With the losses by both TAMU and UH, how does that affect our strength of schedule? I mean, it wasn't stellar to begin with, and today can't have helped.

(10-19-2013 07:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Auburn does beat A&M, as Manziel's drive at the end comes up short.

A&M hurt by a a blatant horse-collar non-call that would have put them in golden shape to win.

This was a very entertaining football game to watch, start to finish. I'm happy for Auburn, whose coaches prepared their team well, especially their defense, with multiple substitutions to enable them to be less tired in the 4Q and stop A&M at the end, proving them beatable.

There were calls that could have been made against both teams, but in the end, Auburn's well-coached and diciplined team overcame adversity to triumph.

Vanderbilt did a great job of hanging in there against a ranked Georgia team and came back to notch a victory over No. 13 Georgia 31-27 in Nashville. An entertaining football game to watch.

attendance: 40,350

(10-20-2013 01:21 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 07:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Auburn does beat A&M, as Manziel's drive at the end comes up short.

A&M hurt by a a blatant horse-collar non-call that would have put them in golden shape to win.

This was a very entertaining football game to watch, start to finish. I'm happy for Auburn, whose coaches prepared their team well, especially their defense, with multiple substitutions to enable them to be less tired in the 4Q and stop A&M at the end, proving them beatable.

There were calls that could have been made against both teams, but in the end, Auburn's well-coached and diciplined team overcame adversity to triumph.

I've always felt as if much of this preparedness comes from the fact that teams like this get twice as much work done in the practice time allowed by the NCAA. And, by twice as much work, I mean twice as much time.

(10-20-2013 12:39 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  With the losses by both TAMU and UH, how does that affect our strength of schedule? I mean, it wasn't stellar to begin with, and today can't have helped.

SOS only really mattered for us if we went undefeated or maybe had one loss.

The Washington State QB set a record with 89 pass attempts in last night's loss to Oregon. And the Oregon coach was livid at Mike Leach for keeping him in as long as he did (which seems to be a dangerous argument to preach when you constantly are faced with situations trying to figure out if you are running up the score against your opponents).

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ck-aliotti

(10-20-2013 08:41 AM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:39 AM)RiceFight Wrote:  With the losses by both TAMU and UH, how does that affect our strength of schedule? I mean, it wasn't stellar to begin with, and today can't have helped.

SOS only really mattered for us if we went undefeated or maybe had one loss.

Not totally true. In tie-breakers for the divisional championship or hosting of the C-USA championship game, BCS standings come into play.

Many scenarios exist for multiple 7-1 conference records. I hope those aren't needed for an 8-0 conference records for Rice. I would rather see us play the conference championship game at HRS rather than on the road at Marshall or East Carolina.

(10-20-2013 09:33 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The Washington State QB set a record with 89 pass attempts in last night's loss to Oregon. And the Oregon coach was livid at Mike Leach for keeping him in as long as he did (which seems to be a dangerous argument to preach when you constantly are faced with situations trying to figure out if you are running up the score against your opponents).
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ck-aliotti

This is the first time I can remember a winning coach accusing the losing coach of running up the stats. Complaints about attacking the victory formation sure, but not the losing team keeping its starters in.

A new low for Leach. RUDS. Pirate bastard.

In other news, I have another reason to hate Nike.

We still want Leach for Rice, though, don't we?

I think it is classy for the losing team to keep trying their best. I did not like Texas not trying the last extra point against Okllahoma last year when they were down 30+ points. It gave a message to their own fans that they were not trying anymore.

I don't blame Leach at all. Why not allow your QB a chance to set a new record!

(10-21-2013 09:45 AM)75src Wrote:  I think it is classy for the losing team to keep trying their best. I did not like Texas not trying the last extra point against Okllahoma last year when they were down 30+ points. It gave a message to their own fans that they were not trying anymore.

(10-21-2013 09:45 AM)75src Wrote:  I think it is classy for the losing team to keep trying their best. I did not like Texas not trying the last extra point against Okllahoma last year when they were down 30+ points. It gave a message to their own fans that they were not trying anymore.

