One of my favorite conspiracy theories on the BT football boards

[Reality Man]

(some of them)...is that the BT conference is looking out for OSU and UM and Nebraska.

Now...this is funny stuff. Nebraska and UM have been dumpster fires for awhile now. Can you name more than 3 times in the past 5 years off the top of your heads where Nebraska or UM have gotten some breaks by officials?

If they have been granted calls then it hasn't done them much good. Sure hasn't been reflected in the overall record.

In fact...MSU has been the power along with Wisconsin & OSU in the Big Ten. Why would the BT conference have it out for their current # 2 program? Wouldn't it be the opposite? If MSU wins...then they are going to be the representative for the BCS just in case OSU loses.

Hack MSU in favor of Nebraska? Remember PSU fans were complaining that they were the new member of the BT but now a relatively new member in Nebraska is getting political calls/favors? Get MSU to lose so it benefits UM/OSU? Seems like if UM beats OSU then the Big Ten is left out in the cold because Iowa isn't getting into the final four.

My point is some MSU fans think they are still the little guy but in fact...they are one of the top dogs in the conference. If the BT wanted to hack MSU it would wait until the OSU game.


RM

 

[ThatsMrSpartan2U]

(some of them)...is that the BT conference is looking out for OSU and UM and Nebraska.

Now...this is funny stuff. Nebraska and UM have been dumpster fires for awhile now. Can you name more than 3 times in the past 5 years off the top of your heads where Nebraska or UM have gotten some breaks by officials?

If they have been granted calls then it hasn't done them much good. Sure hasn't been reflected in the overall record.

In fact...MSU has been the power along with Wisconsin & OSU in the Big Ten. Why would the BT conference have it out for their current # 2 program? Wouldn't it be the opposite? If MSU wins...then they are going to be the representative for the BCS just in case OSU loses.

Hack MSU in favor of Nebraska? Remember PSU fans were complaining that they were the new member of the BT but now a relatively new member in Nebraska is getting political calls/favors? Get MSU to lose so it benefits UM/OSU? Seems like if UM beats OSU then the Big Ten is left out in the cold because Iowa isn't getting into the final four.

My point is some MSU fans think they are still the little guy but in fact...they are one of the top dogs in the conference. If the BT wanted to hack MSU it would wait until the OSU game.


RM

As usual, RM, you are correct. There is no referee, conference conspiracy. Specifically, referees are fallible, human beings who get caught up in the intensity of games and are capable of "blinking" when having to make big calls (plays if you're a player or coach). The refs just couldn't make the big call when a big call was called for. The big call in Saturday's game would have been the right call. But they couldn't do it. I don't believe for a second that in the cool, quiet comfort of the locker room after the game...and watching the play on tape, that that ref...those refs...know they didn't make the right call. They know it. It is what it is.

 

[goblue31602]

As usual, RM, you are correct. There is no referee, conference conspiracy. Specifically, referees are fallible, human beings who get caught up in the intensity of games and are capable of "blinking" when having to make big calls (plays if you're a player or coach). The refs just couldn't make the big call when a big call was called for. The big call in Saturday's game would have been the right call. But they couldn't do it. I don't believe for a second that in the cool, quiet comfort of the locker room after the game...and watching the play on tape, that that ref...those refs...know they didn't make the right call. They know it. It is what it is.

You can say that all you want, but PSU fans will never believe they get a fair shake. I think the rest of us normal people know that there is no conspiracy though.

The refs also missed our long snapper getting bulldozed immediately on the infamous botched punt. He got trucked immediately and broke his thumb. Looking back, the refs will admit they missed that call, but that situation in that setting, we weren't going to get that call. I still can't believe they upheld the targeting call, and coincidentally it was the same replay reviewer as the MSU-Neb game.

 

[CaliforniaGreen1]

You can say that all you want, but PSU fans will never believe they get a fair shake. I think the rest of us normal people know that there is no conspiracy though.

The refs also missed our long snapper getting bulldozed immediately on the infamous botched punt. He got trucked immediately and broke his thumb. Looking back, the refs will admit they missed that call, but that situation in that setting, we weren't going to get that call. I still can't believe they upheld the targeting call, and coincidentally it was the same replay reviewer as the MSU-Neb game.

