Utah: they will lose to UNLV, @BYU, and @New Mexico. They finish 11-5 in conference, 20-10 on the season. They haven't been able to beat any significant competition on the road and the Pit and the Marriott Center are tough places to play anyway. UNLV, though they have struggled on the road against some teams, has won two big road games at Louisville and at BYU. They get up for the big game.
BYU: lose at UNLV, at San Diego State, beat Utah. I think they could win one of those two road games as they have been able to play those two teams tough in any venue (excluding last year's blowout in Vegas), but I don't see any reason to think they will actually will get over the hump this year. They finish 11-5 in conference, 23-7 on the year.
SDSU: lost at New Mexico (I would have predicted this had I got this done earlier, instead, I'll just report that they did lose this game), will beat BYU and UNLV at home. They finish at 12-4, 22-7 on the year. They are conference champs.
New Mexico: beat SDSU at home, will beat Utah at home, drop Wyoming on the road the last game of the year. They finish 11-5, 20-11. At 12-4, they might have had a SMALL chance at thinking of an at-large, but 11-5 puts them out of the mix: NIT, here we come.
UNLV: beats BYU tonight, wins at Utah, loses at SDSU. They finish 10-6 (with two losses to SDSU), 22-8. Payback comes in the tournament, where they will knock off New Mexico, SDSU, then Utah in the championship game to take home the automatic bid. At 25-8 with a win at top-10 Louisville and two regular season wins against both BYU and Utah (two likely NCAA tournament teams) with a third win against Utah in the MWC championship game puts them in much better shape for the tournament than most projections have them.
MWC tournament predictions: I already said UNLV beats Utah for the title. I think Utah edges BYU in round 2, assuming that Wyoming and TCU both go quietly in the first round (either of those teams is capable of upsetting BYU or Utah in the first round). San Diego State and UNLV are too evenly matched for San Diego State to win 3 out of 3 games against them.
The MWC in the Tournament: I think if what I have predicted holds, there is a chance that 4 teams get in. The regular season conference champion has never not made the tournament, so San Diego State would get a de facto auto-bid. UNLV gets the actual auto-bid. Then the decision comes down to Utah and BYU. While I think it unlikely that both would actually get in, it would be so difficult to choose between them as in my estimation they would be essentially equivalent by the time the season ends. Trying to predict what happens in a room full of people I don't know three weeks from now and thousands of miles from here is impossible for me at this time. So I will just say that the committee does view them as equal, as I do, and lets both of them in: UNLV getting an 8 or 9-seed, Utah with a 10, BYU with an 11, and SDSU with a 12. New Mexico goes to the NIT where they win any home games they get and drop the first road contest. Maybe Wyoming gets in to the CBI, if that thing is still around this year...any Ute fans aware of the fate of that tournament?
There you have it. I'll try to keep you posted on the actual happenings and my thoughts on what it all means in the larger scheme. I would like to point out that the MWC is actually in the discussion this year. They are getting more respect this year than I can ever remember (same as football). I don't know if this will hold or not, but a little success in the Big Dance and it may move from a traditional two-bid league (with an occasional third) to a traditional three-bid league (with an occasional fourth).
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MWC Bubble Watch
Utah (10-2, 19-7):
Losses-SW Baptist, @Idaho State, California, @Oklahoma, @Utah State, @San Diego State, @UNLV
Good wins-Gonzaga, LSU, BYU, New Mexico, San Diego State
Down the stretch-UNLV, @BYU, @New Mexico
Thoughts-they played a great out of conference schedule and fared pretty well against top-notch competition. The early season losses to SW Baptist and at Idaho State are inexplicable, but they seem to have righted the ship. They have yet to notch a win against a quality opponent on the road.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win 3 more games, or don't lose 4-5 more games.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they get knocked out of the first round of the MWC Tourney or if they drop their final 4 regular season games.
BYU (8-3, 20-5):
Losses-vs. Arizona State, Wake Forest, @New Mexico, UNLV, @Utah
Good wins-vs. Utah State, San Diego State, New Mexico
Down the stretch-@UNLV, @SDSU, Utah
Thoughts-they are no longer invincible at home, which gives Utah a good chance to come in and steal a game. They have played well of late, but the competition hasn't been as good as it was when they were struggling. They haven't notched any good wins outside of the state of Utah. They fell short in 3 potential statement games: ASU, Wake, and UNLV, which has been a trend that, unfortunately, extends into the NCAA Tournament.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win at least 1 of their big three remaining, and win at least one game in the MWC Tourney.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...New Mexico wins the conference tourney or they lose @UNLV, @SDSU, and home against Utah.
