No doubt it was a very very risky call, but it paid off. It takes some major balls to make the call. I think Peterson knew going toe to toe with OU in overtime isn't exactly in his favor, he went for the win and it ended up being one of the best finishes in Bowl history.
I said that every year people will complain about the Boise State's rankings and making BCS bowls over the Auburns or Cals of the world, and complain about mid-major teams making the NCAA basketball tournament over mid-level major conference teams, and every year people will be shocked by how well they do, and then by the next season they forget and repeat the process and claim that there's no way those schools could ever compete with the big boys. This March, you'll have people griping again that various midmajor teams shouldn't be there. And next fall, if a Boise or some other team goes undefeated, people will say they shouldn't get a BCS spot over some other team and they shouldn't be in the top 10 or whatever else.
Fair enough but in basketball that criticism is much more tempered now. People now have some respect for the Missouri Valley or the WAC which both proved that they belong in the tournament. Hell the expansion to 64 teams was in part a recognition of the power of mid-major conferences and a concerted effort to include them in postseason play. College football will eventually go through that process once mid-majors start proving that they belong. Proponents of the playoff now have additional support for their argument with Boise State and as more mid-majors crack the BCS, we'll see that a playoff is necessary not only because the BCS is a flawed system but also because mid-major conferences deserve their chance.
this win won't change much. what happens in a situation like this is a perfect storm of the Boise States of the world. You get a good team like Boise State who is well prepared playing against a team that wins a weak conference and doesn't want to be there. The powerhouse team barely shows up, still could have won after being clearly outplayed for most of the game and after a one point win, people say we need a playoff. If Ohio State was playing Boise STate, they would crush them, especially if a championship is on the line. IMO. I don't care if the Boise States and Utahs get in, but this win isn't evidence that we need a playoff imo. Its just that more mid major teams deserve a chance.
The stupidity of the BCS is the reason why we need a playoff. The fact that we get to see more matchups with mid-majors and major schools is a side-benefit. As I said, things start slow. This is a start. It will take several more wins by mid-majors over major schools before people even start thinking about this. And you'll need some more BCS screwups along the way. (which I guarantee will happen) Remember, the BCS only came up because the old system sucked even more and think about how long that took. People, thankfully, are more aware of the failures of the BCS and now are finally talking about including mid-majors. It will be a long, and difficult road but I see it happening eventually. This win just proved that the status quo blows and that a playoff would allow for more matchups like this because it opens the door to more mid-majors over the current BCS system.
Why is it that when a good team gets beaten by a supposedly inferior team, people say they didn't show up and didn't want to be there? It's understandable in some cases where there's real disappointment, but OU was *thrilled* to be in the Fiesta Bowl. With two weeks left in the season, they were looking at the Holiday Bowl. They just got beaten. As the announcers said, they got beaten physically at the line of scrimmage. Ultimately, BSU got worn down to some extent because of better athletes, but BSU outschemed and outcoached OU for most of the night. I agree here. If anything, the Auburn situation was the one that showed that a playoff needed to happen. If that didn't convince people, this certainly won't.
I never said it was the crazy, i said it was the best ending to a college football game. ive seen the play lots and lots of time. you can tell how big time it is by the announcer, watching it as a little kid, maybe four or five years old, i might not have completely understood what was going on, but i knew it was big time because of the stress and emotion in the announcers voice.