The targeting call was B/S and worse that it got upheld. On the long snapper rule, while he did get trucked, many people (including , after another poster clarified the rule, the writer at a favorite UM blog) disagree with your interpretation of the rule; MSU's defenders were NOT lined up directly opposite the center, but in the gaps on both sides of the center (trying to shoot the gap and block the punt); deliberately blowing up the long snapper is illegal; making contact with the long snapper is not:

Immediately after the snap, with Team A in an obvious scrimmage kick formation, noseguard attempts to “shoot the gap” between the snapper and the adjacent lineman. The initial legal contact is with the lineman next to the snapper. RULING: Legal. Incidental contact with the snapper after this initial legal contact is not a foul (Rule 2-15-10).

 

[ThatsMrSpartan2U]

You can say that all you want, but PSU fans will never believe they get a fair shake. I think the rest of us normal people know that there is no conspiracy though.

The refs also missed our long snapper getting bulldozed immediately on the infamous botched punt. He got trucked immediately and broke his thumb. Looking back, the refs will admit they missed that call, but that situation in that setting, we weren't going to get that call. I still can't believe they upheld the targeting call, and coincidentally it was the same replay reviewer as the MSU-Neb game.

I appreciate you're helping make my point. I think every program/fan base has many examples of referee bias or flat out incompetence. Dreadfulness knows no boundaries.

 

[goblue31602]

The targeting call was B/S and worse that it got upheld. On the long snapper rule, while he did get trucked, many people (including , after another poster clarified the rule, the writer at a favorite UM blog) disagree with your interpretation of the rule; MSU's defenders were NOT lined up directly opposite the center, but in the gaps on both sides of the center (trying to shoot the gap and block the punt); deliberately blowing up the long snapper is illegal; making contact with the long snapper is not:

Immediately after the snap, with Team A in an obvious scrimmage kick formation, noseguard attempts to “shoot the gap” between the snapper and the adjacent lineman. The initial legal contact is with the lineman next to the snapper. RULING: Legal. Incidental contact with the snapper after this initial legal contact is not a foul (Rule 2-15-10).

II. NCAA Rule 9-1-2-o

When a team is in scrimmage kick formation, a defensive player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second has elapsed after the snap (A.R. 9-1-2-XVIII-XX).

 

[goblue31602]

I appreciate you're helping make my point. I think every program/fan base has many examples of referee bias or flat out incompetence. Dreadfulness knows no boundaries.

Yeah, the refs have just been exceptionally bad this year. I feel like it's because they're using replay as too much of a crutch.

 

[CaliforniaGreen1]

II. NCAA Rule 9-1-2-o

When a team is in scrimmage kick formation, a defensive player may not initiate contact with the snapper until one second has elapsed after the snap (A.R. 9-1-2-XVIII-XX).

I know the rule - the key is "initiate contact" (you can't blow up the long snapper); the example/clarification I posted is why the penalty wasn't called (correctly).

 

[goblue31602]

I know the rule - the key is "initiate contact" (you can't blow up the long snapper); the example/clarification I posted is why the penalty wasn't called (correctly).

So blowing up a long snapper is not initiating contact? How on earth is immediately running over the long snapper not a penalty when you can't initiate contact with him for 1 second? The rule does not state where you have to line up, it simply states you can't initiate contact for 1 second. He was immediately bulldozed.

You're going to SERIOUSLY sit there and tell me that you believe that bulldozing the long snapper is "incidental contact" because the first person that guy touched was the guard next to the snapper? Take your green and white glasses off, man. The rule is in place to protect long snappers from exactly what just happened, he broke his damn thumb because he didn't even have time to get his head up and protect himself before he was trampled. We're talking about spirit of the rule here, you don't avoid the penalty by simply touching the guy next to him first.

 

[goblue31602]

I know the rule - the key is "initiate contact" (you can't blow up the long snapper); the example/clarification I posted is why the penalty wasn't called (correctly).

Also, props to you for forcing me to watch that play again. He hits Sypniewski before Cole (the guy next to him) touches him, so your explanation is bogus.

 

[michnittlion]

So blowing up a long snapper is not initiating contact? How on earth is immediately running over the long snapper not a penalty when you can't initiate contact with him for 1 second? The rule does not state where you have to line up, it simply states you can't initiate contact for 1 second. He was immediately bulldozed.

You're going to SERIOUSLY sit there and tell me that you believe that bulldozing the long snapper is "incidental contact" because the first person that guy touched was the guard next to the snapper? Take your green and white glasses off, man. The rule is in place to protect long snappers from exactly what just happened, he broke his damn thumb because he didn't even have time to get his head up and protect himself before he was trampled. We're talking about spirit of the rule here, you don't avoid the penalty by simply touching the guy next to him first.