Exactly. And I didn't get the complaint about not throwing with starters against what are essentially scout-team players. Why wouldn't you want them to be exposed to real competition?

(10-21-2013 12:09 PM)texd Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 09:45 AM)75src Wrote:  I think it is classy for the losing team to keep trying their best. I did not like Texas not trying the last extra point against Okllahoma last year when they were down 30+ points. It gave a message to their own fans that they were not trying anymore.

Exactly. And I didn't get the complaint about not throwing with starters against what are essentially scout-team players. Why wouldn't you want them to be exposed to real competition?

Because it hurts his defensive statistics which makes it (slightly) harder for him to get a head coaching job? That's about the only thing I can think of, and that's not what I would consider a legitimate reason. He should be thanking Leach for giving his back ups some actual experience instead of whining.

(10-19-2013 07:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Auburn does beat A&M, as Manziel's drive at the end comes up short.

A&M hurt by a a blatant horse-collar non-call that would have put them in golden shape to win.

Actually, maybe not that blatant a non-call. The defender got his other hand/arm around the around the right arm of the ball carrier (Manziel?). I have not seen the penalty called where there was another contact point besides the horse collar. I don't think the rule is written that way, and don't know if the interpretation guidelines say that or not. But I've only seen the penalty called when the horsecollar is the sole point of contact. And looking at where the referee was standing, and not able to determine the location of other officials, it's not clear that any offiical would have had a view that would have permitted the penalty to be called in that case.

Here is the rule, I don't recall the play well enough to know if it fits all the criteria or not..

Quote:Horse Collar Tackle
ARTICLE 15. All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside back collar of
the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling the ball carrier down. This does not apply
to a ball carrier, including a potential passer, who is inside the tackle box (Rule
2-34). Note that the tackle box disintegrates when the ball leaves it.

If the ref was right there to call it and chose not to, then yes, perhaps it wasn't a missed call.

(10-21-2013 05:07 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Here is the rule, I don't recall the play well enough to know if it fits all the criteria or not..

Quote:Horse Collar Tackle
ARTICLE 15. All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside back collar of
the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling the ball carrier down. This does not apply
to a ball carrier, including a potential passer, who is inside the tackle box (Rule
2-34). Note that the tackle box disintegrates when the ball leaves it.

If the ref was right there to call it and chose not to, then yes, perhaps it wasn't a missed call.

Thanks for the info. I think the "immediately" is probably the key word there. The defender clearly grabbed him there, but then grabbed the right arm with the other hand, and really wasn't bringing him down at all until the second hand was on the arm. From where the ref appeared to be, the second hand on the arm probably looked like what brought the ball carrier down, and that would appear not to violate the rule.

No question the defender had hold of the inside back collar/shoulder pad. The "immediately pulling the ball carrier down" part is where there would be a legitimate question. And that's why I think there was a no-call. That would also be consistent with what I've seen that in other cases, where if there were other points of contact then I've seen no calls.

I don't think it would have been egregious if it had gone the other way. But I do see where there was room to call it the way it was called.

(10-21-2013 02:03 PM)jh Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:09 PM)texd Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 09:45 AM)75src Wrote:  I think it is classy for the losing team to keep trying their best. I did not like Texas not trying the last extra point against Okllahoma last year when they were down 30+ points. It gave a message to their own fans that they were not trying anymore.

Exactly. And I didn't get the complaint about not throwing with starters against what are essentially scout-team players. Why wouldn't you want them to be exposed to real competition?

Because it hurts his defensive statistics which makes it (slightly) harder for him to get a head coaching job? That's about the only thing I can think of, and that's not what I would consider a legitimate reason. He should be thanking Leach for giving his back ups some actual experience instead of whining.

Contract incentives?

I wouldn't do what Leach did, but he certainly has every right to do it that way. I find Leach's position more justifiable than the Oregon coach's complaints.