Apologies for the dearth of material; all hell has broken loose for me.
Boston College pulled it out against Virginia Tech on a rainy, soggy night to become the first #2 team to defend its ranking in October (USC, Cal and USF all lost as #2 this month). They didn't do it without some wild heroics. After offensive lameness all night, BC got it together with a 92-yard touchdown drive in two minutes. After getting a good onside-kick bounce against Special Teams U to re-start at the BC 34, BC quarterback Matt Ryan threw the game-winning touchdown twice (the first was called back for a holding penalty), finally leading his team to the win with 11 seconds remaining. A Heisman moment, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, if there ever was one.
It's too bad for BC that their two national-TV games have been their poorest performances - Notre Dame and Virginia Tech. But they won, and they should stay #2 for winning in one of the tougher places to play outside the South. And just like USF, they would have fallen to #10 or worse - after losing to the eight-ranked Hokies. LSU didn't fall that far when they lost at Kentucky.
Wild-card note: Doug Flutie couldn't be on the ESPN broadcast crew for his alma mater's biggest game in two decades - because he was being inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame for his three Grey Cups in the CFL. His cup truly runneth over.
PAC-10 ACTION THIS WEEK
News break: Arizona is just not a good football program. An extended summary in my Daily column. They're not Notre Dame-type bad - they can move the ball and make plays on defense - they just can't win, and they're very unstable mentally. The slighest second-half miscue sends the team over the edge. It all flows from Mike Stoops and his unstable personality.
Arizona has the chance for a final self-knockout punch against Washington, who gave up over 600 yards in offense and 400+ rushing yards to Oregon.
Speaking of the Ducks, they are rolling, they've forgotten the loss to Cal, and they are ready to knock a teetering USC team off the ledge.
Cal - who has lost two straight to unranked opponents - goes to Arizona State. The Sun Devils are anxious to prove they are for real (I think they are) and start a Murderers' Row of Cal @Oregon, @UCLA, and USC at home. If they win all those, they should be #1, Ohio State be damned.
UCLA makes no sense. They lose 44-6 at Utah, and lose at home to Notre Dame, one of the poorest college teams I've ever seen, and strap it on to go undefeated in the Pac-10. The Bruins go to Pullman to face Washington State, who's having trouble getting enough bodies to man the ship. I still don't think UCLA is for real, but a bad trip to the Palouse might make me think differently. WSU won at the Rose Bowl 37-15 last year, but there is nowhere near the same amount of defensive talent on this year's Cougar team.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Injunction Officiating
I just saw something for the first time, and it's not good. In the second quarter of the South Florida-Rutgers game, South Florida blocked a Rutgers field goal. A Bulls player scooped the ball forward, where it was recoverd by another player. The second guy was hit from behind and lost the ball, where it was recovered by a third one who scored.
The officials conferred, chatted with the replay official in the pressbox, and then threw a flag on the play for illegally batting the ball forward.
Imagine what just went on. The replay booth reviewed a play, and assessed a penalty (a penalty that is in the judgment of the official - not, say, a 12 men on the field penalty that has an objective condition).
The men in the booth (Chris Fowler, Craig James and Doug Flutie) went on and on about how obvious the infraction was, and how they surely would throw a flag, but no one mentioned whether or not it's legal or right for an official to call penalties based on replay. I've never seen it before.
In the vast majority of cases, replay is used to assist in sighting issues (ball spotting and receptions) since refs can't see everything. But in this case, the refs in effect asked for a do-over from the replay booth on their own enforcement of the rules.
1. This sets a terrible precedent of overturning the results of officials' judgments after the play is over, and it could lead to perverse incentives if officials feel they can be bailed out by replay.
2. That being said, if this ruling was legitimate, there's no reason they can't initiate review of the most controversial and game-changing call in the sport - pass interference.
The officials conferred, chatted with the replay official in the pressbox, and then threw a flag on the play for illegally batting the ball forward.
Imagine what just went on. The replay booth reviewed a play, and assessed a penalty (a penalty that is in the judgment of the official - not, say, a 12 men on the field penalty that has an objective condition).
The men in the booth (Chris Fowler, Craig James and Doug Flutie) went on and on about how obvious the infraction was, and how they surely would throw a flag, but no one mentioned whether or not it's legal or right for an official to call penalties based on replay. I've never seen it before.
