Rose Bowl 2006

[WSU151]

I'm going to disagree there. If he didn't have complete control, how could have have tossed it?  He had posession, and after having gained that posession, he took a step, which didn't put him into the endzone.  Being off-balance or in motion shouldn't have anything to do with control, having the ball in your hands should be the deciding factor, I would think.

You can toss it back without having complete possession by just flipping it, or throwing it - sort of like a saved ball in basketball. But I've always known the rule to be that the downer needs to have complete possession of the ball and his body before the ball goes into the endzone - if he doesn't have either, it's a touchback. And when the Auburn player pitched the ball back out of the endzone, it actually hit the goal line, then was fumbled around by another player, finally coming to rest on the goal line. Again, I've seen it many time where the player will run, catch the bouncing ball in the field of play, keep running because of inertia, save it before his foot hits the endzone...but the refs will still call a touchback if the save hits any part of the goal line, or any player standing on the goal line. I always see guys save the ball, control it, fall into the endzone due to momentum but throw the ball back before they touch the endzone, but the ball isn't officially downed until another player has complete control of the ball and not in the endzone.

In fact, usually...the ref throws the bean bag when the punt is first touched at the spot of the touch...change of possession. I've seen it where if the ball doesn't go into the endzone and therefore successfully "downed" in play, the ref will bring it back to the spot of the bean bag. And I've also seen it where they put the ball where it was "downed" and disregard the spot of the bean bag.

F'in rules.

if you catch the ball and your momentum is carrying you into the endzone, you have to put the ball back in play. And if the ball happens to cross the goal line before or while you pitch it back, it's automatically a touchback by college rules.

Well if you save the ball before any part of your body hits the endzone, it's not a touchback, even though the ball crossed the goal line - maybe that's just NFL. My dispute is that the ball hit the goal line after the save, was covered by an Auburn player on the goal line, and they didn't rule it a touchback because the first guy to touch the punt and "control" it (though he was off balance and still running) was not in the end zone. I wish there was a video of this

[See Red]

Yeah, in college you can have your entire body in the endzone if you so choose, as long as you can keep the ball in play without it ever breaking the the goalline. Like Mac2 said, pretty much the exact opposite of the way it is in the pros.

[WSU151]

In the college rules a player is allowed to go into the endzone to stop the punt from going across the goalline, if it does then it is a touchback. In the NFL it is just the opposite, the ball is allowed to cross the goal line on a punt and is still considered live as long as it does not hit the ground of the endzone or the player trying to keep it from hitting the endzone does not cross the goalline. If either of these two happen then it is a touchback.

Alright, cool. Thanks for the clarification. The Auburn punt never crossed the goal line, but the player trying to down the punt crossed the goal line with the ball in his hands, and in mid-air. The question is did he have control of it when he attempted to save it.

[OB33]

Two observations:

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the toss Vince Young made when he was clearly down. Although I personally think it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

I don't think Vince Young would make a good running back at all. He's 6'5" it's not like he could hide behind the O-line. If a team is going to draft Young he needs to be a QB.

[nsentv]

The Rose Bowl got the highest ratings for a college football game since 1987. According to Media Life Magazine, the game got a 20.6 rating, which is higher than the ratings for this year's World Series and NBA Finals combined. Baseball hasn't had this high a rating since 2001 (the post 9/11 World Series) and the NBA hasn't had one that high since 1998 (Jordan's Final Game).

Impressive.

[Saint Zephyr III]

Not to mention 35.6 million viewers...as a comparision, the Orange Bowl last year where USC thrashed Oklahoma, the game had 21 million viewers.

And if you look at it correctly, they're saying its the highest since the current rating system started, which was in 1987, so it could be argued that it was the highest-rated college football in history.

Fortunately, it was an outstanding game to boot.

[SEMOSTLfan]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the toss Vince Young made when he was clearly down. Although I personally think it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Well if anyone wants to shed light on that toss play then you'd have to mention the interception that Texas had when the ground caused the ball to pop out of the DB's hands yet was ruled an incomplete pass. USC went on to score on that drive so they two pretty much cancel each other out.

[HedleyLamarr]

You don't seed 117 teams. First all conference champions get in that's 12 teams. Then an extra 4 based on record with strength of schedule as a tie-breaker. You get a 3 week 16 team tournament. I did it a few years ago and there isn't as much tie breaking as you think. And those top teams that are in the polls make it.