That's the approved ruling. Most of these "approved rulings" only exist in the rule book because there was a similar situation in some previous football game and the rules as they stood were unclear. The "approved ruling" provides some clarity.

The defender wasn't lined up directly over the center, initial contact was with the LG and he was pushed into the Center. The play was fine, it is what it is.

Speaking of approved rulings, look up 7-3-6-15 if interested. Jason Avant's heel-toe in the 2005 game against Penn State wouldn't be a catch today. Based on that approved ruling that was introduced into the rule book in the late 2000s, it's been called a non-catch numerous times over the last 5+ years.

Of course, that approved ruling didn't exist in 2005, so the call in that 2005 game wasn't incorrect either.

Anyway, that's the whole point of "approved rulings", clarifying situations where there was originally no clarity. The refs got this one right.

 

[CaliforniaGreen1]

That's the approved ruling. Most of these "approved rulings" only exist in the rule book because there was a similar situation in some previous football game and the rules as they stood were unclear. The "approved ruling" provides some clarity.

The defender wasn't lined up directly over the center, initial contact was with the LG and he was pushed into the Center. The play was fine, it is what it is.

Speaking of approved rulings, look up 7-3-6-15 if interested. Jason Avant's heel-toe in the 2005 game against Penn State wouldn't be a catch today. Based on that approved ruling that was introduced into the rule book in the late 2000s, it's been called a non-catch numerous times over the last 5+ years.

Of course, that approved ruling didn't exist in 2005, so the call in that 2005 game wasn't incorrect either.

Anyway, that's the whole point of "approved rulings", clarifying situations where there was originally no clarity. The refs got this one right.

Thank you. As noted earlier, even the biased mgoblog analysis of the calls in this game agreed with you and me - there was no penalty here, based on the approved ruling.

 

[michnittlion]

Thank you. As noted earlier, even the biased mgoblog analysis of the calls in this game agreed with you and me - there was no penalty here, based on the approved ruling.

That mgoblog piece was among the most absurd things I've read in life --- even when not including "penalties" on the punt, U-M was "screwed" out of 24 points by the referees. 24 points! By their logic, U-M should have won by 26, something like 36-10!

I didn't watch the MSU/U-M game live, I only saw it on replay. While the refs struggled, I didn't see them being disproportionately bad for either side.

I guess it's easier to blame the refs than to blame who truly blew this one --- JIM HARBAUGH. (the mgoblog crowd has a particularly difficult time blaming Harbaugh for anything). No max-protect on the punt was ridiculous. U-M had MSU beat and then the head coach single-handily screwed it up.

 

[CaliforniaGreen1]

That mgoblog piece was among the most absurd things I've read in life --- even when not including "penalties" on the punt, U-M was "screwed" out of 24 points by the referees. 24 points! By their logic, U-M should have won by 26, something like 36-10!

I didn't watch the MSU/U-M game live, I only saw it on replay. While the refs struggled, I didn't see them being disproportionately bad for either side.

I guess it's easier to blame the refs than to blame who truly blew this one --- JIM HARBAUGH. (the mgoblog crowd has a particularly difficult time blaming Harbaugh for anything). No max-protect on the punt was ridiculous. U-M had MSU beat and then the head coach single-handily screwed it up.

Yep, I've seen a lot of posts like the ones in this thread incorrectly interpreting the one second rule, but nobody mentions that one second after the snap, UM had five or 6 guys (both gunners and most of their linemen who made only token blocks) heading downfield to tackle MSU's (non existent) returner.

 

[michnittlion]

Yep, I've seen a lot of posts like the ones in this thread incorrectly interpreting the one second rule, but nobody mentions that one second after the snap, UM had five or 6 guys (both gunners and most of their linemen who made only token blocks) heading downfield to tackle MSU's (non existent) returner.

That WR at the "top" of the punt turns around almost immediately.

I thought this prior ---- but some of the stuff I saw this Saturday (the Butt play, the rather bizarre 2 point attempt when already up 25 points) just strengthens my opinion ---- U-M wasn't in max protect because it was designed to be a pass play, a touchdown to "stick a knife in the heart of MSU."

