FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Redmen96]

Hello....
Is there anyone out there??

[79jaybird]

What's the overall opinion of the CCIW referees?  I was watching the Michigan/Nebraska game which had a Sun Belt Conf. officiating staff.  Some (well more than some) of their calls were off and they didn't seem like they were able to "keep up" with the Big 10 play.
In the CCIW this year, I think most of the calls balanced out.  We lost some calls and we got some calls we shouldn't have, but my vote would be they are about a 6-7 on a scale of 1-10.
Happy New Year to all!

[formerd3db]

79jaybird:
I would have to agree with you about the Alamo Bowl officiating, although would take it further i.e. stronger comments.  While I am a Michigan fan, and Michigan had its chances to win the game, the calls did not really affect the outcome of the game, nor are my comments intended as excuses because there are none for Michigan.  Nebraska played a very good game and deserved the win (with the exception of some of those poor offensive series where QB Taylor was smashed, and, of course, that last "play" of the game ).

However, that being said, I think that game was one of the worst (if not the worst), officiated football game I've ever seen - and I witnessed some pretty poor DIII officating this year in our league, unfortunately.  Those Sun Belt officials were pathetic, I'm sorry to say - they couldn't even get the "right" calls right, even when the calls were (i.e. should have been) correctly AGAINST Michigan.  They not only blew calls, they did a very poor job of game and time management - no excuse for those aspects.  Moreover, the replay official was not stellar.  I am all for replay being used in the NCAA bowl games and playoffs, however, it needs to be used to its best and fullest extent.  I did disagree with a some of the calls, others not, yet the blatant miscues were horrible.  Even the ESPN announcers (Herbstreet and Torico, especially the latter) made appropriate comment on the poor quality of officiating (Brandstatter of the Michigan radio broadcast team did also, but we have to excuse his built-in bias since he is a former U of M player !j).

Nonetheless, the last play was obviously reminiscent of "The Play" Cal-Stanford.  That last play in the Alamo Bowl was great, even if it didn't work out for the team I was rooting for (Mich , but it would have been an even wilder finsih had they scored.  Anyway, despite the poor officiating, it was a good and exciting bowl game to watch - so was the BC - BSU bowl game. 

[t-house]

Jamere Holland of Taft High Woodland Hills California, reportedly the fastest high school  runner in the USA,  added Mount Union to his short list of colleges he may attend in 2006.A local L.A. newspaper story  reported Holland being most impressed after watching Mount Union win their 8th Stagg Bowl in 13 years and quiped "who are those Guys"? Holland runs a 4.1 --40 and ran 10:35 in the 100 meters in the 2004 California state finals.He,s the L.A.City player of the year for 2005 catching 38 TD,S for over 3400 yds in 2 years at Taft and will play January 7,2006 in the U.S.Army All Amrican Bowl in the Alamodome on CBS TV.His short list is down to 5 and they are: USC,Oregon, recently added Mount Union,Mississippi State,and Arizona.Somebody gave him a Mount Union cap that  reportedly he,s been wearing  around L.A.Check him out Mount Union fans on TV January 7,2006 in the high school all star game on CBS.A big feather in Mount Union,s Hat even if Holland chooses a D-I Football Program!

[Mr. Ypsi]

79jaybird:
I would have to agree with you about the Alamo Bowl officiating, although would take it further i.e. stronger comments.  While I am a Michigan fan, and Michigan had its chances to win the game, the calls did not really affect the outcome of the game, nor are my comments intended as excuses because there are none for Michigan.  Nebraska played a very good game and deserved the win (with the exception of some of those poor offensive series where QB Taylor was smashed, and, of course, that last "play" of the game ).

However, that being said, I think that game was one of the worst (if not the worst), officiated football game I've ever seen - and I witnessed some pretty poor DIII officating this year in our league, unfortunately.  Those Sun Belt officials were pathetic, I'm sorry to say - they couldn't even get the "right" calls right, even when the calls were (i.e. should have been) correctly AGAINST Michigan.  They not only blew calls, they did a very poor job of game and time management - no excuse for those aspects.  Moreover, the replay official was not stellar.  I am all for replay being used in the NCAA bowl games and playoffs, however, it needs to be used to its best and fullest extent.  I did disagree with a some of the calls, others not, yet the blatant miscues were horrible.  Even the ESPN announcers (Herbstreet and Torico, especially the latter) made appropriate comment on the poor quality of officiating (Brandstatter of the Michigan radio broadcast team did also, but we have to excuse his built-in bias since he is a former U of M player !j).

Nonetheless, the last play was obviously reminiscent of "The Play" Cal-Stanford.  That last play in the Alamo Bowl was great, even if it didn't work out for the team I was rooting for (Mich , but it would have been an even wilder finsih had they scored.  Anyway, despite the poor officiating, it was a good and exciting bowl game to watch - so was the BC - BSU bowl game. 

Well, I'm going to have to take it one step further yet - the calls DID determine the game!  With honest officiating (yes, I said honest, not competent - with incompetent officials the bad calls should roughly balance; here ALL the KEY wrong calls were against Michigan), Michigan wins by 2-3 TDs.