SDSU (8-3, 18-6):
Losses-Arizona State, @Arizona, vs. St. Mary's, @Wyoming, @BYU, @Utah
Good wins-Utah, New Mexico, @UNLV
Down the stretch-@New Mexico, BYU, UNLV
Thoughts-they have nothing positive in the non-conference schedule, losing all three tough games out-of-conference. The win @UNLV was important, especially if they can hold serve at home against BYU and UNLV: that'd put them at 3-1 against conference opponents who have played in the NCAA Tournament each of the last 2 years. Their schedule lines up to give them a legitimate shot at winning the regular season MWC championship.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win the regular season championship or finish second while adding two wins in the conference tournament.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they finish 3rd or lower in the conference or if they finish 2nd and don't make it to the MWC Championship game.
New Mexico (7-4, 16-10):
Losses-yes, frequently, at home, on the road, or on a neutral court, doesn't matter if it's a quality or pitiful opponent
Good wins-BYU, UNLV
Down the stretch-SDSU, Utah
Thoughts-they have too many losses to be a tournament team. Their only big wins have come at home, in conference. I am surprised at how well they have played this year, but, at the same time, I'm shocked at some of their losses. Even if they win out down the stretch (this would, at worst, give them a share of the conference championship), they still probably can't make a case for an at-large bid. I think the game @Wyoming will be too much to handle for the Lobos.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win the conference tournament. Period.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they don't win the conference tournament.
UNLV (7-5, 19-7):
Losses-California, Cincinnati, @TCU, @CSU, SDSU, @New Mexico, @Wyoming
Good wins-Arizona, @Louisville, New Mexico, BYU
Down the stretch-BYU, @Utah, @SDSU
Thoughts-they sure can get up for the big games on the road (@Louisville, @BYU), but can't beat some bottom-of-the-packers in the Mountain West away from the Thomas & Mack (TCU, CSU, Wyoming). Because the tournament is in Vegas on their home court, not winning it would be held against them more so than other MWC teams.
They get in the Big Dance if...they don't lose any more games to non-top-50 RPI teams and win 2 games against top-50 teams. Let it be said, I think they will win the conference tournament and get in that way...
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they lose early in the conference tournament or drop two more regular season games.
I'll put my predictions up for final standings, etc. Friday night or Saturday morning prior to the start of any MWC games.
Losses-SW Baptist, @Idaho State, California, @Oklahoma, @Utah State, @San Diego State, @UNLV
Good wins-Gonzaga, LSU, BYU, New Mexico, San Diego State
Down the stretch-UNLV, @BYU, @New Mexico
Thoughts-they played a great out of conference schedule and fared pretty well against top-notch competition. The early season losses to SW Baptist and at Idaho State are inexplicable, but they seem to have righted the ship. They have yet to notch a win against a quality opponent on the road.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win 3 more games, or don't lose 4-5 more games.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they get knocked out of the first round of the MWC Tourney or if they drop their final 4 regular season games.
BYU (8-3, 20-5):
Losses-vs. Arizona State, Wake Forest, @New Mexico, UNLV, @Utah
Good wins-vs. Utah State, San Diego State, New Mexico
Down the stretch-@UNLV, @SDSU, Utah
Thoughts-they are no longer invincible at home, which gives Utah a good chance to come in and steal a game. They have played well of late, but the competition hasn't been as good as it was when they were struggling. They haven't notched any good wins outside of the state of Utah. They fell short in 3 potential statement games: ASU, Wake, and UNLV, which has been a trend that, unfortunately, extends into the NCAA Tournament.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win at least 1 of their big three remaining, and win at least one game in the MWC Tourney.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...New Mexico wins the conference tourney or they lose @UNLV, @SDSU, and home against Utah.
SDSU (8-3, 18-6):
Losses-Arizona State, @Arizona, vs. St. Mary's, @Wyoming, @BYU, @Utah
Good wins-Utah, New Mexico, @UNLV
Down the stretch-@New Mexico, BYU, UNLV
Thoughts-they have nothing positive in the non-conference schedule, losing all three tough games out-of-conference. The win @UNLV was important, especially if they can hold serve at home against BYU and UNLV: that'd put them at 3-1 against conference opponents who have played in the NCAA Tournament each of the last 2 years. Their schedule lines up to give them a legitimate shot at winning the regular season MWC championship.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win the regular season championship or finish second while adding two wins in the conference tournament.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they finish 3rd or lower in the conference or if they finish 2nd and don't make it to the MWC Championship game.