Harbaugh tried the same stunt in a 2014 playoff game against Carolina. Up 23-10, 0:23 left, 4th down and with the ball. A fake! The punter passed the ball! Incomplete. But why?!?!?!?

No max-protect and a fake punt TD pass is cute if it works ......... it's the single worst coaching decision in college football in 2015 if it doesn't work. I'm completely confused why Harbaugh isn't criticized more for that one.

 

[Reality Man]

I'll tell you why because the punter didn't catch the ball. If the ball had been cleanly blocked by an unblocked defender then the conversation would be different.

None of the defenders that you reference either blocked the punt or picked up the ball. That is the problem..you are talking a hypothetical scenario that didn't play itself out.

It's the equivalent of scoring on a pass play on the last play and then criticizing the staff for not running the ball. You won regardless.

It's like saying you should have 5 glasses of beer instead of 8 shots of whiskey so your BAC level would have been different. You still got the drunk driving citation.

MSU was winning in any scenario based on O'Neil. Coulda should woulda. How about this example...why did MSU want to throw the ball again?...because they weren't going to make the fg. Would it make Spartan fans feel better to miss a 57 yard fg?



RM

 

[spoke8]

That WR at the "top" of the punt turns around almost immediately.

I thought this prior ---- but some of the stuff I saw this Saturday (the Butt play, the rather bizarre 2 point attempt when already up 25 points) just strengthens my opinion ---- U-M wasn't in max protect because it was designed to be a pass play, a touchdown to "stick a knife in the heart of MSU."

Harbaugh tried the same stunt in a 2014 playoff game against Carolina. Up 23-10, 0:23 left, 4th down and with the ball. A fake! The punter passed the ball! Incomplete. But why?!?!?!?

No max-protect and a fake punt TD pass is cute if it works ......... it's the single worst coaching decision in college football in 2015 if it doesn't work. I'm completely confused why Harbaugh isn't criticized more for that one.

You still upset about Jason Avant? LOL...and you'll get your chance to criticize JHarbs in a few weeks.

 

[michnittlion]

You still upset about Jason Avant? LOL...and you'll get your chance to criticize JHarbs in a few weeks.

Who said I'm upset? Evidently you missed the part where I said "that approved ruling didn't exist in 2005, so the call in that 2005 game wasn't incorrect."???

 

[spoke8]

Who said I'm upset? Evidently you missed the part where I said "that approved ruling didn't exist in 2005, so the call in that 2005 game wasn't incorrect."???

I did...the fact you are spewing out such garbage is ridiculous. Saying M tried to pass the ball? A right footed punter sliding right? Come with something stronger than that...your Harbaugh Envy is pitiful.

 

[michnittlion]

I did...the fact you are spewing out such garbage is ridiculous. Saying M tried to pass the ball? A right footed punter sliding right? Come with something stronger than that...your Harbaugh Envy is pitiful.

My "Harbaugh Envy"? Evidently you haven't seen me post here. I was one of the minority who advocated for Michigan hiring Harbaugh in January 2011!!!! U-M could have avoided the entire Hoke era!

Harbaugh's a great coach --- but not having "max protect" on that punt is both inexplicable and inexcusable. Harbaugh is solely to blame for that loss. Period.

 

[blue-boy]

You still upset about Jason Avant? LOL...and you'll get your chance to criticize JHarbs in a few weeks.

...didn't the toes touch before his heel makes contact w/ the turf. Never understood Penn "Staters" complaint on that one...just like the 2 seconds Carr got at home a few years later, especially after JoePA bitched about the clock earlier. One thing I got to admit...the Penn State fans I've met in Ann Arbor have always been a class act, BWI, not so much with the conspiracy theories.

 

[michnittlion]

...didn't the toes touch before his heel makes contact w/ the turf. Never understood Penn "Staters" complaint on that one...just like the 2 seconds Carr got at home a few years later, especially after JoePA bitched about the clock earlier. One thing I got to admit...the Penn State fans I've met in Ann Arbor have always been a class act, BWI, not so much with the conspiracy theories.

My complaint on the clock in that game is that the officials NEVER followed any sort of procedure in determining that "2 seconds" was the correct time to put back on the clock.

Watch the replay of the game --- the officials have a 30-45-second conversation with Carr and then immediately the ref announces "reset the game clock to :30." No official ever got on a headset to verify that number with anybody.

How exactly did the referees come up with that number? What procedure did they follow? I'd argue they followed no procedure, they just came up with the number "2" because, well, it seemed about right. It probably was "about right" --- but that's still not really the correct and procedural way to determine things.

