TSUN -10.5 at Ind (ov/un 65.5) 3:30 ET ESPNU

[buxfan4life]

Oldest excuse in the book.


I just wonder if next week if Denard shreds MSU's defense, will MSU become overrated or will people give him a little respect.

Mike, that was a very obvious hold on that play. But, like I posted earlier, it happened all game long, so to me it was no surprise there was no flag thrown.

I posted this before, DR is a beast of a RB right now (I am still not enamored by his arm yet, he has yet to show it), but I am reserving judgment on UM as a whole until I see what they do in the next 3 game stretch. These next 3 games will show us if UM is deserving of the hype they are receiving.

Also, DR will give many defenses fits for at least a qtr or two, but I have seen in a couple of games where adjustments were not made on the opposing D side of the ball that could have contained DR and make him use his arm. I know this is hyperbole, but if these adjustments are made by opposing Ds, then DR does not have the stats he does now, just sayin'.

Again, we saw this same shtick (minus the DR monster) last year from UM, and in Big Ten play they folded like tissue paper. These next 3 weeks are crucial for them, IMO.

 

[WolverineMike]

it should be interesting to see how the rest of the season unfolds. last year it seemed the offense fell apart while the defense was not as bad as it is this year.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Oldest excuse in the book.

Excuse? Really? Are you really going to try to say that wasn't a blatant example of holding that the officials inexplicably missed? Or, even better, are you trying to claim that the result of the game still would have been the same, despite the fact that instead of having 1st and 10 at the IU 48 yard line, UM instead would have had 2nd and 8 from their own 29 (the hold occurred at the UM 39 yd line), especially when there was only 33 seconds left in regulation?

 

[zwem]

It was holding....it wasn't called....nothing will change that. There is a lot of holding that isn't called in football. Michigan got away with it. Just like that bs pass interference call last year. I'm sure every team has gotten away with with penalties in key games. It's just how it is.

Now everybody shut the hell up, go get drunk, get laid, collect rocks, get ready for Monday night football, or whatever it is that you do on this shitty Monday.

 

[zwem]

What the hell happened to the other 1%, they transfer on you?

nah that 1% was Beaver and his ego. that 1% don't count for statistical purposes.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Your setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

Or no where not...

 

[cjmik_75]

Too many posts without a good...


FUCK M*CH*G*N!!!!!!!!

 

[WolverineMike]

Excuse? Really? Are you really going to try to say that wasn't a blatant example of holding that the officials inexplicably missed? Or, even better, are you trying to claim that the result of the game still would have been the same, despite the fact that instead of having 1st and 10 at the IU 48 yard line, UM instead would have had 2nd and 8 from their own 29 (the hold occurred at the UM 39 yd line), especially when there was only 33 seconds left in regulation?

it's an excuse when you think the game was lost because of one no call hold. Why didn't they stop them on the other 6 touchdown drives?

 

[NFBuck]

it's an excuse when you think the game was lost because of one no call hold. Why didn't they stop them on the other 6 touchdown drives?

They were too enamored of denard's hair?

 

[WolverineMike]

now you're talking!

 

[Beaver]

Holding goes uncalled a lot. That one is as bad as it gets, and played a huge role in a big rush.

Problem is, Indiana plays less defense than a lot of high school squads, so keeping Denard out of FG range was pretty unlikely.

Even if they do, I don't like IU's chances of stopping Denard in OT.

 

[ChisAto]

Holding goes uncalled a lot. That one is as bad as it gets, and played a huge role in a big rush.

Problem is, Indiana plays less defense than a lot of high school squads, so keeping Denard out of FG range was pretty unlikely.

Even if they do, I don't like IU's chances of stopping Denard in OT.

With what's been shown in games so far, anything longer then an extra point might be out of FG range..

 

[buckeyesin07]

it's an excuse when you think the game was lost because of one no call hold. Why didn't they stop them on the other 6 touchdown drives?

You're refusing to address the point. Had the hold been called (as it clearly should have been), the game goes into OT. In OT maybe UM wins, maybe they don't. But the officials certainly (and incorrectly) prolonged UM's final drive in regulation.

Whether IU stopped UM on UM's other 5 TD drives (being able to count is a good thing, huh?) is irrelevant to whether holding should have been called on that play. Or are you suggesting that because UM scored 5 TDs at other points of the game, the officials do not have to fairly apply the rules on UM's 6th and final TD drive?

 

[WolverineMike]

you're assuming just as much as I am. The hold wasn't called, so you can't speculate what would have happened. All I have are the facts. Refs miss calls every game. osu got pretty lucky with two really bad calls to sustain drives vs Illinois. Mysterious face mask penalty that didn't exist. Are you chalking that up as a loss?

 

[buckeyesin07]

you're assuming just as much as I am. The hold wasn't called, so you can't speculate what would have happened.

Are you really trying to say that if the refs properly called that holding penalty and UM had the ball on their own 29 with 33 seconds left, they still would have won the game in regulation? Pass the Kool-Aid, fella.

All I have are the facts. Refs miss calls every game.

Sure. But rarely are the blown calls as obvious and at a game-turning moment as was the blown holding call in UM's favor on Saturday.

osu got pretty lucky with two really bad calls to sustain drives vs Illinois. Mysterious face mask penalty that didn't exist. Are you chalking that up as a loss?

Funny how you meantion "two really bad calls" and then you can only cite one of them. That aside, that facemask call which, while not proper, wasn't nearly as blatant as the missed holding call. How many other ways can the two circumstances be distinguished? Oh yeah, OSU actually had the lead at the time (something that can't be said for UM against IU). And OSU was already in Illinois territory, etc.

In short, you have no support for equating the two. By the way, if you actually took the time to read what I posted, you'll see that I said that had holding properly been called, the game very likely would have gone to OT, where UM might have won or might have lost. I never said UM would certainly have lost had they not benefitted from an egregious call (or lack thereof) in a close game with IU for the second year in a row (insert laughter here).