New Mexico (7-4, 16-10):
Losses-yes, frequently, at home, on the road, or on a neutral court, doesn't matter if it's a quality or pitiful opponent
Good wins-BYU, UNLV
Down the stretch-SDSU, Utah
Thoughts-they have too many losses to be a tournament team. Their only big wins have come at home, in conference. I am surprised at how well they have played this year, but, at the same time, I'm shocked at some of their losses. Even if they win out down the stretch (this would, at worst, give them a share of the conference championship), they still probably can't make a case for an at-large bid. I think the game @Wyoming will be too much to handle for the Lobos.
They get in the Big Dance if...they win the conference tournament. Period.
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they don't win the conference tournament.
UNLV (7-5, 19-7):
Losses-California, Cincinnati, @TCU, @CSU, SDSU, @New Mexico, @Wyoming
Good wins-Arizona, @Louisville, New Mexico, BYU
Down the stretch-BYU, @Utah, @SDSU
Thoughts-they sure can get up for the big games on the road (@Louisville, @BYU), but can't beat some bottom-of-the-packers in the Mountain West away from the Thomas & Mack (TCU, CSU, Wyoming). Because the tournament is in Vegas on their home court, not winning it would be held against them more so than other MWC teams.
They get in the Big Dance if...they don't lose any more games to non-top-50 RPI teams and win 2 games against top-50 teams. Let it be said, I think they will win the conference tournament and get in that way...
They get left out of the Big Dance if...they lose early in the conference tournament or drop two more regular season games.
I'll put my predictions up for final standings, etc. Friday night or Saturday morning prior to the start of any MWC games.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Next up: Bubble Watch
But first:
Today is an historic day in my hometown. Today is the day where the immediate future of "4 million" displaces the long-term future of 400 million. Today Barack Obama descends on Denver to sign the Declaration of Dependence. Today is a great day for Democrats. Tomorrow will be a bad day for all Americans.
When Barack Obama took the oath, most of us wondered what we were going to get. Some braced for the worst, some hoped for the best. After a few weeks in office, here is what we know about him.
He has the ability to redefine words.
Bipartisanship: convincing Republicans they are wrong and Democrats are right. Example: "Mr. President, what have you learned about the lack of bipartisanship associated with this stimulus bill?" "There are a lot of bad habits in Washington."
Bad habits: voting conservatively, or against Democrats. Example: we need to change those bad habits.
Change: making everyone else's viewpoints align with Barack Obama's.
Open to good ideas from anybody, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat: listening to anybody who validates your own personal viewpoint. Example: I will listen to good ideas, but don't talk to me about tax cuts, don't talk to me about doing nothing, don't talk to me about how the stimulus spends too much money. Hey, Mr. President, those are 3 good ideas, I thought you were open to those.
Unanimous, or nearly unanimous: everyone that I don't ignore because they disagree with me agrees with me. Example: it's nearly unanimous among economists that this stimulus is a good idea. Ignore the letter sent to you in January with the signature of over 300 economists and universities that state it is a bad idea. Ignore the Wall Street Journal. Ignore the market response. Just because a few economists on both sides say it is a good idea, does not mean all economists feel this way.
He can contradict himself numerous times without being called on it.
After predicting doom and gloom and eternal, spiralling-downward depression if the stimulus bill does not pass he says later: I am an eternal optimist. Bravo. No one caught on.
He says that he will not fund things that do not work. He emphatically states that tax breaks do not work: these are the failed policies that got us into this mess (because they were Republican ideas). Shortly before that, he praised his own efforts to ensure that tax breaks/relief would come to hard-working Americans as a result of the bill and talked about how much this will help. 35% of the stimulus is tax cuts, so, Mr. Obama, you are throwing away $275 billion into a failed policy, while championing Democrats for their great idea of giving money to the people (i.e. those tax cuts Republicans have been talking about). I would also like to point out, if you make a lot of money you are not a hard-working American, only people who don't make much work hard.