 

[blue-boy]

My complaint on the clock in that game is that the officials NEVER followed any sort of procedure in determining that "2 seconds" was the correct time to put back on the clock.

Watch the replay of the game --- the officials have a 30-45-second conversation with Carr and then immediately the ref announces "reset the game clock to :30." No official ever got on a headset to verify that number with anybody.

How exactly did the referees come up with that number? What procedure did they follow? I'd argue they followed no procedure, they just came up with the number "2" because, well, it seemed about right. It probably was "about right" --- but that's still not really the correct and procedural way to determine things.

...not sure myself, I've got the game on DVD, maybe I ought to rewatch it, lol. I know Joe got his couple of seconds put on also...that's one of things I loved about it in the day, Carr got the extra time and that's why we won yet Joe got some time back too. Maybe the game would have been over....

 

[michnittlion]

...not sure myself, I've got the game on DVD, maybe I ought to rewatch it, lol. I know Joe got his couple of seconds put on also...that's one of things I loved about it in the day, Carr got the extra time and that's why we won yet Joe got some time back too. Maybe the game would have been over....

No need for the DVR, it's on YouTube. 2:39:45 mark.



As I said, 2 seconds probably was "about right" in terms of the time that should have been added.

But please explain to me HOW the officials determined 0:02 was the number?

Reviewing the tape? Conferring with the replay guys? Picking a number that "felt right"? Putting rand() into Excel and seeing the result?

 

[spoke8]

My "Harbaugh Envy"? Evidently you haven't seen me post here. I was one of the minority who advocated for Michigan hiring Harbaugh in January 2011!!!! U-M could have avoided the entire Hoke era!

Harbaugh's a great coach --- but not having "max protect" on that punt is both inexplicable and inexcusable. Harbaugh is solely to blame for that loss. Period.

Yep...Harbaugh Envy. Accusing him of a fake punt being in the works...punter dropped the ball, period. Juggernaut is coming pal...prepare for it emotionally. U obviously have many scars.

 

[michnittlion]

Yep...Harbaugh Envy. Accusing him of a fake punt being in the works...punter dropped the ball, period. Juggernaut is coming pal...prepare for it emotionally. U obviously have many scars.

OK, fine ..... I have "Harbaugh envy." You win. Is there some pill I can take to cure that? Is one of the pill's side effects the likelihood, when I'm playing Madden on the Playstation, of blowing a 2-point lead when I have the ball in opposing territory with 0:10 left in the game?

 

[pistol55]

My "Harbaugh Envy"? Evidently you haven't seen me post here. I was one of the minority who advocated for Michigan hiring Harbaugh in January 2011!!!! U-M could have avoided the entire Hoke era!

Harbaugh's a great coach --- but not having "max protect" on that punt is both inexplicable and inexcusable. Harbaugh is solely to blame for that loss. Period.

are you really that stupid? how was it not max protect? only one mich player went downfield on the snap. no msu player came clean. that punt had zero chance of being blocked. msu had given up. if you really watch it nobody made any great effort to block it. anything but dropping the ball michigan wins.

 

[CaliforniaGreen1]

are you really that stupid? how was it not max protect? only one mich player went downfield on the snap. no msu player came clean. that punt had zero chance of being blocked. msu had given up. if you really watch it nobody made any great effort to block it. anything but dropping the ball michigan wins.

Actually five UM guys are past the line of scrimmage shortly after the snap (the two gunners, #3, and 2 other linemen who barely block their guy). That's not what max protect look like, but UM WAS going to be in great position to stop the kick return (if state had a returner).

 

[michnittlion]

are you really that stupid? how was it not max protect? only one mich player went downfield on the snap. no msu player came clean. that punt had zero chance of being blocked. msu had given up. if you really watch it nobody made any great effort to block it. anything but dropping the ball michigan wins.

Mmm hmm.

I count 2 U-M players already past the first-down marker BEFORE the punter dropped the ball. MSU only has 1 player aligned that way.

So it's already 10 MSU guys against 9.

But of course U-M only has a 5-man line. So it's 10 MSU guys against 5. U-M actually did pretty good, in that the 5 lineman were able to engage 7 MSU defenders.

Of course, 10-7 is 3. 3 MSU guys still ran completely free. Not coincidentally, all 3 of those MSU guys were immediately upon the punter after the bobble.