I was watching the game near the quad-cities with a bunch of Michigan-haters (mostly relatives ), and they agreed that Michigan was totally screwed.  I didn't take notes, so have forgotten many of the specifics, but lets just take the last five minutes.  UM 3rd and goal at the 8, defender at bottom of the screen lines up in the neutral zone, incomplete pass, 4th and 8 [not that ANY of us expected a flag by this time, but legitimately it is now 3rd and 3].  4th down, incomplete pass [replay shows CLEAR pass interference - defender hooked receivers arm and turned him half-way around before ball arrived - by this time the announcers were so disgusted they had the replay shown SEVERAL times].  Result: Nebraska ball, still leading 32-28.  Legitimate situation, Michigan 1st and goal at about the 2.  Try to convince me (I saw the Nebraska defense!) that it would not have soon been 35-32, UM!

Then there is the last, desperation, possession with 7 seconds (and no time outs) left.  First, the officials refused to spot the ball, so NINETEEN seconds ran off the game clock between the end of the 3rd down and the start of the play clock for the punt.  Then the punt and return took ELEVEN seconds.  But why did UM have no time outs?  'Cause Lloyd Carr is a damn fool who can't preserve 'em 'til he needs 'em?  (Well, sometimes! )  But not in this case.  He had to use TWO timeouts to browbeat the officials into reviewing plays which it is THEIR JOB to review!  The first DID lead to a reversal of a Nebraska TD where the receiver dropped the ball.  The second did NOT lead to a reversal of a Chad Henne fumble when it very-well may have been an incomplete pass.  Regardless of the decisions, referee incompetence cost UM 2 TOs.  So, back to final possession (when then should have already been ahead, but never mind), UM SHOULD have taken over with about 30 seconds and 2 TOs or (more likely) about 1:45 and no TOs.  Either way, EVEN if they were not already leading, I'd bet on Michigan.  Besides, a game cannot end on a defensive penalty, right?  I can understand officials occasionally missing 12 men on the field, but 85 men on the field while the ball was still in play??!!  Legitimately, that game is still not over!

If the NCAA is really serious about corruption and gambling, they should investigate that officiating team.  And if, in fact that are NOT corrupt, my deepest sympathies to SunBelt Conference football players!  We ALL agreed (and remember, almost everyone else there HATES Michigan) that it was the WORST officiated game EVER.  That officiating crew should not be let near a Pop Warner game!

[augiedogie]

I wanted to post on the Mich Neb game last night but was too upset to think straight.  I agree that Nebraska had more points obviously, but as their coach said "I guess we won the game". Worst officials ever. From the very beginning of the game, when Michigan threw a pass in the endzone the back judge wouldn't call pass interference when the Michigan receiver was tackled before the ball got there.  A good minute later some other official threw the flag for the P.I. It was at the point that Herbstreit (can't get any more biased against Michigan) pointed out the officials had no place in that game.  At the end of the game, Herbstreit actually sounded like he liked Michigan.  At half time I called my good friend who was in Nebraska watching the game and I told her it's a shame that the refs are going to ruin what could be one of the better bowl games of the year. I told her I didn't know who would win, but the refs would play a major role in the outcocme of the game. We should be happy with the officials we have in the CCIW after watching what the Sunbelt officials did to that football game.

[augiedogie]

Does anybody else think it's odd that a kid that can run a 4.1 would attend a D3 school.  I know if I had the choice I would have attened USC over Mt. Union anyday (no disrepsect to Mt. Union) but seriously a D3 school over D1? Wouldn't the kid want to play for USC they are the "Mt. Union" of D1 football.

[reality check]

augiedogie

My question is do you think that "t-house" even knows what conference Mount Union plays in since he posted this in the CCIW room of all places, and then later reposted the same message in the OAC room. 

Also I google searched some stuff yesterday and it seems that this WR had a QB last year at Taft named Joshua Portis that just left U of Florida.  Portis wore #12 in hs.  T-house's email is joshuap12qb@....  Interesting.  I suspect Portis will also head to Mount Union because USC, Florida, Oregon, Mount Union are all in the same league.

[irish21]

Reality...I agree with you. The kid has USC, Oregon, Mississippi State and Arizona in his Top 5 and recently added Mt. Union?

I don't think so!

[79jaybird]

former and ypsi--  I agree that the officials were sub par for the magnitude of the matchup (Neb/Mich) two great football programs.
I am not a big Michigan fan, however I am a Big 10 fan over any other conf.
I think Lloyd Carr was screwed when he had to burn 2 timeouts just to get a controversial/close call reviewed.  A mature referee/staff would have taken a second look without Lloyd Carr having to use precious timeouts.
While it is nice having a football game on each night, I guess I prefer having the College Bowls on New Year's Eve/Day.  I think there are too many bowls.
Pat, when is the Pat Coleman Bowl?  
Some of these bowls i.e. insight.com  or mironpc  imo just don't belong.