"Companies that receive tax-payer funds should not be hosting conventions in Las Vegas." The president (who receives nothing but tax-payer funds-hopefully) can take his entire entourage most of the way across the country just to sign a bill that was placed on his desk in Washington. Oh, and Americans should turn their thermostats down to conserve energy, but Mr. President's house can be a balmy 82 degrees.
"The stimulus bill is urgent and must be passed immediately, without debate/delay." However, once it is ready for the president's signature, a couple of days is no big deal. If you ask me, a couple of days to discuss the bill are better spent than a couple of days waiting for a signature (when it is too late to remove horrible provisions and wasteful spending). According to Democrats' forecasts, the 4 days between passing and signing cost the economy 77,000 jobs (since they said every day we lose about 20,000 jobs!).
"The government is the only entity with the resources to stimulate the economy." Really, are you paying cash for this? You are borrowing EVERY penny of this money. You do not have the resources. If I ran my house the way Obama is set on running his, I wouldn't be able to get a loan for a pack of gum.
Specific data or research are not required, blanket statements should not be questioned, and if I talk about one person who is struggling, it is representative of the entire country.
"This bill will create (and recently he added "or save") 3-4 million jobs." How? In what industries? Also, if you create a job in renewable energy you have displaced a worker in non-renewable energy. What does that guy do? Just because you give a construction company money to do a project, does not mean they will hire anybody new. Even if they did, maybe a 5', 110 pound woman who lost her job won't be able to get a job tossing around concrete, steel bars, etc. Even if this creates 3-4 million jobs, that's a cool quarter million per job. How much are we paying these people?
"I have heard there are people questioning whether or not FDR did the right thing. They are fighting battles that I thought were decided a long time ago." Yes, silly people who actually look at data to determine the validity of a policy enacted by the Democratic-controlled government, how dare they! America is the only country that calls it the Great Depression, because we were in it longer than everybody else (because our government tried to fix it and just prolonged it).
"This is the worst economic crisis since the great depression." In what way? The unemployment rate now: just over 7%. The unemployment rate during the great depression ranged anywhere from 13-23%. Yeah, 7% is horrible! Most countries in the world would love to only have 7% unemployment, especially countries like Japan, whose government has been trying for 20 years to enact the right "stimulus" unsuccessfully. The biggest difference between the 1930's and 2009: during the great depression people were looking for jobs, today, people are looking for handouts.
This is the change he told us about in the campaign, without any specifics. I believe it, I believe he will bring change, I just don't believe in it.
Today is an historic day in my hometown. Today is the day where the immediate future of "4 million" displaces the long-term future of 400 million. Today Barack Obama descends on Denver to sign the Declaration of Dependence. Today is a great day for Democrats. Tomorrow will be a bad day for all Americans.
When Barack Obama took the oath, most of us wondered what we were going to get. Some braced for the worst, some hoped for the best. After a few weeks in office, here is what we know about him.
He has the ability to redefine words.
Bipartisanship: convincing Republicans they are wrong and Democrats are right. Example: "Mr. President, what have you learned about the lack of bipartisanship associated with this stimulus bill?" "There are a lot of bad habits in Washington."
Bad habits: voting conservatively, or against Democrats. Example: we need to change those bad habits.
Change: making everyone else's viewpoints align with Barack Obama's.
Open to good ideas from anybody, conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat: listening to anybody who validates your own personal viewpoint. Example: I will listen to good ideas, but don't talk to me about tax cuts, don't talk to me about doing nothing, don't talk to me about how the stimulus spends too much money. Hey, Mr. President, those are 3 good ideas, I thought you were open to those.
Unanimous, or nearly unanimous: everyone that I don't ignore because they disagree with me agrees with me. Example: it's nearly unanimous among economists that this stimulus is a good idea. Ignore the letter sent to you in January with the signature of over 300 economists and universities that state it is a bad idea. Ignore the Wall Street Journal. Ignore the market response. Just because a few economists on both sides say it is a good idea, does not mean all economists feel this way.
He can contradict himself numerous times without being called on it.
After predicting doom and gloom and eternal, spiralling-downward depression if the stimulus bill does not pass he says later: I am an eternal optimist. Bravo. No one caught on.