Plus, all those MSU guys who completely ran free also created the condition for Watts-Jackson (who wasn't one of the 3 guys who ran completely free) to have a CONVOY down the sideline.

Look, it's alright to admit it. (1) Harbaugh is a great hire, but (2) Harbaugh completely screwed up coaching at the end of the MSU game. The 2 things above aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[spoke8]

Mmm hmm.

I count 2 U-M players already past the first-down marker BEFORE the punter dropped the ball. MSU only has 1 player aligned that way.

So it's already 10 MSU guys against 9.

But of course U-M only has a 5-man line. So it's 10 MSU guys against 5. U-M actually did pretty good, in that the 5 lineman were able to engage 7 MSU defenders.

Of course, 10-7 is 3. 3 MSU guys still ran completely free. Not coincidentally, all 3 of those MSU guys were immediately upon the punter after the bobble.

Plus, all those MSU guys who completely ran free also created the condition for Watts-Jackson (who wasn't one of the 3 guys who ran completely free) to have a CONVOY down the sideline.

Look, it's alright to admit it. (1) Harbaugh is a great hire, but (2) Harbaugh completely screwed up coaching at the end of the MSU game. The 2 things above aren't mutually exclusive.

You still haven't addressed your ridiculous comment that the play was supposed to be
a pass...but I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

 

[detroitjohn]

Watch the replay of the game --- the officials have a 30-45-second conversation with Carr and then immediately the ref announces "reset the game clock to :30." No official ever got on a headset to verify that number with anybody.

When you're slipping a quick Benjamin in the ref's pocket (yeah, our coaches know how to do illegal stuff and not get caught), there's no need to look at the replay.

Of course, UM fans might not deride your observation if it weren't set against the backdrop of absurd, nut-job conspiracy theories from PSU faithful between 1997 and 2007, including the all-time gem, "UM was holding excessively vs. PSU in 1999 and that is the only reason they won", (not the NFL Hall of Famer QB, not the NFL Hall of Famer lineman or the three other future NFL OL starters, UM wins only because holding that wasn't called).

 

[michnittlion]

When you're slipping a quick Benjamin in the ref's pocket (yeah, our coaches know how to do illegal stuff and not get caught), there's no need to look at the replay.

Of course, UM fans might not deride your observation if it weren't set against the backdrop of absurd, nut-job conspiracy theories from PSU faithful between 1997 and 2007, including the all-time gem, "UM was holding excessively vs. PSU in 1999 and that is the only reason they won", (not the NFL Hall of Famer QB, not the NFL Hall of Famer lineman or the three other future NFL OL starters, UM wins only because holding that wasn't called).

I'm not a PSU conspiracy theorist --- so your 2nd paragraph is irrelevant as far as any conversations with me.

As to your 1st paragraph, it is what it is --- the refs didn't appear to follow any sort of "procedure" in determining what amount of time to put back on the clock.

IMO, that's simply not good officiating. If you disagree and do view that as "good officiating", fair enough.

 

[michnittlion]

You still haven't addressed your ridiculous comment that the play was supposed to be
a pass...but I wouldn't expect anything more from you.

Well, short of giving Jim Harbaugh "truth serum" --- we'll never know.

As I've stated here going back to 2007, I love Harbaugh. No animosity. But if one is willing to be objective, you'd have to admit that there are at least reasons for suspicion:

(1) The gunner (why on Earth is he out there???) and him turning around rather quickly,

(2) Harbaugh's track record of calling fake punts in those sort of instances (the 2014 playoff game vs. Carolina),

(3) His track record of willingness for piling up the points against an opponent to show superiority over them. USC when he was at Stanford. Calling trick plays in the 4th quarter of the Orange Bowl against VT. Shoot, he was doing it vs. Rutgers on Saturday.

 

[Reality Man]

I get you. Are you saying Harbaugh is a jerk sometimes. Yes...I agree. Are you saying Harbaugh likes kick the c**p out of people who p*ss him off...I agree...You are right.

But for the love of God. I am begging you to understand this concept. Harbaugh could have gone max protect or Baxter or adjusted but all that being said....it did not matter. The punter dropped the ball and even if MSU had not returned the kick there probably would have been 2 or 3 seconds on the clock to try and kick a fg.

