Sunday, November 27, 2016

OSU 30, U-M 27 (2OT): Will JT ever reach the 15?

Of all the vitriol that swirled back and forth around the windy bowl of Ohio Stadium yesterday, one sentiment was agreed upon by scarlet-and-gray and maize-and-blue fans alike: these sure look like two of the best four teams in college football.

Nothing these two bitter rivals did would change their opinions, not even the bitter end. In a matchup as even as any you'll see in college football version 2016, #2 Ohio State and #3 Michigan slugged it out, balancing solid defense with sporadic bursts of offense.

The Wolverines dominated through the first three quarters but kept the Buckeyes in the game with devastating turnovers: the first a pick six Wilton Speight tossed from his end zone into double coverage in the second quarter; the second, another ill-advised throw that found the hands of linebacker Jerome Baker, whose return, neutral zone infraction on the following play and subsequent unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Michigan's frothing coach Jim Harbaugh gave Ohio State a first and goal at the three; and a mishandled snap by Speight on the Buckeye one-yard line that ended a sure touchdown drive.

Not to be outdone, OSU countered with an interception of their own and the shank of a 19-yard field goal by sure-fire kicker Tyler Durbin with seven minutes left in regulation.

Despite the generosity from both sides, no one pulled away and the fourth quarter ended in a 17-17 stalemate. As dominant as Michigan was early, Ohio was late, and the two teams stood after 60 minutes as dead as even can be. A mere three feet separated the teams in the total yardage battle, with the Bucks up 280 yards to 279. College football's greatest rivalry has seen tie games before, but neither the epic 1973 contest (where #4 Michigan controlled the game for the most part, holding top-ranked OSU without a single passing yard and missing two field goals in the final minutes) or the 1992 draw (a moral victory for the impressive 8-3 Buckeyes against the undefeated-yet-twice-already-tied Big Ten champs) was this close. Two teams at zero-degrees, top-dead center. One had to lose, yet neither should have.

And in the end, while Ohio State's Curtis Samuel scored the winning touchdown in the second overtime session, both teams still claim a form of victory. On the previous play, an all-or-nothing fourth-and-one gamble by gunslinging head coach Urban Meyer, senior quarterback J.T. Barrett rolled left and crashed into Michigan defensive end Chris Wormley just outside the 15-yard line. The side judge (who it was later revealed lives in Ohio) immediately called first down, without a measure. But nobody was sure he actually reached the 15. Replays seemed to indicate that he was short, but not enough for the crew to change the call and risk making it back to their cars.

Instead of saying there wasn't enough video evidence, the head referee (who was forbidden from working a B1G game for a year following several blown calls in a game at Purdue) proclaimed that "upon further review, the play stands as called." Two replays were shown to the crowd inside the Horseshoe; the first seemed to show him stopped short of the stripe, causing Buckeye fans around me to gasp and swear. One fan behind me felt resigned enough in defeat to shake my hand. When the call was upheld I turned to ask him how they could have arrived at that decision, missing Barrett's quick snap and the touchdown run that followed.

Meyer feigned a fainting spell on the sideline and even took a shot at the Michigan coach at his press conference, saying that his wife called and asked him to bring home a gallon of Jimmy's favorite drink, milk. In contrast, Harbaugh spent his presser ripping the referees for several blown calls, including a questionable interference penalty called on corner Delano Hill on a critical third and seven play during the Buckeyes' drive for the game-tying field goal in the final seconds. And, of course, the first down call at the 15 in overtime.

Harbaugh has a history of, well, we'll call it complaining, about officiating after games, as evidenced by his rant after Super Bowl 47 when a goal-line stand by the Baltimore Ravens aided by a questionable non-call of defensive pass interference stopped his San Francisco 49ers as time ran out. Ravens coach John Harbaugh spent his post-game as Super Bowl champion heaping praise on his younger brother, calling him the best football coach in America, while Jim complained about "the hold on Crabtree!" The difference in class was apparent then, and it was apparent on Saturday as well.

But now, it seems that maybe Captain Khaki has a point. First, regarding the fourth down run by Barrett. Michigan stops him and the game ends right there, with the Wolverines victorious. It is now 24 hours since the last gleeful scarlet and gray clad coeds left the field and returned to their off-campus housing, and I have yet to see a replay or even a still photograph that shows Barrett reaching the 15-yard line. The pics that OSU fans have been circulating, the "proof" they claim, consists of images taken from 10-20 yards behind the line of scrimmage, well behind J.T. The photos have been cropped and rotated so it appears to be an overhead photo of Barrett holding the ball over the yard stripe.

