2011 bowl games open thread

[SeattleUte]

You're the one who's simple. One track mind, always singing the same one note song, etc. Sad.

Yeah, I'm that way, like Stanford is too. I'm happy being with Stanford on my side, thank you.

You'd think you'd get it now after the Big 12 didn't want BYU, also for non-football reasons. But you don't. Speaks volumes about the narrowness of your mind.

Maybe it's BYU that has something wrong with it. Ever considered that? Has that possiblity ever entered your mind?

I may be fixed in my view but I've been right about saying what would happen.

[SeattleUte]

Thank you for confirming that BYU was being considered for membership in the PAC. We already knew this but it is interesting to see you finally admit it.

I didn't mean to imply that. BYU was never considered for a whole bunch of reasons that were not all about Stanford. Yes, it was never possible or at all considered.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How is it that the biggest troll can be so easily trolled? Wow.

[Jarid in Cedar]

How is it that the biggest troll can be so easily trolled? Wow.

No doubt. Yikes

[UtahJazzFan88]

Can any Ute fans even stand up for SU's antics anymore?

[PaloAltoCougar]

How is it that the biggest troll can be so easily trolled? Wow.

[Me, raising my hand excitedly while exclaiming, "I know! I know! Call on me!!!"]

Because his contempt for the LDS Church and BYU is so strong that he loses his usual objectivity, appreciation of nuance, and sense of humor. But he's also a generous man and enjoys teeing it up occasionally for the rest of us.

[SeattleUte]

You're the one who's simple. One track mind, always singing the same one note song, etc. Sad.

This is not very clever. It's hard to be clever in response to something so trite. I play down to my competition.

[BoylenOver]

I hope the Oregon and Okie St victories put an end to the "time of possession" stat. It's worthless.

Also, Stanford and Okie St have cool fight songs.

[Pheidippides]

This is not very clever. It's hard to be clever in response to something so trite. I play down to my competition.

Clever or not, it's spot-on true. You got masterfully trolled in the most simple of ways. Remember the first rule of dealing with trolls: the only way to win is not to play. And you just lost.

[Eddie]

I thought Stanford deserved to lose. You've got the guy on your team that leading up to the game the radio guys are saying is the best college QB in 25 years and the announcers are saying is the best player in college football "with all due respect to RGBIII", complete with comments about how much he reminds them of Payton Manning - while wetting themselves as they gush about how he makes the right decisions and manages the game so perfectly...

And yet when you get into overtime you completely take it out of his hands - running it twice and not letting him throw the ball until it is 3rd down and 13 or something? You don't trust the guy who got you there?

I also thought that Georgia Tech deserved to lose when they went into their prevent offense at the beginning of the 4th quarter.

I understand teams not wanting to lose and not taking big risks. I don't get not playing to win and completely changing the game plan that got you in a position to win in the first place.

[woot]

I thought Stanford deserved to lose. You've got the guy on your team that leading up to the game the radio guys are saying is the best college QB in 25 years and the announcers are saying is the best player in college football "with all due respect to RGBIII", complete with comments about how much he reminds them of Payton Manning - while wetting themselves as they gush about how he makes the right decisions and manages the game so perfectly...

And yet when you get into overtime you completely take it out of his hands - running it twice and not letting him throw the ball until it is 3rd down and 13 or something? You don't trust the guy who got you there?

I also thought that Georgia Tech deserved to lose when they went into their prevent offense at the beginning of the 4th quarter.

I understand teams not wanting to lose and not taking big risks. I don't get not playing to win and completely changing the game plan that got you in a position to win in the first place.

Agreed. Bronco does the same sort of thing and it's maddening. Gundy didn't do much better when he set up for a FG at the 5, but his kicker's better and that's a chipshot so it's a bit more understandable. Still, I don't think the odds would favor a FG in that situation over pounding it in. I could be wrong though.

[doctorcoug]

Agreed. Bronco does the same sort of thing and it's maddening. Gundy didn't do much better when he set up for a FG at the 5, but his kicker's better and that's a chipshot so it's a bit more understandable. Still, I don't think the odds would favor a FG in that situation over pounding it in. I could be wrong though.

The guy had missed one PAT all year. How many goal line stands did they punch in? That would be the stat you are looking for. I bet the statistically safe bet would be to kick it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The guy had missed one PAT all year. How many goal line stands did they punch in? That would be the stat you are looking for. I bet the statistically safe bet would be to kick it.

Exactly. It just seemed risky due to what happened to Stanford, but it was the right call.

[Eddie]

Exactly. It just seemed risky due to what happened to Stanford, but it was the right call.

I think they viewed it as not risky at all - based on what happened to Stanford.

Missing the kick would not cost them the game. It would just extend it.

That is one aspect of overtime in college ball that makes a mess of things - teams seem to be playing for field goals, particularly since the start the possession in FG range. So the first team plays to make sure they get at least a FG and don't miss out on points. And the second team plays to make sure that they at least match what the first team scored - or if the first team didn't score then they tend to run it until they take a FG shot.

I'd like to see them move back and start each possession out of FG range - or at least in a spot that would make a FG very unlikely without picking up some yards. I like the concept of both teams getting possession. But I think I'd like it better if they started back on the 35 or even the 40. As it is - they really don't need any offensive production to score. They just need an average kicker who can hit a 42 yard FG.

[woot]

I think they viewed it as not risky at all - based on what happened to Stanford.

Missing the kick would not cost them the game. It would just extend it.

That is one aspect of overtime in college ball that makes a mess of things - teams seem to be playing for field goals, particularly since the start the possession in FG range. So the first team plays to make sure they get at least a FG and don't miss out on points. And the second team plays to make sure that they at least match what the first team scored - or if the first team didn't score then they tend to run it until they take a FG shot.

I'd like to see them move back and start each possession out of FG range - or at least in a spot that would make a FG very unlikely without picking up some yards. I like the concept of both teams getting possession. But I think I'd like it better if they started back on the 35 or even the 40. As it is - they really don't need any offensive production to score. They just need an average kicker who can hit a 42 yard FG.

Agreed. I think the 40 would be a good spot. Either that, or just take kickers out of it completely (KOs and punts are already removed). Turning into a straight O vs D would be more fun, and more similar to a hockey shootout.

I would bet the reason they won't do either of these is the possibility of having endless games when two really Ds are pitted against each other. That's a real concern, I suppose.