USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
College Football 2024
- Thread starter SonofSouthie
- Start date
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
Wouldn’t it be something if the Army-Navy game decided the last CFP spot?
And watching all the big time programs sh*tt*ng themselves over it would be glorious.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
It would be SPECTACULAR
bronconick
Yep, still here
It would be such a wonderful clusterfuck since the AAC championship game is the week before and #1 and #2 right now are Army and Navy. Don't even know how that matchup is decided if Navy and Army are 8-0 in conference play (in a 9 game conference schedule) on 12/1
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
It would; the 60-point beat down on the winner by the 5 even moreso.
Thank you for your service.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
From very brief research, the Army-Navy game is a nonconference game. So, you could have Army and Navy play in the AAC Championship game one week, with the winner making the College Football Playoff, and then a rematch the following week in a meaningless game (at least, from a conference / playoff perspective) the following week, and then the AAC winner play in the playoff the week after.
I suppose in a hypothetical world where the Army-Navy loser is still a playoff team, you would see them play three weeks in a row.
Crazy.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
TBF, the Army-Navy game would be for the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy. So not entirely meaningless.
So the rules committee is apparently looking into a way to ensure that breaking a rule (eg deliberately putting at 12th defender on the field with 10 seconds left) cannot “help” the rule-breaking team. Why? That makes no sense. Committing a foul is OFTEN the best strategy, in any sport you can think of - basketball obviously being the poster child. Knowing the rules well enough to know how to assess the consequences of breaking them is part of the mastery of the game. Hats off to Oregon for having the savvy and composure to make that call in real time at the right time. I have nothing but respect for that move. OSU is just butt-hurt that they got out-coached. If their coaches were as savvy, they could have managed the clock better so as not to get in that situation in the first place.
Better luck never, Buckeyes! (for my Boilermaker grandfather)
Better luck never, Buckeyes! (for my Boilermaker grandfather)
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Strongly disagree with this...
Exploiting a loophole to gain an advantage in the moment it is cool. But allowing the loophole to remain open when it's obvious now is not something a sporting body should allow.
This would be like the USGA allowing Tiger Woods to continue to recruit 30 people from the crowd to remove a "moveable" obstruction while Joe "1st year on tour" Smith can only do it himself
SonofSouthie
Misanthrope
Loophole has been closed.
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-issues-interpretation-restore-12-man-penalty
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...-issues-interpretation-restore-12-man-penalty
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Disagree. That analogy doesn't work because anyone can walk 12 men on the field at any time. Just like anyone can foul on the basketball court and any field player can block a goal with his hands (remember when some guy did this in the World Cup and everyone lost their shit?)
Exactly - cost/benefit analysis of choosing to break a rule is always a part of sports.
Another football example: If you're defending a last-second hail Mary and you see that an offensive player is about to catch the ball on the 2 yard line and walk into the end zone, you're far better off going ahead and committing pass interference. Even if the offense gets an untimed first-and-goal at the 2, that's a far better outcome than giving up the walk-off touchdown. The only thing you could do to ensure that the defense didn't "benefit" (i.e. end up with a higher probability of winning) for committing that foul would be for the ref to somehow award a touchdown to the player who 1) never caught the ball, and 2) was never in the endzone. If you want to give the ref that kind of authority, you might as well go all the way and just have the ref decide who should win the game outright based on his opinion of who generally played better.
MichVandal
Well-known member
Exactly. Not much different than when teams sprinted players out and started immediately which kept the D unchanged. Oregon was famous for that.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
That was Luis Suarez in 2010 against Ghana for the record.
Also, that’s still a very controversial play and there is still some belief that the Laws of the Game should be changed to allow the referee to award an automatic goal in situations like that.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
I knew it was Uruguay I just couldn't remember the other team. And I'm aware of it's controversy even today. I just absolutely love that play and don't agree that it wasn't in the spirit. He took his medicine and the other team blew it several times after.
See, I think the rules worked perfectly and I get squeamish about awarding goals that were not actually scored.
I guess you could draw a pretty apt comparison to goaltending in the NBA. Which is a pretty good argument. The only counter I have is that it's can be hard to distinguish between intentional fouls like Suarez and unintentional fouls and I'm not sure I want a ref subjectively awarding goals based on that.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
Preaching to the choir. As a referee I already hate that I have to try to determine if a player 'was making an attempt for the ball" on stuff in the penalty area.
Russell Jaslow
Registered User
In hockey, in an empty net situation, if a player has a breakaway on that empty net, and the other team throws their stick at the puck, it's awarded a goal whether it actually went in or not.
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
It’s actually like that for any penalty when there’s empty net.