What's new
By:
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 III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Have we established, via cameras, that the potential-game-winner was definitely no good?

The announcers are glossing over it but I'm still on the fence.
 
Last edited:
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Jason A said:
Have we established, via cameras, that the potential-game-winner was definitely no good?

The annoucers are glossing over it but I'm still on the fence.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I still think it was good.

Get some real up-rights.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Jason A said:
Have we established, via cameras, that the potential-game-winner was definitely no good?

The annoucers are glossing over it but I'm still on the fence.
Click to expand...
That's why the Ref's stand directly under the uprights during the kick.

Both clearly looked wide to me.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

It'd also help if Nevada had full size up rights, and not Pop Warner ones.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

When that first kick went through I didn't even consider the fact it might have been wide.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

The only conclusive camera angle I saw was the close-up of the kicker. He knew he missed it.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Those kicks were wide.

The refs are standing directly under the uprights. And, as Maize notes, the kicker knew he missed them.

So, how about that WAC, eh? Redemption for E. Gordon Gee!
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Well, it is too bad that Boise's loss might be "tainted."
I hope that we won't have to always be reminded about the "short" goalposts.

Edit: XYZ, well I didn't consider that it was good. I looked clearly wide right from my rocker!
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Now I really hope Newton is outed as a fraud and Oregon stubs their toe against the Beavers...
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

UCBadger said:
That's why the Ref's stand directly under the uprights during the kick.

Both clearly looked wide to me.
Click to expand...
I have no dog in this fight, but the "refs will get it right" reasoning doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. They are wrong all the time. It looked good to me. But I'll be the first to admit I'm often wrong.:o:)
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

UCBadger said:
Well, it is too bad that Boise's loss might be "tainted."
I hope that we won't have to always be reminded about the "short" goalposts.
Click to expand...

Boise's performance is what's tainted, regardless of their kicker's performance (and I feel bad for that guy). They ended up playing a competitive team on the road and collapsed like a cheap tent.

Some shoddy defense on all sides - about what I'd expect from a WAC game. Boise's a good - not great - team, and they're still a WAC team no matter how you slice it.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

Put BSU's kicker on suicide watch tonight.


I thought the first one was good, was SHOCKED to see the refs say it was no good. Everyone on BSU's sideline thought it was good too. I'd love to see another angle.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

blockski said:
Some shoddy defense on all sides - about what I'd expect from a WAC game. Boise's a good - not great - team, and they're still a WAC team no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

They are a WAC team that is 4-1 against the AP top five since 2001. Just sayin'.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

From likely playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl to beating the snot out of Miami (Ohio) on your own field. That's got to sting.

SEC refs couldn't agree on a missed UF field goal vs. Mississippi State earlier this year.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

bronconick said:
SEC refs couldn't agree on a missed UF field goal vs. Mississippi State earlier this year.
Click to expand...

That was classic. Why the guy on the upright in question looked to the other guy for advice...makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. All you have to do is look straight up in the air, no? Should be pretty obvious at that point.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

XYZ said:
They are a WAC team that is 4-1 against the AP top five since 2001. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Like I said, they are a very good team.

I also fail to see what results from 2001 have to do with anything.

The question here (a moot one) is if a team playing their schedule deserves a shot at the MNC game. I'd usually say no, precisely because the cupcake WAC schedule means they don't face decent to good teams in hostile road environments on any regular basis. Boise had 2 games of consequence this season, and they're 1-1 in them.

That's the whole point - the WAC isn't good enough top to bottom to stand as a true test.
 
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!

blockski said:
Like I said, they are a very good team.

I also fail to see what results from 2001 have to do with anything.
Click to expand...

Just saying that when given the chance against top-flight competition that have performed pretty **** well.

The question here (a moot one) is if a team playing their schedule deserves a shot at the MNC game. I'd usually say no, precisely because the cupcake WAC schedule means they don't face decent to good teams in hostile road environments on any regular basis. Boise had 2 games of consequence this season, and they're 1-1 in them.

That's the whole point - the WAC isn't good enough top to bottom to stand as a true test.
Click to expand...


That's the problem. Just because a team plays in a weaker conference doesn't mean they can't be one of the best teams out there. Same way a team that plays in a supposedly stronger conference isn't necessarily one of the best teams out there. When you start working the conference strength into things it takes the power away from an individual team itself, in a way. What if this season's Auburn or Oregon were in the WAC? Are they no longer elite teams? Of course not.


As far as whether a team with their schedule deserves a shot at the title game...we don't know. The sample size is so tiny it's impossible figure. Which is of course why a playoff would be sort of handy but I won't get into that :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top