<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding? The replay clearly showed that Colt McCoy’s pass hit the ground with a second to spare on the game clock. The refs made the right call. If Nebraska had stormed the field, the end result would have been a 15-yard penalty that would have made Texas’s game winning field goal even easier.</p>
<p>Edit…double post for some reason.</p>
<p>Yeah don’t complain about that call, the ball clearly goes out of bounds at 2 seconds and hits the ground at 1 sec. You’re blind if you disagree. </p>
<p>And I hate how Nebraska fans are complaining that the refs are on Texas’ side. The refs made a terrible call on Goodwin during the kickoff were he slipped and the ball was placed on the 1 yard line. His knee obviously touched the turf, but he NEVER had possession of the ball. That made for a difficult drive and almost led to a safety.</p>
<p>And the Nebraska fans that are complaining need to suck it up because they lost. Stop being sore losers. The Nebraska fans shouldn’t blame the refs, they should blame Suh because if he didn’t get pressure on McCoy for the second to last play, then McCoy wouldn’t have thrown the ball out of bounds and the game would have been over!</p>
<p>It was the right call, but an extra second or two falls off the clock on every play. I can see how it would be inconsistent to review that but not every single previous play.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was potentially the last play of the game-of course it deserves a little bit more scrutiny.</p>
<p>It doesn’t take special scrutiny to know that the clock runs for a second or two after every play. It’s one thing to one thing to be more careful on the last play, another to treat it completely differently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you suggesting that the referees shouldn’t have reviewed an obvious play, and instead should have cheated Texas out of the BCS national championship game?</p>
<p>Still Texas is there solely because of its name. It’s ranked #3 preseason and just kinda got by the easy schedule and even they played nobody, they still struggled and rarely had a complete game. Meanwhile, TCU dominated the ranked teams and completely destroyed all the weaker opponents. Cincy is in a better conference with more complete games and on top of that, they beat a good Oregon State. The only reason Cincy and TCU don’t jump Texas is because they don’t have the names like USC. Votes from coaches are total BS; they weren’t even watching the games before the votes. Their votes are largely based on perception and perception is BS. It’s also unfair when Big 12 has more voting coaches than at least 3 other major conferences and way more than MWC. It takes 5 losses to rid USC out of the top-25. But it takes only one close loss for Stanford to fall out of top-25 from #14!</p>
<p>It’s so annoying to see Mack Brown spin (again) and lobby for himself once again immediately after the Nebraska game.</p>
<p>I have to say, I was REALLY disappointed with the Fiesta Bowl. I wanted to see TCU and Boise State go up against the so-called better teams to see what they can do. </p>
<p>TCU did really well against major conference teams and even ranked ones, but I would have really liked to see how they do against a Florida or Cincy, a team that rolled through a “good” conference. The same for Boise. TCU over Boise or vice versa proves nothing; just that a good mid major can beat a good mid major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would agree. BUT everybody in FBS plays “nobody.” It’s ridiculus what these schools call schedules. I hope Cinncinati destroys Florida. I would have liked to see TCU and Boise State not playing each other. I was hoping Texas would get beat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, already said it was the right decision. But perhaps if not reviewing it would have been “cheating” Texas, then maybe Nebraska was “cheated” by not having the extra minute or so that shouldn’t have elapsed over the course of the game</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you’re proposing. So you’d rather have the refs review every single play in the game? Every play is reviewed upstairs anyways, and they buzz down if it deserves more than one look. Obviously that’s what happened in the Texas game, and they made the right call.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, Pac-10 teams play significantly less games against FCS teams (4 this year; the other 5 major conferences played 9 or more games against FCS teams) and higher percentage of their games against foes from major conferences or MWC/WAC. </p>
<p>
If they did beat, say, Florida and Cincy, that would expose the BCS further. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BCS people deliberately let Florida/Cincy avoid those two.</p>
<p>I’m not proposing anything. I just don’t think Texas would necessarily have been wronged if they hadn’t had a second chance. That’s just the way things go sometimes. Football has a serious significant figures problem, with both timing and spotting/measuring the ball for first downs.</p>
<p>I haven’t seen this mentioned yet, but TCU and Boise State played each other in a bowl game last year. It would’ve been nice to have a different matchup just so that it’s something new.</p>
<p>^that’s why it looks even more apparent that this is a deliberate act from the BCS people. most teams from major conferences are particularly afraid of Boise State; only Pac-10 teams have the ball to play them. playing teams like Boise State is a lose-lose situation for the so-called “big boys”; if they win, people don’t give them the credits like if they beat another big boy but if they lose, they got penalized more than if they lose to another big boy even the risk of losing is about the same.</p>
<p>All that is true, but it’s also a risk that they have guaranteed that one non-BCS team finishes undefeated. If TCU and Florida win, then TCU will probably be the consensus #2 in the country and receive some #1 votes. </p>
<p>I think USC tries to schedule all OOC games as strong as possible. Since 2002, the non-BCS schools USC has played: BYU, Hawaii, Colorado State, at BYU, at Hawaii, Fresno State, Idaho, San Jose State. Of those, Colorado State, Idaho, and San Jose State were probably the “gimme” games.</p>
<p>At the same time, Hawaii had been a contender in the WAC and also crashed the Sugar Bowl in 2007, Fresno State was 8-1 when they played USC, and BYU is a perennial non-BCS BCS hopeful (how many other BCS teams play a home-and-home with BYU?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That had already happened before. So that’s nothing new and therefore is safe. People will still make excuse that they haven’t really beat anybody big (because by default, they are not <em>perceived</em> as good as the big boys). But if TCU beat, say, Florida and Boise State, beat, say Cincy, that would really open a new can of worms. That would really challenge predominant perception and hence the BCS selection. And if Auburn dominates TX, that would make BOTH of these non-major conference teams more deserving than TX.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Given the strength of USC, I would wager that all of those games are pretty much gimmes for USC.</p>
<p>I don’t know about that - Fresno State put up 42 on USC and led until 6:22 left in the 4th (USC won by 8). USC needed over 500 yards of offense to make up for a leaky defense playing a lot of freshmen (that later became the suffocating 2008 defense)</p>
<p>Maybe those games are “gimmies”, but they’re a lot less so than playing I-AA/FCS teams. Non-BCS teams get just as many scholarships as BCS teams, so the only things BCS schools can offer recruits over non-BCS schools are things like TV contracts, facilities, coaching, college life, etc. FCS schools have fewer scholarships so it’s not even a fair contest - one team is playing with a handicap.</p>