You can't fault the BCS; at least they (NCAA, writers, college football overall) are trying. If there's anyone in specific you can blame for a lack of playoff system or current (and further unknown) delay, blame Notre Dame. Blame the Rose Bowl. If they would've just stopped with their arrogant bull**** of "tradition" earlier, there might well be a playoff system today. The biggest fault of the BCS that I see is the prestige given to the non-Championship Game bowls. Because they're so important (good or bad), it hinders the feasibility of incorporating them into a playoff, which could lead to less money (sponsorships, etc.) for the organizers, cities, and teams. With the new BCS Championship Game, it does appear as if the Committee is attempting to crawl toward a playoff (especially with the deliberate one-week wait after the "second-tier" BCS games). The obvious trick is figuring out how to include all "qualified" teams. Eight is not enough, as evident in the addition of the 9th and 10th teams this year. Ten doesn't fit evenly, unless the top two seeds are given byes. Twelve may be too much, however gives more respect to mid-majors. Although with 12 teams lesser-tier games such as the Cotton Bowl, Chick-fil-a Bowl, Gator/Capitol One Bowl, or even the Jerry Jones Bowl could be given more prestige, attention, and $$$ with inclusion in the "BCS Tournament". ==== However, if it took 89 years for the NCAA to break up bowl tie-ins (creation of the Bowl Alliance) with no "true" champ, what's really going to change it? Here's a good question: From the NCAA and bowl committees' perspectives, why alter the BCS? It's making them million$, regardless of the criticism. That's reason #1 the NCAA is slow at progress towards a playoff. It sucks for the fan, but it's never felt more comfortable for the NCAA's pockets.
Even MORE money. Consider the audience for tonight's Wake Forest vs. Louisville game. How many people are really that interested in it? Now, consider if the winner played next week against USC or Ohio State or whatnot in a playoff. I think a whole lot more people would be watching it.
The evident fear from the cities not hosting the Championship Game is they may lose out on millions because it isn't "the big game," even though it may indeed lead to more money because there is so much at stake (chance to play for it all). However, as it is now, the BCS committees, and cities know that they are delivering a product that almost has the prestige of the title game. Granted, that may have been earned from reputation (see: Rose Bowl), but if it's a playoff, then it's not truly a "Rose Bowl Game," though they need to call it so for recognition. The fact that the Championship Game ISN'T the Fiesta Bowl, but instead "BCS Championship Game" is HUGE.
The announcers mentioned that Peterson felt that his team was tired and he needed to go for it but might OU have been tired also? Coaches often talk about playing a sound game. Going for two in the first OT isn't a sound move. It was a ballsy move and one that paid off fabulously but I can't help feeling that if Boise blew that play that the announcers would've called it a monumentally stupid move.
Really? I thought it was a no-brainer. Boise State was running on fumes on both sides of the ball and Oklahoma's offense had pretty much torn the BSU defense a new ******* the previous two possessions - they basically went down the field at will and converted three straight 2 point conversions. Call one play to score from two yards out....or hope that your D can make a stop (unlikely) AND that your offense can somehow score again when they barely made it the last few times. That's an easy choice, IMO. I sort of compare it to the Patriots when they beat the Rams in the super bowl in 02. The pats defense was done and couldn't stop the Rams in OT so they had to try to run the 2 minute drill to get an FG (and Madden went crazy about it and ended up looking idiotic). WHen you have a spent team, the conservative call is the wrong one. Making the game longer is inadvisable.
^ That's what I'm wondering about. At the same time though you also here coaches say that you don't want to do something that might give the game to the other team. It was a gamble that paid off but I would say it was far from obvious and there's been a lot of ballsy gambles that have never paid off and a lot of coaches who have been called idiots for taking those gambles.
There's been a lot of very long intersting articles about this (when the so -called "gutsy" call is really a higher percentage than the safe call) this year on Collegefootballnews.com. "Gambling" is in these days because coaches are beginnin to realize the gamble is actually the safe call despite what is supposedly conventional wisdom (should be noted that conventional wisdom was formulated in low-scoring, run oriented days)..
awesome fan reaction video (NSFW - LANGUAGE) <embed style="width: 400px; height: 326px; font-family: arial;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-7870097629332637022&hl=en" flashvars="">
Going for 2 instead of the tie - sound move. The announcers sensed it, everyone sensed the flow of the game dictated that'd be a good call. Boise got that far with risky calls already and had already gained so much from the game even if they'da lost. So why not be greedy and go for the kill when its there? The actual play call for the 2 - GUTSY, wildness. If it were a Mack Brown or Charlie Weiss on a 'regularly' run team doing that they'd get slammed bad. But Oklahoma was bewildered by the previous trick plays stoppingly hardly ANY so why go back to convention? It was almost a conservative call really since the previous success ratio was so good.
