The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Originally posted 01.02.06

Yup- college bowl season. Well, that and March Madness.

Here are some initial thoughts on what we've experienced so far, thanks in part to our friends at the "Worldwide Leader"

Did you know that there are 28 bowl games, involving 56 teams? Since there are only 119 Division 1A programs, that means that only 53 % of Division 1A teams won't go to a bowl. Or, as my mom used to say, "Of course you're special... just like everyone else."

In "There is a God" news: LSU 40 Miami 3. Best part- LSU faked a field goal while up 34-3.

ESPN has created this ridiculous "Bowl Challenge" to see who has the best conference. The significant problem with this is that you rarely see an even matchup outside of the BCS. What you see is a #2 against a #5... because it's all about the money and not about best matchups.

On that note, here's a great paraphrased quote from ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit (a tOSU alum) at the Alamo Bowl (more on that later):

It's a shame that the Nebraska's and Michigan's don't have a chance to play for the title (in a playoff), and that the Bowl system is more about 'which team will sell more tickets' than seeing great matchups...

I agree most heartedly, but want to be honest... this has never been about great matchups. If it were, we'd have a playoff. It's about money for corporate sponsors and athletic departments, who have become too used to the revenue to ever change. That's the reason why football is the only NCAA sport where the NCAA does not recognize a champion. You read that right... the football 'champion' is crowned by either the AP or coaches' poll and not the NCAA.

Revenue is also why Notre Dame can get a bowl game with a number of wins rather than by winning a conference... and why there's no incentive for them to make their schedule any more difficult.

Which leads into Bowl Quote #1:

"As excited as I am to be playing Ohio State (in the Fiesta) , I'm a bit disappointed... I think we could be in Pasadena playing for the championship..." Charlie Weis

In response: Ohio State 34 Notre Dame 20

There's been enough said about this already by everyone else, but I want to make a quick observation. It wasn't that close. Tressel Ball made this a more exciting game than it needed to be (If I have a heart attack, I'm sending him the bill). And if the officials call any of the holding that the ND linemen were doing, it's a shut out.

Look, it's not like Ohio State lost two games by a total of 6 points either... and both teams that beat us are BCS teams (not Michigan State).

While we're at it, can we get off the "OSU 2006" bandwagon already? Yup, we'll be good, but not that good (we lose our defensive heart and soul, as well as our O-line). Plus, whenever tOSU is favored, they give me a coronary. And, we still have to go to Texas.

I hate Brent Musberger... Hate is a strong word- what about "loathe". And I don't care who AJ Hawk is dating.

Bowl Quote #2:

"We could dwell on it by telling the kids we're not getting respect, but the biggest thing is, it happened and there are some easy reasons to understand. We do think we deserve to be in that group of teams, but we can't do anything about that. The best thing we can do is prepare and beat Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl." Mike Bellotti

In response: Oklahoma 17 Oregon 14

Look, you're in the PAC 10. No offense, but you're hanging your hat on the fact that you almost beat USC (by "almost" I mean "if the game had stopped after the first quarter"), and you beat a Fresno State team that lost 4 games (including a choke against Tulsa). Sorry, west coast folks. What you do recreationally is the reason for living for people on the other side of the Rockies.

Which brings us to the Alamo bowl. Nebraska verses Michigan. Yup, HUGE game for me (my wife is a Husker, and I'm not the biggest Wolverine fan in the world).

By now you've already seen the highlights of the final play. Here's an interesting set of quotes from Gregg Easterbrook who writes for the New Republic and has a weekly column on NFL.com called Tuesday Morning Quarterback

The 50-Man Defense: You're forgiven if you were not up 'till midnight Eastern watching the final play of the Michigan-Nebraska bowl game -- but the officials weren't watching, either. Nebraska led 32-28 with two seconds remaining, Michigan ball on its 36. The Wolverines threw the hook-and-ladder, and then started lateraling. There were five laterals and two fumbles on the play -- see the final entry here -- which resulted in Michigan's Tyler Ecker running down the right sideline to the Nebraska 13, where he was tackled. But the instant the clock hit all naughts the Cornhusker sideline rushed the field; at least 50 Nebraska players, coaches and team officials in sport jackets coming onto the gridiron while the play was still in progress. Two Michigan coaches also came onto the field during the play. Why were no penalties assessed? The NCAA rulebook -- see section FR114, 9.2, under "conduct of players" -- specifies it's a 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalty to enter the field during a live ball. That's 15 yards per incident, meaning about 50 unsportsmanlike conduct penalties could have been assessed against Nebraska, plus two against Michigan. The result would have been offsetting penalties and Michigan replays the down.

But TMQ thinks a different rule should have been enforced -- the "unfair acts" provision. You've probably never heard of the "unfair acts" clause -- I've watched far, far too much football and never beheld this rule invoked, but it seems tailor-made for what happened at the Alamo Bowl. See page 116 of the NCAA rulebook; Article 3.C states, "If an obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs during the game, the referee may take any action he considers equitable, including assessing a penalty, awarding a score or suspending or forfeiting the game." For Nebraska to flood the gridiron with 50 players and team personnel during a play, with the game's outcome on the line, was an "obviously unfair act" -- it deprived Michigan runners of roughly half the field. Watch the replay; as the ball madly bounces, all the Michigan runners move toward the right, because on the left side of the field is a 50-man wall! It's pretty hard to score against a 50-man defense. Yet Michigan almost did score against a 50-man defense, which tells us the Wolverines might indeed have gotten a touchdown and won the game had Nebraska not committed an "obviously unfair act" by denying Michigan access to half the field. (From an officiating standpoint it makes no difference whether Nebraska intended to be unfair or simply rushed the field by accident because the Huskers thought the game was over; whether a penalty is committed intentionally or by accident is irrelevant.)

Every coach from the high school level up knows that extra players cannot run onto the field during a play. Every coach knows that if players do run onto the field during a play, the penalty is harsh. Nebraska's entire team ran onto the field during the game-deciding play -- yet not a single yellow flag. That's spectacular officiating ineptitude. Maybe the Sun Belt Conference zebras working this game were anxious to head to the locker room and didn't care about doing their jobs properly. Whatever the explanation, "Sun Belt Conference officials" will now be synonymous with incompetence, while "Alamo Bowl" will now be synonymous with botched game supervision. That leaves the question of how. Had the game been adeptly officiated, the unfair acts rule would have been enforced. You can make a case the referee should have awarded Michigan a touchdown: Otherwise you're saying that whenever a runner breaks into the clear, it's legal for 50 guys to walk on the field and stand in his way. Here is what I think would have been the "equitable" resolution: The ball should have been placed at the Nebraska 13, the point the runner reached, and Michigan given one untimed down.

In case you're wondering, the NFL's equivalent provision, Rule 11.2.2.2., states, "The referee may award a touchdown when a palpably unfair act deprives the offended team of one." So if the Alamo Bowl situation happened in the NFL, officials could have awarded six points, but could not have dreamed up an "equitable" solution such as allowing one more snap. Another provision allows the commissioner to reverse the outcome of an NFL contest if a team commits an "extraordinarily unfair act" that has "a major effect on the result of the game," which pretty much was the Nebraska-Michigan situation.

I agree fully, and know that Michigan had a chance (even given the circumstances) to still win (toss the ball behind you as you go out of bounds!). It's a shame for both programs to be involved in a game that had such horrible officiating; and that's what people will remember. They won't remember Taylor's leadership after being hammered again and again. They won't remember how a Lloyd Carr team choked away another 10+ point lead in the fourth quarter. Nope, it'll all be that play.

Not that it matters to me. Michigan still lost.

Go Bucks!