In the vast majority of cases, replay is used to assist in sighting issues (ball spotting and receptions) since refs can't see everything. But in this case, the refs in effect asked for a do-over from the replay booth on their own enforcement of the rules.
1. This sets a terrible precedent of overturning the results of officials' judgments after the play is over, and it could lead to perverse incentives if officials feel they can be bailed out by replay.
2. That being said, if this ruling was legitimate, there's no reason they can't initiate review of the most controversial and game-changing call in the sport - pass interference.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Stop The Presses
My ebb-and-flow loathing of Dan Wetzel is at high tide after his fire-alarm column at Yahoo! Sports. Putting aside the fact he doesn't appear to be much of a college football fan - just a drive-by buzzkill sportswriter who likes to cash in when controversy comes up - he writes about the sport with a dripping arrogance that "it should be obvious to anyone the BCS sucks and there should be a playoff."
Ohio State and BC are taking shots for weak schedules, but there's still half the season to go. He throws in some boilerplate SEC mythology, but the BBQ smokers down south really only have three strong teams (LSU, Kentucky and Florida - and one of them has lost twice already).
Wetzel gives the Pac-10 some love, claiming its pare nature punishes its top teams, but one Pac-10 team (Oregon) lost because it fumbled the game-tying touchdown into the end zone, another (Cal) lost because its quarterback stupidly ran around instead of throwing the ball away, killing the clock, and a third (USC) lost to a mediocre team that was 1-11 last year. They're supposed to be better than Ohio State, who's taken care of its business so far, or BC, who's done the same with the best passer in the game?
He's right that the preseason polls suck (the reason undefeated Kansas gets no respect while Oklahoma rockets to the top five with a loss), but hell, I think this is exciting. It's a big opportunity for every one-loss contender to show its stuff for the next seven weeks, and there's a LOT of football left to play for the teams at the top.
Not to mention - what's with his sideways diss on South Florida? He carps that the system is rigged for certain uniform colors, then discounts USF's resume by calling them a 'Cinderella' and derides them for being in their 11th year of football. It's a great rags-to-riches story, but I've seen a good amount of USF and until further notice the Bulls are for real.
In Wetzel's world, all this debate is supposed to strengthen the case for a ludicrous 16-team playoff. I'm not getting it - a lot of teams look pretty good right now, and that's all we know. In a sport where every team can't play every other, a playoff is only a weak simulation of a round-robin competition - too weak, in my mind, to mean more that a preceding 12-game body of work. Finally, all the focus on the national title and BCS complaining is taking away from the commendable accomplishments of these teams. The contenders will shake out - until December, just enjoy the ride.
Ohio State and BC are taking shots for weak schedules, but there's still half the season to go. He throws in some boilerplate SEC mythology, but the BBQ smokers down south really only have three strong teams (LSU, Kentucky and Florida - and one of them has lost twice already).
Wetzel gives the Pac-10 some love, claiming its pare nature punishes its top teams, but one Pac-10 team (Oregon) lost because it fumbled the game-tying touchdown into the end zone, another (Cal) lost because its quarterback stupidly ran around instead of throwing the ball away, killing the clock, and a third (USC) lost to a mediocre team that was 1-11 last year. They're supposed to be better than Ohio State, who's taken care of its business so far, or BC, who's done the same with the best passer in the game?
He's right that the preseason polls suck (the reason undefeated Kansas gets no respect while Oklahoma rockets to the top five with a loss), but hell, I think this is exciting. It's a big opportunity for every one-loss contender to show its stuff for the next seven weeks, and there's a LOT of football left to play for the teams at the top.
Not to mention - what's with his sideways diss on South Florida? He carps that the system is rigged for certain uniform colors, then discounts USF's resume by calling them a 'Cinderella' and derides them for being in their 11th year of football. It's a great rags-to-riches story, but I've seen a good amount of USF and until further notice the Bulls are for real.
In Wetzel's world, all this debate is supposed to strengthen the case for a ludicrous 16-team playoff. I'm not getting it - a lot of teams look pretty good right now, and that's all we know. In a sport where every team can't play every other, a playoff is only a weak simulation of a round-robin competition - too weak, in my mind, to mean more that a preceding 12-game body of work. Finally, all the focus on the national title and BCS complaining is taking away from the commendable accomplishments of these teams. The contenders will shake out - until December, just enjoy the ride.
