FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[smedindy]

Ypsi - short field or not, the two touchdowns Michigan gave up were horribly defended. It didn't seem like they made an effort at all. Make a play and win the game.

[wally_wabash]

The Sun Belt champion has made a habit of getting housed by the fourth best team out of C-USA in the short history of this game.  This year's Sun Belt champ got beat by four touchdowns by Army.  I'm not sure they're playing at the same level as the big boys. 

I'm as much for sticking it to the BCS conferences as anybody, but I think that Sun Belt crew may have been a bit overwhelmed in San Antonio. 

[formerd3db]

Smeds:

No disrespect intended to you regarding you comments and/or opinions; but there were alot of DIII crews that did a very poor job this year as well, including in our MIAA.  But I agree with Wally that the MIAA crew that worked the Stagg did a pretty good job.  Also, while I can't say unequivically that those poor calls cost Michigan the game (and I am a Michigan fan - my dad is an alum) - in all truthfulness none of us can for sure (because who knows if they would have actually scored toward the end of the game had they been afforded that first down near the goal line on the missed interference call and/or had the Michigan receiver not dropped what would have then made it "first and goal to go" - stranger things have happened and we all know Michigan has blown such opportunities and chances many times in the past); However, I tend to agree with Mr. Ypsi and the others that in all probability, it is highly likely Michigan would have scored and won the game had some of those very unfortunate and incorrect calls (or rather non-calls )/judgements not occurred.

Mr. Ypsi, Wally - right on.

Lil Giant:

Interesting observation on your experiences watching the various levels of football.  I agree with you; but also for what it's worth, I would just add, if I may the following.  Playing my senior year in college, in my last collegiate game ever (at an away game), two of my high school coaches and an administrator from my h.s. came to watch me/our game.  All three of these gentlemen were also very avid college football fans and had attended many DI games including at Michigan.  After seeing the game, they all three were agast at how intense the hitting was and said (they still maintain this today) that it was by far the hardest hitting game they had ever seen, and that included all the U of Michigan games they had seen.   And this was a game we played against one of our conference rivals that is generally (and historically has not been, and certainly not at that time) considered a very good team.  Just illustrates how somethings can be deceiving and/or not impossible to occur at any level of college football.


To all:
Anyway, I think we've all made our points and "beaten a dead horse enough" regarding this year's Alamo Bowl.  That being said, thanks for the very good and interesting discussion all of you.      

[frank uible]

Nonetheless, Michigan played a sluggish, uninspired, unskillful, soft, tactically unintelligent game against an at best mediocre opponent, despite Michigan's having over 5 weeks to heal, study, practice and otherwise prepare solely for the game. Michigan ought to be ashamed.

[smedindy]

The difference between the Sun Belt and the BCS teams is depth, pure and simple. And if you though that crew was bad, did anyone see the hatched job that Vanderbilt got at Florida, with a high and mighty BCS crew (SEC) That was criminal, and that was one of the ONLY times I'll say a team got jobbed out of a game by an official.

Otherwise, it's sour petunias.

[formerd3db]

frank:
I'm surprised at you my friend!  Were you watching the same game as us?   Seriously, I did not think Michigan played anywhere near as bad as they did in past bowl games, including last year in the Rose Bowl.  While they did make mistakes, and didn't deserve to win the game (they didn't deserve the poor officiating either ), their play certainly wasn't as bad as last year at the Rose Bowl where they CONTINUALLY a) did not cover the tight end (which they usually fail to do in bowl games almost always), b) defensive front linemen almost always took the wrong path i.e. inside instead of honoring the usual "inside out" rule, c) poor tackling/poor technique (which many of us have already discussed about all 3 NCAA levels this year), and d) poor secondary coverage.  While Michigan did make some mistakes with regard to c) and d) as you mention, I don't think overall it was as bad as last year, and on the other hand, they did have some very good series both offensively and defensivly (i.e. no sluggishness, no uninspired, or unskilled play) when their defensive line just pummeled and smashed Nebraska's front for quite some time (admittedly, Michigan did not sustain that in the last quarter as we witnessed), and the offense did have move the ball quite well at times.  For once in a game, that last drive in the game they did have an intelligent play calling and execution with regard to the pass plays to the sidelines - very effectively moving the ball at the chain markers for 1st downs on several consecutive plays - until our man dropped the ball on what should have been a very easy catch down on the 3 yard line or so near the end.

Anyway, I may have missed it in the past, but didn't realize you apparently don't like Michigan (or is it you are just commenting on what you "thought" you saw in the game ?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Frank, Smed, etc.,

Do ANY of you wish to defend the charges that :

A. Nebraska fumbled the ball in the 2nd quarter (2 plays before they scored); a 'critical' play that was not reviewed.

B. Nebraska was guilty of pass interference in the end zone with 4+ minutes remaining (result: Huskers took over on downs rather than Michigan 1st and goal at about the 2).

C. The officials did not spot the ball for Nebraska's 4th down punt until 19 extra seconds ran off the clock, leaving Michigan 8 seconds instead of 27.

D. Michigan was screwed out of two time outs because the officials refused to do their duties on reviews - they should have had about 1:45 rather than :08 on their final series.

These are only the INCONTROVERTIBLE plays.  C and D should be irrelevant since Michigan would have been up by AT LEAST 2 TDs if the game had been honesty officiated.

