The Pac-10 is SOOOOOOO overrated. Seriously, the Southeast United States will always have the best athletes.
Wat is so funny is that the teams in the rich, silver-spoon West always pump themselves up to be the best, but wind up getting their asses handed to them by the hard-working, blue collar teams from the South.
if you call a 3-point win getting your ass handed to you, then you obviosuly no nothing, and your points are invalid, why don't you go gnaw on some roadkill or something
0 credibility wrote:
you obviosuly no nothing,
ruh roh
Well, Oregon was a good team. The way they treated everyone else in their conference tells you a little something about the state of the Pac-10.
I agree with the OP - OVERRATED.
0 credibility wrote:
you obviosuly no nothing,
I'm so confused. Your grammar suggests SEC but your point suggests PAC-10.
200 meter king wrote:
...the Southeast United States will always have the best athletes.
Wat is so funny...hard-working, blue collar teams from the South.
Yes, the IQ level at the SCE indicates that all athletes are well prepared for life-long blue collar careers. White collar careers are too much of a brain stain for SEC athletes.
Most of the athletes in the SCE would not be allowed into college in any other conference. Other colleges and universities have academic integrity, not so the SCE.
Oregon took Stanford to the woodshed in their meeting this year. Stanford looked pretty dominating in the Orange Bowl so if you are somehow saying the Pac-10 is weak because Oregon dominated Stanford, then please explain what the outcome in Florida means.
For all the talk about how superior the SEC is to every other league, the Ducks showed the nation that the SEC is in fact not so superior as to be in a league of its own. One poorly executed tackle late in the game helped avoid OT.
Fairley was the difference IMO. He anchored an amazingly strong defense which didn't give up much yardage on the ground and except for a few big plays, was damn near impossible to break through, but the Ducks defense held strong and shut down Newton.
That was the type of game the BCS championship should be - close and down to the wire.
The late tackle had two errors:
1) The ref blew the call. It should have been obvious that the runner touched the ground. There was no way he could have floated off the ground. The ref should have called it down. The runner was too close to the ground, and too far over the tackler. A hand could not have held up the runner while he was move towards the ground that way.
http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/630917/2011-january-11-0-2-50.jpeg
2) The Oregon tackler should have not let go of the runner until he had him flat on the ground. But, since calls were going somewhat towards Auburn the tackler probably though he would called for a penalty by the ref.
200 meter king wrote:
The Pac-10 is SOOOOOOO overrated. Seriously, the Southeast United States will always have the best athletes.
Wat is so funny is that the teams in the rich, silver-spoon West always pump themselves up to be the best, but wind up getting their asses handed to them by the hard-working, blue collar teams from the South.
Shit Cal played Oregon tougher than Auburn. Oregon didn't play that well. Stanford had guys injured when they played UO in Eugene. Stanford's bad-ass offensive line would have matched up with Auburn's D-line much better, probably would have manhandled them and beaten them by 3 TDs.
Had the Oregon defense played to the whistle in that late 4th Quarter running play, instead of stopping. Who knows, they may have won.
Fairley can't even read or write. Guy has got to be one of the dumbest people ever.
the beauty contest system is a fraud
MW runna stunna wrote: Fairley can't even read or write. Guy has got to be one of the dumbest people ever.
Cam Newton and Fairley should take each others wonderlic test. Besides, who else would be dumb enough to take the test for them when they go pro?
The score was close, but did you watch the game? Apart from the scoreboard, where Oregon got a big play and a timely turnover, Auburn dominated the game. The vaunted Oregon rushing attack got about 75 yards. Their supposedly incredible ability to set tempo was completely taken away. And Auburn, despite playing far from a complete offensive game, racked up over 500 yards of total offense, about 50-50 running/passing. Oregon did not have a single sustained drive.
I don't like Auburn. But they were the better team by far.
tackle execution wrote:
The late tackle had two errors:
1) The ref blew the call. It should have been obvious that the runner touched the ground. There was no way he could have floated off the ground. The ref should have called it down. The runner was too close to the ground, and too far over the tackler. A hand could not have held up the runner while he was move towards the ground that way.
Incorrect. "Floated" off the ground is exactly what what he did. His knees never touched the ground. In fact they didn't even come close to touching. Bizarro situation, no doubt, but the call was obviously correct if you watch a decent quality replay from a few angles.
2) The Oregon tackler should have not let go of the runner until he had him flat on the ground. But, since calls were going somewhat towards Auburn the tackler probably though he would called for a penalty by the ref.
He should not have let go true. There's no penalty for that. If he didn't hear a whistle he should have held on.
No, you are incorrect. The rule is the not the knee only. Only hands and feet can touch the ground. Not a wrist or a knee or any other body part. The photo link clearly shows more than a hand (palm and fingers) was keeping him from touching the ground.
On the second point yes, the tackler did not seem to want to role the guy into the turf while rolling him head first. If another defensive guy was jumping on top the runner would have likely been hurt. That was not a good position to be in for the runner.
It's a good thing then that only his hand is on the ground and not his wrist. The refs made the correct call. Even on replay.
Hand = Fingers and palm, not wrist.
Exactly. Glad you agree
The wrist is in between the hand and forearm. I do know it is very easy to carry more weight by using your wrist, rather than your hand. It is also easy to have a wrist touch a surface but not the hand. It's definitely an advantage to be able to use your wrist. It doesn't seem whether the wrist is allowed to touch or not. It seems that is should be.