Monday, October 8, 2007
A Hollywood Story in South Central L.A.
STANFORD 24, USC 23
Stanford pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Pac-10 history, and we were there! I had the great fortune to broadcast KZSU's coverage of the Cardinal's 24-23 win - I will link the broadcast mp3's tomorrow.
More later (we just got back to Palo Alto after a long drive north), but suffice it to say that it was a surreal experience to watch a team coming off a 1-11 season, winless in its last five Pac-10 games, hold its own and out-execute the country's top program for the final 11 minutes. Oh, and doing it with a bevy of injuries on the road, where USC hadn't lost since 2001. With a sophomore quarterback who had never started a game before and whose career passing line coming in was 1-for-3 for 10 yards.
Sunday, I was honored to be on EDSBS Live to deliver a garbled and discursive description of the final moments.
On what ABC (lamely) nicknamed Gut Check Saturday, Stanford showed guts. Is there anything more to say?
FLOPPYCOCK OF THE WEEK
USC coach Pete Carroll - does anyone have to ask? The Trojans were poorly motivated, they had weak gameplans, they got weak playcalls from the coaching staff, and they wilted under a red-and-white assault that outhustled them, particularly on defense.
As an example, the Man in the Black Shoes was seen in warmups tossing the ball around with one of his assistants. In the game, he had quarterback John David Booty tossing the ball around with a six-point lead (and a broken finger), needing two first downs to run out the clock. Booty threw his third interception of the day and Stanford was in business for a wild touchdown drive that pushed the teetering Trojans off the edge.
Then Carroll and his team shuffled off their own field without shaking hands with any of Stanford's players (or head coach Jim Harbaugh). Smooth. Carroll gave a lame excuse along the lines of "our players haven't lost on this field, they didn't know what to do." Like it's any different from losing on the road - you give the opponent a cursory congratulation before bolting the scene of the crime.
Runner up: UCLA coach Karl Dorrell, whose ill-prepared team choked away a tie ballgame against one of the country's worst offenses by asking a third-string walkon quarerback to throw the ball deep in his own territory. More on the ugliest game of the weekend later this week.
Stanford pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Pac-10 history, and we were there! I had the great fortune to broadcast KZSU's coverage of the Cardinal's 24-23 win - I will link the broadcast mp3's tomorrow.
More later (we just got back to Palo Alto after a long drive north), but suffice it to say that it was a surreal experience to watch a team coming off a 1-11 season, winless in its last five Pac-10 games, hold its own and out-execute the country's top program for the final 11 minutes. Oh, and doing it with a bevy of injuries on the road, where USC hadn't lost since 2001. With a sophomore quarterback who had never started a game before and whose career passing line coming in was 1-for-3 for 10 yards.
Sunday, I was honored to be on EDSBS Live to deliver a garbled and discursive description of the final moments.
On what ABC (lamely) nicknamed Gut Check Saturday, Stanford showed guts. Is there anything more to say?
FLOPPYCOCK OF THE WEEK
USC coach Pete Carroll - does anyone have to ask? The Trojans were poorly motivated, they had weak gameplans, they got weak playcalls from the coaching staff, and they wilted under a red-and-white assault that outhustled them, particularly on defense.
As an example, the Man in the Black Shoes was seen in warmups tossing the ball around with one of his assistants. In the game, he had quarterback John David Booty tossing the ball around with a six-point lead (and a broken finger), needing two first downs to run out the clock. Booty threw his third interception of the day and Stanford was in business for a wild touchdown drive that pushed the teetering Trojans off the edge.
Then Carroll and his team shuffled off their own field without shaking hands with any of Stanford's players (or head coach Jim Harbaugh). Smooth. Carroll gave a lame excuse along the lines of "our players haven't lost on this field, they didn't know what to do." Like it's any different from losing on the road - you give the opponent a cursory congratulation before bolting the scene of the crime.
Runner up: UCLA coach Karl Dorrell, whose ill-prepared team choked away a tie ballgame against one of the country's worst offenses by asking a third-string walkon quarerback to throw the ball deep in his own territory. More on the ugliest game of the weekend later this week.
Stand-In For Missing Week 5 Analysis
A weekend trip and some other personal business took me away from the brewhouse last weekend. This post will be updated with an ex post facto analysis. Expect an ominous discussion of USC's lackluster 27-24 win at Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)