But uncropped versions show slanted hashmarks on the field and the forced perspective of a camera angle originating at midfield. Using the same logic, if he held the ball over his head, it would appear that he was in the end zone. If I'm far enough away from the John Hancock Building, I hold my fingers apart and make it appear four inches tall. But that doesn't make it so.

Besides, if Buckeye fans are forced to manipulate photographs to make it appear that Barrett gained the first down, doesn't that speak volumes as to whether he actually did or not?

Friday, November 11, 2016

Shouldn't 60-minute wins matter?

Most college football experts refer to the 1966 Michigan State-Notre Dame contest as the "Game Of The Century". I used to think it was because of the hype of #1 playing #2 more than the outcome, a 10-10 tie. But maybe I've been wrong all along.

Some of the biggest games over the last 100 years have one thing in common: the lack of a winner. Despite newspaper headlines to the contrary, Harvard didn't beat Yale 29-29. Despite not a single yard of passing offense, Ohio State was still seen as the more worthy Rose Bowl representative from the Big Ten after their historic 10-10 tie with previously unbeaten Michigan.

The tie score in the first example helped out the Fighting Irish tremendously--in fact, they ran out the clock the last two minutes to ensure it--as they ended up winning a national championship on the "strength" of their performance in East Lansing that afternoon. And although the tie was technically eliminated in the 1996 football season, playing another team even after four quarters doesn't affect a school's ranking in the polls the way it should.

Take a look at this week's polls on the day before the first College Football Playoff rankings are released. Three teams in the top 10, Clemson, Ohio State and Penn State, have wins on their schedule that were tie games after 60 minutes. In the case of the Clemson Tigers, they needed North Carolina State's kicker to miss a chip-shot 30-yard field goal with :03 left in regulation, holding hands on the sidelines and praying for a miracle that was beyond their control.

The fact that the poor kid pushed it wide and sent them to overtime, much less that they were dead to rites based on their performance that afternoon, should matter to the playoff committee. They've made it clear that lopsided blowout scores won't give a team a positive advantage. So what about the opposite? What about a team that couldn't win a game in 60 minutes?

It matters in other pro sports as well. The NFL has had two tie games already this season. And the NHL values ties to the extent that they occupy a column of a team's record. The New Jersey Devils currently have 13 points, based on five regulation victories (worth 2 points each) and three overtime losses (worth 1 point each). In their sport, an overtime win is the same as a regulation win. But awarding points for making it into the extra session was seen as essential enough component for teams fighting for postseason playoff position, that points are awarded to the losing team.

Look at it this way. In the era of the College Football Playoff, where the "experts" have devised an highly sophisticated system to figure out the four teams who will ultimately qualify, a school should be rewarded for not needing more than four quarters each week to get where they are. Imagine if you will, a world where overtime wins and losses were recorded. This week's CFP rankings could appear as follows:

1. Alabama 9-0
2. Michigan 9-0
3. Clemson 9(1)-0
4. Washington 9(1)-0
5. Ohio State 8(1)-1(1)
6. Louisville 8-1(1)
7. Wisconsin 7(1)-2(1)
8. Texas A&M 7(2)-2
9. Auburn 7-2
10. Penn State 7(2)-2
11. Oklahoma 7-2
12. Colorado 7-2
13. Oklahoma State 7-2
14. Virginia Tech 7-2
15. Utah 7-2
16. West Virginia 7-1
17. North Carolina 7-2
18. Florida State 6-3
19. Nebraska 7-2
20. USC 6-3
21. Western Michigan 9-0
22. Boise State 8-1
23. Washington State 7-2
24. LSU 5-3
25. Arkansas 6(1)-3

There are 12 games the top 25 teams played that required the additional play, 10 in the top 10 alone. It sure gives you a better impression of a team's "resume" doesn't it?

This is the big mystery about tie games in college football. Used to be that "(OT)" or "(2OT)" would appear next to these games, a delineation of just just overtime but the number of rounds of overtime that were needed to decide the contest. No one even identifies them any more. Not ESPN. Not CBS Sportsline. Not even NCAA.com. I compiled the above list by clicking on each team's site, scrolling through their schedules, finding games decided by 3, 6 or 7 points and reading the recaps.

Shouldn't beating a team without needing overtime matter? Particularly to a committee who claims to be about more than just wins and losses? The micromanagement of this sport is ridiculous. If the games a team's opponents play against their opponents matter, why wouldn't something as basic as a regulation tie factor into the equation?