There's only 11 conferences.

So, by your format, how would you seed the 11 conference champions? And how would you determine the 5 at-large teams? All 117 teams wouldn't be able to play a near-balanced schedule like in the NFL.

Seed the conference champs the same way: overall record, followed by strength of schedule.

And I guarantee you that those 117 schools, or at least any of those that think they can make it to the tournament on a consistent basis, will endeavor to start scheduling more competitive opponents in fairly short order if that type of system is used.

Actually, they'd schedule more cupcakes, because of the win-loss records being of utmost importance. Two losses, and you're basically gasping for air for an at-large berth. You really think that a team will risk losing a precious game against a top-notch team? A win against the top team of one conference counts the same as a win over the bottom team of a conference. You use strength-of-schedule, you'll get the same controversy as you would with......a voting poll.

If you want an NFL-style playoff, go by win-loss records, in-conference won-loss records, and head-to-head matchups. Otherwise, you're left up to computers determining things (BCS style), or polls chock full of controversy.

[paynomind]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the toss Vince Young made when he was clearly down.  Although I personally think it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Well if anyone wants to shed light on that toss play then you'd have to mention the interception that Texas had when the ground caused the ball to pop out of the DB's hands yet was ruled an incomplete pass. USC went on to score on that drive so they two pretty much cancel each other out.

Actually, the knee-down call would have been 2nd down, Texas ball, at the 2. Might/probably have scored anyway.

The INT no-call would have stopped a USC scoring drive by giving Texas the ball.

So, I'd say they weren't even at all. The non-INT was a far worse change of events from what should have been called.

[See Red]

I'm surprised more hasn't been made of the toss Vince Young made when he was clearly down.  Although I personally think it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Well if anyone wants to shed light on that toss play then you'd have to mention the interception that Texas had when the ground caused the ball to pop out of the DB's hands yet was ruled an incomplete pass. USC went on to score on that drive so they two pretty much cancel each other out.

Actually, the knee-down call would have been 2nd down, Texas ball, at the 2. Might/probably have scored anyway.

The INT no-call would have stopped a USC scoring drive by giving Texas the ball.

So, I'd say they weren't even at all. The non-INT was a far worse change of events from what should have been called.

Yep. The way Texas had been driving the ball without any resistance from USC, that may have been the difference between 16-10 and 19-7 or 23-7.

[WSU151]

Yes but on that Texas incompletion/non-fumble in the 4th quarter, it should have been ruled a fumble. The Texas player had control of the ball and had it stripped. He wasn't juggling it, he had it right in his breadbasket for about a second, then taken away. It wasn't a broken-up pass play.

[See Red]

He never made a "football move" with it. If you look at it in slow motion, he looks like a completion, but in full speed, he doesn't have it very long at all.

[WSU151]

He never made a "football move" with it. If you look at it in slow motion, he looks like a completion, but in full speed, he doesn't have it very long at all.

The "football move" only applies to the NFL, I believe. And the Texas player who made the interception didn't have complete control (according to NFL rules)....

[See Red]

He never made a "football move" with it.  If you look at it in slow motion, he looks like a completion, but in full speed, he doesn't have it very long at all.

The "football move" only applies to the NFL, I believe. And the Texas player who made the interception didn't have complete control (according to NFL rules)....

I wasn't sure if it applied, even then, in regular speed, it didn't look like a catch.

[paynomind]

Didnt that ball go out of bounds after it left his hand/stomach? Then it would have been texas' ball.

And I thoguht he caught it.

[See Red]

I agree that the interception by the Texas player to end the first half should've been a pick. What I'm saying wasn't a catch was a pass up the middle by Texas, the guy brought it in and dropped it on the final drive I believe, and USC would've recovered had it been a fumble.

[themightyspitz]

I agree that the interception by the Texas player to end the first half should've been a pick. What I'm saying wasn't a catch was a pass up the middle by Texas, the guy brought it in and dropped it on the final drive I believe, and USC would've recovered had it been a fumble.

He didn't make the football move. The instant he touched it, it was knocked out. Unless the football moved, he doesn't have possession.

Unless, of course, the football move thing is only for the NFL, in which case disregard what I said.

[bosox]

Well, USC got what it deserved for saying they could be the first three-peat.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/0...ycol-01-06.html