He says that he will not fund things that do not work. He emphatically states that tax breaks do not work: these are the failed policies that got us into this mess (because they were Republican ideas). Shortly before that, he praised his own efforts to ensure that tax breaks/relief would come to hard-working Americans as a result of the bill and talked about how much this will help. 35% of the stimulus is tax cuts, so, Mr. Obama, you are throwing away $275 billion into a failed policy, while championing Democrats for their great idea of giving money to the people (i.e. those tax cuts Republicans have been talking about). I would also like to point out, if you make a lot of money you are not a hard-working American, only people who don't make much work hard.
"Companies that receive tax-payer funds should not be hosting conventions in Las Vegas." The president (who receives nothing but tax-payer funds-hopefully) can take his entire entourage most of the way across the country just to sign a bill that was placed on his desk in Washington. Oh, and Americans should turn their thermostats down to conserve energy, but Mr. President's house can be a balmy 82 degrees.
"The stimulus bill is urgent and must be passed immediately, without debate/delay." However, once it is ready for the president's signature, a couple of days is no big deal. If you ask me, a couple of days to discuss the bill are better spent than a couple of days waiting for a signature (when it is too late to remove horrible provisions and wasteful spending). According to Democrats' forecasts, the 4 days between passing and signing cost the economy 77,000 jobs (since they said every day we lose about 20,000 jobs!).
"The government is the only entity with the resources to stimulate the economy." Really, are you paying cash for this? You are borrowing EVERY penny of this money. You do not have the resources. If I ran my house the way Obama is set on running his, I wouldn't be able to get a loan for a pack of gum.
Specific data or research are not required, blanket statements should not be questioned, and if I talk about one person who is struggling, it is representative of the entire country.
"This bill will create (and recently he added "or save") 3-4 million jobs." How? In what industries? Also, if you create a job in renewable energy you have displaced a worker in non-renewable energy. What does that guy do? Just because you give a construction company money to do a project, does not mean they will hire anybody new. Even if they did, maybe a 5', 110 pound woman who lost her job won't be able to get a job tossing around concrete, steel bars, etc. Even if this creates 3-4 million jobs, that's a cool quarter million per job. How much are we paying these people?
"I have heard there are people questioning whether or not FDR did the right thing. They are fighting battles that I thought were decided a long time ago." Yes, silly people who actually look at data to determine the validity of a policy enacted by the Democratic-controlled government, how dare they! America is the only country that calls it the Great Depression, because we were in it longer than everybody else (because our government tried to fix it and just prolonged it).
"This is the worst economic crisis since the great depression." In what way? The unemployment rate now: just over 7%. The unemployment rate during the great depression ranged anywhere from 13-23%. Yeah, 7% is horrible! Most countries in the world would love to only have 7% unemployment, especially countries like Japan, whose government has been trying for 20 years to enact the right "stimulus" unsuccessfully. The biggest difference between the 1930's and 2009: during the great depression people were looking for jobs, today, people are looking for handouts.
This is the change he told us about in the campaign, without any specifics. I believe it, I believe he will bring change, I just don't believe in it.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Signing Day Notes
Supposedly this is a big day because you find out where the best players are going, and who got the best recruiting classes. Yada, yada, yada. Here are a few thoughts on the recruiting hype. I will break down a few teams' signees later (maybe only BYU's), but for now:
First: the best recruits don't always make the best players. Sometimes a kid just develops earlier than others but, after 2 or 3 years of college, others catch up. Also, a lot of blue-chippers are treated like gods in high school, in recruiting, and sometimes early in their collegiate careers. These false idols often don't have the same work ethic or brain capacity as other recruits and may not improve as much as their lower-rated cohorts.
Second: the star system is biased. If a kid is recruited by better schools (or more schools), it is assumed that he will be a better player and he receives a higher star rating. If a kid "commits" as a sophomore to one school, he is recruited by fewer schools, or none at all, and receives a lower star rating.
Third: academics or off-the-field problems can weed out the top of a lot of recruiting classes. Again, being treated as idols they don't always work hard in the classroom, have the best attitudes, or know how to avoid stupid situations. Some of that just comes with being an 18-year old boy, some of that comes from being told you are a 4 or 5 star recruit.
Fourth: the number of recruits is often as important as the quality of them. Sometimes a warm body is better than no-body. A team can develop depth if they have people to work with, but you can't develop a back-up if you don't have enough players at the position. A two-star recruit back-up is usually better than a walk-on (aka, former ZERO star guy).
