

Oh.

 

[fourteenandoh]

i think UT was fubar'ed when they got smoked by KSU

 

[shetuck]

Oh.

io.

 

[KreagerBuckeye]

i think UT was fubar'ed when they got smoked by KSU

fubar'ed?

I have never heard of that word.

 

[fourteenandoh]

fubar'ed?

I have never heard of that word.

Fu**ed up beyond all recognition

 

[shetuck]

fubar'ed?

I have never heard of that word.

go check out the tara reid thread.

 

[fourteenandoh]

go check out the tara reid thread.

yeah she is!

 

[KreagerBuckeye]

Fu**ed up beyond all recognition

Thanks.

I'll remember that next time.

 

[Mike80]

I'll explain this.

Please don't.....

Had Texas beaten the Aggies,

they didn't....

they would have been a favorite for a BCS at-large and, after watching this game, I think they could have done well in a Fiesta or Orange Bowl, especially with the way they ran the ball tonigh.

NO they wouldn't have been a "favorite" for a BCS at-large. At the time Missouri was #1 and Kansas was right there as well. Since they lost to Oklahoma in the regular season, they had to win AND have Oklahoma lose just to get to the Big XII money grab. That didn't happen.

If only they hadn't gagged in College Station...

Too bad, they did, but it didn't cost them a BCS bowl.

Even though this game had a lopsided score, I liked what I saw tonight...

Why am I not surprised?

and it gave us what I think will be a great YouTube clip.

 

[Steve19]

Now Zimbabwe wants to give me cash. Suckers!

FROM: Mrs. Jennifer Moyo.
JOHANNESBURG
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel:27-83-9931-322
private E-mail:[email protected]

DEAR Sir/Madam URGENT FAMILY ASSISTANCE

My name is Mrs. Jennifer Moyo, the wife of MR.Dave Moyo. from Zimbabwe.

This might be a surprise to you about where I got your contact address. I got your address from the South African Information center.ALTHOUGH,IT IS NO LONGER NEWS,THE WORLD KNOWS THE WAY ALL THE WHITE FARMERS IN ZIMBABWE ARE BEING BRUTALLY MALTREATED BY OUR PRESIDENT, THREATINING THEM TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

What can I say? All of that poverty and still charitable as can be.

My advice, don't trust those guys. Send your money to someone down here that you know. In fact, send it to me. That way, you can be sure that you know your money is safe. :)

 

[osugrad21]

Dispatch

Holiday Bowl: Texas rides McCoy's arm, legs to wacky 52-34 victory

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:08 AM
By Bernie Wilson




SAN DIEGO -- Now this was a Holiday Bowl to remember. Texas coach Mack Brown's stepson sure won't forget it, after he reached out to touch a live ball and drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that took away a big turnover.
Colt McCoy won't either, because how often does a quarterback fumble four times and lead his team to a win?
McCoy led the way last night as the No. 17 Longhorns beat mistake-prone and 12th-ranked Arizona State 52-34 in the first game between the schools and their successful coaches.



Cont...

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Unless I forgot to carry my aught, and my cypherin' is correct, this puts the mighty Pac 10 at 0-2.

have a very simple bowl rooting philosophy this year: root for ALL Big Ten teams; root against all Pac 10 and SEC teams.

 

[sandgk]

I'd love to see Brown and co. enter a review of the officials that demands a clarification of the screwed up call on the turnover in the 2nd quarter. Now, I know things were fuzzy last night, but I'm sure the Dispatch AP piece on the game omits a key portion of the sequence of events.
The missing part? Well, only what was originally called on the play - grounding.
From my perspective one key question is the following:
Was it a lateral? Let's say the interpretation is no - despite what Musberger claims. Which would largely be based on the attempt to throw to award a receiver ahead of the neutral zone. It is only because of Muckelroy's sacking of Carpenter that the pass goes errant, and backwards - and yes, I know, there is no such thing as an "in the grasp" description in the NCAA rule book (PDF).
Moreover, the initial call on the field was grounding - which is instantaneously altered to a live ball based on the point of first contact with the turf. Nonetheless, it almost seems cleaner to call Carpenter's desperation pass effort grounding.
I guess I feel there is a conflict in the rule book for this precise situation - passer going down flings desperation pass (grounding) - which comes out on a reverse trajectory because of the sack itself (thus lateral and fumble).

Anyway - here is a good, complete YouTube of the entire sequence.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEAoTlzCbIE"]YouTube - Chris Jesse: The Holiday Bowl Bartman[/ame]

And a good fark of Chris Jessie.

​

One other clarification - the list of reviewable plays does include sideline interference with a ball in play.

SECTION 3. Reviewable Plays

ARTICLE 3. Miscellaneous reviewable plays include:

j. Any person who is not a player interfering with live-ball action occurring
in the field of play (Rules 9-1-4 and 9-2-3-c).

But, the formal description of the penalty to be applied, and the position on the field from which it may be applied does not have to result in 4th and 3 from the eight yard line.

Finally, there is no doubt that Jessie was on the field of play - conclusive visual evidence of interference with the ball is sorely lacking.

 

[BB73]

But, the formal description of the penalty to be applied, and the position on the field from which it may be applied does not have to result in 4th and 3 from the eight yard line.

Finally, there is no doubt that Jessie was on the field of play - conclusive visual evidence of interference with the ball is sorely lacking.

Whether of not he touched the ball (replay was inconclusive to me, and he said after the game that he didn't), he was standing on the field of play (as you noted), and affected the attempted recovery of the lateral/fumble. But to me, a fairer penalty would have been to award Arizona State the ball on that spot and then mark off the yardage.

The refs were also confused about the down. After the replay review, they said "half the distance, and now first and goal"; and then after a delay decided it was half the distance and 4th down. Since the ball was live when it was supposedly touched by the sideline personnel, it seemed odd that the down wasn't replayed after the penalty, which would have made it still third down (a moot point since they scored on the next play).