[vikes35]

So a kid with 4.1 speed (still question that not being wind aided) is thinking about both USC and Mt Union, HAHA!!!! That shouldn't even be a choice, the only reason I can think of that he wants to play down at this level is that he wants to look so much better than any of the players he is playing against because he can accept failure, other than that it beats me why he would give up the chance to be a top notch RB at a D-1 school. Like they say the best people in anything are the ones who can risk failure to get reward, looks like this kid has mixed feelings about that statement.

I for one am an advocate of making sure the top 25 all get bowl bids and having what would have to obviously be 13 bowls games, but when a team can play a creampuff non-conference schedule of D-1AA and bottom-feeder D-1A schools (Bill Snyder at Kansas State knows what I am talking about) and then go 3-4 or 5 in their conference they do not deserve a bowl bid. For instance I know I am excited about watching another overrated Minnesota team who is 6-5 take on that powerhouse of a Virginia team that is 7-4 in today's Music City bowl. Wow they have 9 losses this year combined, USC (and I hate USC) hasn't had that many losses in 5 years. the bowl games are not so we can watch good football over the holidays they are solely for $$ and it is for that reason that we get dynamite matchups, like the Bowl game mentioned above. Wow I guess I wouldn't be a good bowl promoter after that preview, but hey the truth hurts and honest people know that.

[formerd3db]

vikes35:

Well, it does happen on a rare occasion - see my post on p.308 (#4605) on the OAC board regarding such a situation.  Hopefully, whatever the true situation is with this young man, he will get the guidance he needs from his support team and all others (without pressure or bias) to make the right decision for himself.

Also, you make some good points about the DI bowl games.  Yet, while I am not a Bill Snyder fan for some reasons (although I admire a few of the accomplishments he obtained for KSU), he did get them back to a competitive program from one of the losingest (if not the losingest at that time) programs in NCAA history.  If that takes playing some DIAA and "cream-puff" DIA teams to get it started, in part (i.e. to change attitudes, etc), then so be it.  Then you move on from there and start scheduling the tougher teams over time.  That's what I've always promoted as a potential choice for a program improvement at the DIII level for attempting to "get to the next level", whatever that may be at that particular time in that particular program's history.   Also, while I'm all for college football players getting a chance to experience a bowl game hopefully at least once in their career, like many of our colleagues here, I am not in favor of 6-5 teams getting bowl bids - that is ridiculous.   Just my further thoughts on this.

[79jaybird]

Vikes, I agree with you that the Bowls and (in general) Division 1 is all about $$ and greed.  Corporate sponsorships and materials that are removed from the heart.
It's not just Kansas St. (although Snyder is a ringer for it), but all major programs playing schools like  Middle Tennessee St., Prairie View A&M, etc. where it is so lopsided.
If I were making the call, I would say a minimum of 8 wins is needed for a bowl.  I would take a 7-3 team if there losses were to strong teams.
Formerd3db-- great point.  When I played at Elmhurst we were a team in need of development and yet we opened with Ripon ( moderately strong) and Ohio Wesleyan (who was ranked at the time).  If you're a program that is young and developing, I agree you have to start by playing teams at your level, to get the confidence up and put together a solid foundation.

[reality check]

vikes

That $$ game you talked about was a helluva contest this afternoon.  It was very enjoyable to watch.  I know that mediocre teams make it into the watered down bowl picture but there is still plenty of good games to see before the January bowls take place.  The Michigan/Nebraska game was certainly entertaining although the teams had forgettable seasons.  Cal/BYU, Memphis/Akron, ASU/Rutgers, Oklahoma/Oregon were all great games to watch.  

Are the teams elite?  No.  Are the games still good?  Absolutely.  It has been a very good bowl season so far in my opinion.

[formerd3db]

jaybird:

Thanks, although some people would not agree with us.  One other aspect for cosideration that I would "throw out there" (and again, there are some who would [will, do] disagree with me on this ), is that I see nothing wrong with a team playing one of the, shall we say "lower level" or lower division teams.  I think that it is a great experience for players, ON OCCASION, to be able to play against another division team for an occastional non-conference game - i.e. DIII playing against DII or even scholarship DIAA, or DIAA playing DI team.  Even if they lose by a big margin, the experience in many ways can be positive in some aspects (not to mention that perhaps once-in-a-lifetime chance/opportunity).  Conversly, among many other reasons as well, some would say that shouldn't ever occur.  I recall Joe Tiller of Purdue saying in recent years that the Big Ten schools shouldn't be playing MAC (or similar type) schools after his Purdue team lost to Toledo. He was just mad and embarrassed because they lost.  His reasoning by that standard was/is flawed because, if his team is so good (which they weren't this year obviously either! ) they should beat those teams always.  And we all know that doesn't always happen (recall Mich State vs. Central Mich in the early '90's).  Which supports my point of reasoning that there is nothing wrong with that - if the "lower" school wins, it is a great plus and experience for them, and if they lose, so what, it is expected by the bigger schools.  Besides, the latter schools will always have the better opportunity (or more opportunity) to go to a bowl game of some sort than the "lower" division  or "less talented" level programs.  All this a moot point perhaps, yet not ridiculous I would submit.