Fifth: the best classes don't always make for the best teams. For all of the reasons stated above, and adding the coaching element, the teams that get the best recruits aren't always the best teams. However, going the other way, the one common thing among the best teams are getting great recruits. A good recruiting class doesn't guarantee success, but it doesn't hurt.
First: the best recruits don't always make the best players. Sometimes a kid just develops earlier than others but, after 2 or 3 years of college, others catch up. Also, a lot of blue-chippers are treated like gods in high school, in recruiting, and sometimes early in their collegiate careers. These false idols often don't have the same work ethic or brain capacity as other recruits and may not improve as much as their lower-rated cohorts.
Second: the star system is biased. If a kid is recruited by better schools (or more schools), it is assumed that he will be a better player and he receives a higher star rating. If a kid "commits" as a sophomore to one school, he is recruited by fewer schools, or none at all, and receives a lower star rating.
Third: academics or off-the-field problems can weed out the top of a lot of recruiting classes. Again, being treated as idols they don't always work hard in the classroom, have the best attitudes, or know how to avoid stupid situations. Some of that just comes with being an 18-year old boy, some of that comes from being told you are a 4 or 5 star recruit.
Fourth: the number of recruits is often as important as the quality of them. Sometimes a warm body is better than no-body. A team can develop depth if they have people to work with, but you can't develop a back-up if you don't have enough players at the position. A two-star recruit back-up is usually better than a walk-on (aka, former ZERO star guy).
Fifth: the best classes don't always make for the best teams. For all of the reasons stated above, and adding the coaching element, the teams that get the best recruits aren't always the best teams. However, going the other way, the one common thing among the best teams are getting great recruits. A good recruiting class doesn't guarantee success, but it doesn't hurt.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Big Game
The commercials stunk. They were full of animals, some animals kissing each other or humans. A lot of strangeness. I liked the Doritos commercial with the Sno-Globe with Magic 8-ball abilities. Nice. A grown man getting hit in the nuts never gets old.
Now the game: that was good. Some will call it a classic. I call it gobblety-gook. It didn't look like a a Super Bowl. It was a great game, as far as late-game lead changes, but it wasn't great as in the two best teams duking it out to claim the title of champions of the world.
Interesting to point out about the game for you BYU fans out there: two of the biggest plays of the game directly involved BYU players. If you watch the replay of the game-winning TD reception by Santonio Holmes, close behind him, though not close enough, was Aaron Francisco desperately trying to push him out before he got his two big toes down. Then, the game-clinching Kurt Warner "fumble" (which I believe was a fumble, but I might have pulled the trigger and at least reviewed it to be sure) was recovered by former BYU DT Brett Keisel.
Ute players involved in the game: you may have heard EVERYBODY talking about how good Big Ben is at using his feet to keep a play alive. No he is definitely not a Ute. However, one very key player to allow him to deserve this praise was starting LG Chris Kemoeatu, former Ute. He committed only one holding penalty that I can remember in the game, and he and the rest of the O-line ensured that Roethlisberger had to run for his life the rest of the game. They sure made a hero out of him and Santonio Holmes. He also helped to anchor the line that opened up holes all day (for the Cardinal D to get through) to the tune of 2.2 yards per carry.
Go Cougars!
Now the game: that was good. Some will call it a classic. I call it gobblety-gook. It didn't look like a a Super Bowl. It was a great game, as far as late-game lead changes, but it wasn't great as in the two best teams duking it out to claim the title of champions of the world.
Interesting to point out about the game for you BYU fans out there: two of the biggest plays of the game directly involved BYU players. If you watch the replay of the game-winning TD reception by Santonio Holmes, close behind him, though not close enough, was Aaron Francisco desperately trying to push him out before he got his two big toes down. Then, the game-clinching Kurt Warner "fumble" (which I believe was a fumble, but I might have pulled the trigger and at least reviewed it to be sure) was recovered by former BYU DT Brett Keisel.
Ute players involved in the game: you may have heard EVERYBODY talking about how good Big Ben is at using his feet to keep a play alive. No he is definitely not a Ute. However, one very key player to allow him to deserve this praise was starting LG Chris Kemoeatu, former Ute. He committed only one holding penalty that I can remember in the game, and he and the rest of the O-line ensured that Roethlisberger had to run for his life the rest of the game. They sure made a hero out of him and Santonio Holmes. He also helped to anchor the line that opened up holes all day (for the Cardinal D to get through) to the tune of 2.2 yards per carry.
Go Cougars!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)