- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

If NEB had the ball (same play), would they have one sec?
Posted on 12/6/09 at 6:57 am
Posted on 12/6/09 at 6:57 am
Face it, every conference has their favorites, not just the SEC. If Nebraska had the ball and ran the same play, I seriously doubt that the one second would be reinstated.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 6:58 am to geaux4geauxldtigah
it was a pretty obvious call. the ball hit the turf with one second left. wasn't questionable in my opinion.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:08 am to tigerdup07
Maybe so, but that is not what I am posing here. The play clock read 0:00 - Texas along the officiating got that second reinstated. Would a lesser ranked team, having the upset ability, get the same opportunity as Texas did.
This decision is directly tied to the officials and the efforts of the Texas football coach, plain and simple. Regardless if it was the correct call or not, what I am trying to say is that Nebraska would most probably not been given the benefit of the doubt had they ran the same exact play because:
They had no shot of going to the BCS Championship Game like Texas did.
This decision is directly tied to the officials and the efforts of the Texas football coach, plain and simple. Regardless if it was the correct call or not, what I am trying to say is that Nebraska would most probably not been given the benefit of the doubt had they ran the same exact play because:
They had no shot of going to the BCS Championship Game like Texas did.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:09 am to geaux4geauxldtigah
quote:
Maybe so, but that is not what I am posing here. The play clock read 0:00 - Texas along the officiating got that second reinstated. Would a lesser ranked team, having the upset ability, get the same opportunity as Texas did.
yes.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:10 am to geaux4geauxldtigah
Play clock was not running, if I remember. The replay showed only the game clock? Anyway, from the replay, it was pretty obvious there should be time even though I was hoping for the opposite. My question was "WHAT IS HE DOING...HE IS RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK!!!!" 
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:11 am to canyon
quote:
"WHAT IS HE DOING...HE IS RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK!!!!"
if colt would have thrown it one yard farther, they lose.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:15 am to tigerdup07
I know. I was actually hoping he would keep running, then try to heave it out of bounds. He did not know which clock to look at. Course, the kicker did not do Bo any favors by drilling the KO out of bounds.....
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:16 am to canyon
quote:
Course, the kicker did not do Bo any favors by drilling the KO out of bounds.....
this is when my mouth started pulling to the side and my eye started to twitch.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:31 am to geaux4geauxldtigah
I doubt very much that they would have even reviwed that if it was Nebraska on offense. And if they did they would have probably said not indisputable evidence to overturn or something like that.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 7:53 am to geaux4geauxldtigah
Texas is and always was a "favorite." No way in hell that anybody else gets that second back. Today...geaux TCU - jump their asses in the BCS.

Posted on 12/6/09 at 8:02 am to geaux4geauxldtigah
First, this was not the referees showing favoritism. If the pass was completed and the player fell to the ground it would have allowed the clock to run out, same as LSU v. Ole Miss. Tolliver was down with three seconds but the clock runs as a player is downed.
The real question is why would Texas be throwing on first, second, and third down, losing three yards and taking a chance to lose more yards and run the clock out?
This was far worse than Miles' decision. Of course, that is no longer a question because the field goal was made. The consequences of these decisions were probably taking 10 million dollars in payouts and countless receipts for the value of a NC, should they win. The face no one for Alabama as good as that Nebraska DT.
The real question is why would Texas be throwing on first, second, and third down, losing three yards and taking a chance to lose more yards and run the clock out?
This was far worse than Miles' decision. Of course, that is no longer a question because the field goal was made. The consequences of these decisions were probably taking 10 million dollars in payouts and countless receipts for the value of a NC, should they win. The face no one for Alabama as good as that Nebraska DT.
This post was edited on 12/6/09 at 8:04 am
Posted on 12/6/09 at 11:52 am to LSU1860
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't have been said any better.
quote:
Texas is and always was a "favorite." No way in hell that anybody else gets that second back. Today...geaux TCU - jump their asses in the BCS.
Couldn't have been said any better.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 12:01 pm to craignettles
Money is not the issue. The Big 12 could have had 2 teams in BCS games. The conference took a hit with the Texas victory but maybe a chance to win a national championship is worth 13 mil to some people. But after watching the game I seriously doubt if either team could beat the best of the SEC.
Posted on 12/6/09 at 12:09 pm to tigerdup07
quote:
yes
ETA-only if it wasn't in the SEC
Back to top
4