Barring EXTREME provocation, I will now cease-and-desist!  But I object to outright theft even at the semi-pro d1 level!  Michigan did not lose that game, it was stolen.

[DarkSide-D]

Haha, wow.  I never thought my comments about the Michigan game would have sparked such a discussion.

I too am an Ohio State fan.  But just like I want Witt to win the noncon games to boost the NCAC, I want Michigan to win the noncon games to boost the Big Ten.  conference games, I don't really care if they win or lose, as long as they get a big fat L when they play Woo or Ohio State.  That game was Michigans to win.  It seemed to me, that the last two plays of the second to last drive, Michigan gave the game away.  They were driving, and then the recievers just plain forgot how to catch.  I remember one time in particular when the Michigan reciever was wide open for a first down (and could have gotten maybe another 5-10 yards) and the ball just bounced right outta the guys hands.   I was shocked and stunned!!

Michigan should have made it a no doubter and taken the Refs out of the equation.  They failed to do that by dropping what should have been easy passes.

Anyway, things aren't looking too good for the Big Ten right now.  0-3 in bowl games so far.  And Michigan has lost two straight bowl games when they should have won.  Makes me wonder about the discussion when OSU beat Michigan about Loydd Carrs job.

[Mr. Ypsi]

DSD,

As to the last two plays of the penultimate possession: on third down, granted, the Michigan receiver blew it (but did you happen to notice that the Nebraska player at the bottom of the screen lined up in the neutral zone?! - instead of 4th and 8 it should have been 3rd and 3).  On 4th down, it was BLATANT pass interference in the end zone against Nebraska (by that time the announcers were so disgusted with the refs that they showed the play SEVERAL times).  So Michigan DID already win with HONEST officiating.

But I agree with you - rather than just winning by 2-3 TDs with honest officiating, they probably should have won by 4-5 TDs if they had played decently!

[smedindy]

Ypsi -

Calling the officiating dishonest is abhorrent behavior. For shame.

You give me proof that crew had money (licit or illicit) on Nebraska, then I'll rescind my views. Otherwise, those are some mighty sour grapes, my friend. Acrid, even.

The BOOTH instigate reviews, not the crew.

The BOOTH screwed up on the first review, and didn't communicate to the crew to rescind Michigan's timeout.

So while you denigrate the officials, the BOOTH was the one that was looking at the reviews. The officals on the field could do nothing. Nothing! And you call them dishonest. That's dishonest of you.

Pass Interference calls are always controversial. And they are not reviewable. Every season there are a lot of PI calls that could have been called or were bogus.

If Michigan would have tackled a couple of people, we wouldn't have had this discussion - and that's the fact.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Smed,

I do not make such charges lightly.  As I posted earlier, if anyone can show that even one-quarter of the KEY calls went against Nebraska, I will withdraw the charges.  But I honestly believe (recognizing my partisanship) that ALL of the KEY calls went against Michigan - can you cite even one example to the contrary?

Yes, I made a very serious charge, and deserve to face libel charges if I am wrong.  But I am also absolutely serious that the officials should be investigated by the NCAA for possible corruption.  [And 'officials', of course, INCLUDES the booth!]

With honest officiating, Michigan wins by AT LEAST 2TDs.

[wally_wabash]

For clarity...

It's my understanding that the guy in the replay booth is part of the officiating crew...umpire, line judge, side judge, replay official.  They're all on the same team.  The guy in the booth isn't a third party.  So when I've made mention that the crew in that game was terrible, I'm including the replay official.  The referee who communicates everything to the crowd and the tv audience is the face of said crew, but they were all bad.  That the replays are inititated by the official in the booth doesn't absolve the entire crew.  It may have been the one guy up in the booth that is primarily responsible for these complaints, but he's part of the crew so they all look(ed) bad.  

[Li'l Giant]

I'll whip the horse a couple more times and then let it go.

LG - It doesn't make a difference at all. Refs ref the game no matter who is playing. Period. The difference isn't that big between the Sun Belt and the BCS teams.

I'm not saying their poor performance was intentional, or even the result of sloth or lassitude. I think they tried their best. I just think their best isn't good enough for a game between two teams from the Big Ten and Big XII. As Wally pointed out the Sun Belt is sorry. A couple of years ago their champ, North Texas was the only bowl team with a losing record because the bowl was bound by contract to take the Sun Belt champ. As Charles Barkley would say "they're terbil".

Otherwise, it's sour petunias.

I go to the Alamo Bowl every year for one reason: to see a good game. I have gone to seven after this year. I have not yet had a game where I really cared about either of the teams (My brother and I have a tradition of rooting openly for the opposite team of the side we sit on. ). So I don't think my criticism of the officials is sour anything. I think they poorly officiated the game. The only thing I can think would be the reason is that they aren't up to calling this quality of a game.

[smedindy]

It doens't mean that that Sun Belt crew is terrible compared to some lousy SEC and Big 10 crews I've seen. Again, it's ludicrous to think that refs from the Sun Belt, Mountain West, MAC, WAC or C-USA are unqualified louts.

You don't need to school me on where the Sun Belt ranks in the D-1 world. I do think it's a matter of depth.

Also, I wasn't saying criticism of the officials was sour anything. Saying that the officials were the sole and only cause of the loss for Michigan is definitely sour.

[formerd3db]

Mr. Ypsi:
Just FYI, I posted some comments to you on an "old" topic (i.e. nicknames) on the General DIII issues board!