You see...in any hypothetical situation you want to come up with...the punter dropped the ball which led to the ball not getting punted. Even in your best case scenario (You come up with any scenario you want...max protect or this guy here or this guy there or this or that or coulda woulda should routine...the ball would be in the hands of MSU at about the 35-38 yard line or worse. That is the best case scenario. Even if your wildest max protect scenario..MSU is probably going to have the ball for a fg attempt.

That is the best case scenario for you. You are saying...Oh, look...UM would have been so much better off if MSU had the ball at the 30 yard line with 4 seconds left. Look...Harbaugh and Baxter made an error of enormous proportions. That is your argument right?

How about this one. If only Dantonio had taught his defensive back to tip up the ball so his teammates could grab the ball in the back of the end zone then MSU would have intercepted the ball and won and would have gone on to win a National Championship. This is bad coaching. The db wasn't taught to understand that he had help in the secondary but instead was taught to try and make the play himself.

Come on. You are smarter than this michnittlion. You are sounding like Brady Hoke and that is an insult.



RM

 

[michnittlion]

I get you. Are you saying Harbaugh is a jerk sometimes. Yes...I agree. Are you saying Harbaugh likes kick the c**p out of people who p*ss him off...I agree...You are right.

But for the love of God. I am begging you to understand this concept. Harbaugh could have gone max protect or Baxter or adjusted but all that being said....it did not matter. The punter dropped the ball and even if MSU had not returned the kick there probably would have been 2 or 3 seconds on the clock to try and kick a fg.

You see...in any hypothetical situation you want to come up with...the punter dropped the ball which led to the ball not getting punted. Even in your best case scenario (You come up with any scenario you want...max protect or this guy here or this guy there or this or that or coulda woulda should routine...the ball would be in the hands of MSU at about the 35-38 yard line or worse. That is the best case scenario. Even if your wildest max protect scenario..MSU is probably going to have the ball for a fg attempt.

That is the best case scenario for you. You are saying...Oh, look...UM would have been so much better off if MSU had the ball at the 30 yard line with 4 seconds left. Look...Harbaugh and Baxter made an error of enormous proportions. That is your argument right?

How about this one. If only Dantonio had taught his defensive back to tip up the ball so his teammates could grab the ball in the back of the end zone then MSU would have intercepted the ball and won and would have gone on to win a National Championship. This is bad coaching. The db wasn't taught to understand that he had help in the secondary but instead was taught to try and make the play himself.

Come on. You are smarter than this michnittlion. You are sounding like Brady Hoke and that is an insult.



RM

IMO, Harbaugh's primary job on that punt was to minimize the likelihood of disaster occurring. "Disaster occurring", after all, was the only way MSU was going to win the game.

Having one person who literally had no opportunity to block anybody didn't really help in that regard.

 

[Reality Man]

IMO, Harbaugh's primary job on that punt was to minimize the likelihood of disaster occurring. "Disaster occurring", after all, was the only way MSU was going to win the game.

Having one person who literally had no opportunity to block anybody didn't really help in that regard.

O.k. This whole debate is really not different than some UM fan blaming the roughing the center. Why? Because the ball still got to the punter. Disaster could have occurred a number of different ways but if your point is that the staff should have prepared for the ultimate disaster and then designed for the ball getting snapped over the head of the punter or it being returned then there is an offsetting variable which is now the block of the kick may be more likely.

Look...if you want to blame Harbaugh for 4% of the play...then maybe we can come to an agreement. I could blame Rudock for overthrowing the ball to Chesson or Higdon tripping on the field. I could blame Dantonio for calling another play with Cook or blame the zone defense and not the ref.

WE can play this blame allocation game all day long. The bottom line is MSU BEAT UM not because Bolden was ejected or this or that...it was primarily because a human being made a human mistake (punter) and the rest is history. You could replay that exact play and UM would succeed 98 out of 100 times.

If the punter drops the ball in the exact same scenario..with YOUR alignments...MSU could probably win that game 40% of the time. If that had happened and MSU kicked a fg...you would be on this board saying Harbaugh should have thrown on 3rd down or gone for it on 4th down (Hoke). He can't win.

I do honestly get your point but Harbaugh didn't care about protecting the left wide side because the punter was running away from the defenders. You see...you want him to defend something that occurs less than .001 % of the time. When was the last time he had a punter drop the snap?

If you told me as a UM fan that every game for the rest of eternity would come down to the last play...I would take it right now. Just like Duke or Ole MIss. Fluke stuff happens in sports. Where is the line that I sign that is dotted?


RM