so you agree with the statements? ok then.

i dont know what statements you are talking about but i do not agree that they hurt their case by beating stanford

2 posts up. are you being dumb on purpose?

agree/disagree with the above comments

1. You again keep acting like Okie State was playing a tomato can last night. They weren't. They were up against a Heisman runner-up QB and the #4 team in the country. Somehow you're acting vindicated by the fact that they didn't beat them by 28 or something.

2. A person who perpetually wants to use luckbox wins by Tebow when they suit his argument is not allowed to try to have it both ways when this comes up.

And again I have no idea why you even brought this topic back up when you got the matchup you wanted to get.

1. no i dont. i have no clue where you get this idea from. stanford is legit. i dont think i criticized them once all year. i wanted to see them get to MNC because luck is a baller

2. you can't compare how i evaluate 1 player to how i evaluate a team. apples and oranges.

I get this idea from the fact that you're trying to draw vindication from the fact that Okie State didn't completely boat race them. They won the game that they admittedly could have just as easily lost if Stanford's kicker didn't choke so horribly, but they legitimately went toe-to-toe with them for 59 minutes and you seem to be acting like they needed to win that game by 28+. I'm guessing that you're assuming that Bama would have.

This topic doesn't even come up last night without some innate disrespect for Stanford, does it? I mean I'll believe you when you say that you do respect them, but bringing this up doesn't even make sense to me otherwise.

All around a solid college football day. 3 OT game with Michigan State and Georgia, and then you get OT with Stanford and Oklahoma St. I think the Fiesta Bowl just proved that Oklahoma St. is a very good team, who could probably play well against Alabama, but they probably aren't good enough to play LSU.

In before LKJ Sugar Bowl rant.

Didn't watch. I usually don't bother with the BCS bowl involving the ACC champion, and I certainly wouldn't change that policy for Michigan.

Sounds like there was a screwjob in Michigan's favor though? That's what I'm picking up from Facebook. If so, that's unfortunate. Sports fans in that state should not have happiness. Hope the Lions get absolutely boatraced by New Orleans this week. Pretty sure Seattle made sure a year ago that New Orleans won't be overlooking a first round underdog again...

Yeah, VT got a TD catch in OT that was definitely a close call. Ruled a TD, and then the ref overturns it without really any conclusive evidence that it shouldn't have been a TD. Then all the Michigan fans on 2+2 act as if they are the best team. So gross.

The ball moved vertically when it made contact with the ground. That's never a catch.

Michigan is probably of the 5 best teams next year. That schedule blowwwws though.

lol, ok. It barely moved. Guarantee you that the ball moves that much on pretty much every catch where the receiver hits the ground. It's nearly impossible for someone to hold onto the ball so tightly that it won't move at least slightly when their arms hit the ground.

I agree that it moves on any catch where the receiver hits the ground. The difference with this one is the ground caused it, opposed to the receiver having it cradled or something.

it didnt seem like a catch to me. and i think there was enough evidence to overrule, although i can understand those who feel otherwise.

The play should've been a catch, otherwise you might as well call any catch going to the ground as a drop. You'll see that movement on any catch, and the ground didn't aid with catching the ball.

Yes, the ground didn't aid. It hurt. The ball was in his hands, but not cradled. If a hand isn't under the ball and the ground causes the ball to move, even a little, it's not a catch.

Just gonna copy the MGoBlog explanation since I've already stated my opinion.

Also,

http://mgoblog.com/content/picture-pages-was-it-catch

While that's the most conclusive evidence I've seen so far, I don't think it is enough because of the angle. Get that from the other side and see if it was hitting the ground and not his arm.

The real issue is why a catch has to be through the whole ground process. His elbow was down with the ball secured. That's all that should matter, not the entire motion.

The ball wasn't secured. It was in his forearms, not his hands.

lol wat

You don't need two hands to catch a ball, nor is that what defines a catch. Having it in your forearm means that you have the ball secured. People don't run with the ball in both their hands.

He also has his right hand around the ball, which means he has it secured.

People run with the ball cradled in their forearm, firmly controlled by their hand. There's a difference between that and catching a ball, so I don't understand why you're bringing that up.

You keep referring to the ball being secured. In order for it to be secured, wouldn't any outside force (the ground) not be able to move it? Watch the .gif over again. You say it's secured in his right hand, yet his right hand stays in the same position and the ball tilts after contact with the ground. That's not secured.

I finally looked at not only the gif but the replay. Gotta go with dye and disko on this one. Sucks because the receiver made a hell of an effort, but I do think that overruling the catch was proper.

Get Some

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXUphyeOjko

****ing bitch