Va. Tech vs. Michigan

Surprised the lovers and the haters have not started something about this game. I enjoyed the game but I did not enjoy it as much as Oregan-Wisconsin and Stanford-Oklahoma State, Those two games spoiled me. Anyway, I felt the td pass was called back in OT was in fact incomplete...the nose of the ball looked like it hit the ground and moved. Good game but of course Hokie fans felt they got robbed and to me it looks like every time the QB from Michigan threw the ball, he was like a little kid throwing a beach ball...."Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" catch it!!!!!!

Im not a Tech fan but I dont hate them. From a neutral standpoint: The ball was touched the turf, therefor by rule makes it an incomplete pass, ALSO another reason why it was incomplete, the ball was moving as Coale slide out of bounds. The rule states a player must have complete control and the ball must not touch the ground, both were broken makingvit an incomplete. Deep inside Tech fans know it was the right call. Just to sum things up, im not a UT fan either.

Oh btw, tech fans, blame Beamer, remember the dumbass call on 4th and 1 around mid field that set up another score for Mich? Thats what lost the game, not the OT. Be glad you were within 21 of that bunch.

Lucky to stay within 21? Heck VT should have been up by 21 before the half if not for the usual choke job by the O coaches. Going into the shell in the red zone. And the Coale catch was a td. His left elbow touches the ground 1st with the ball in his right. I've seen much worse called a catch. Then again, if it had been ruled an incomplete I couldn't argue if the booth hadn't overturned it. That was one of those calls that could have gone either way.

Thats a steal picture, he was bobbling the ball, meaning NO possession. End of story Hokie Pokie Chokies

Just to let you know a loss, especially a field goal loss in OT, is not automatically equal to a choke. Last year's Orange Bowl? THAT was a Choke because they let Stanford run all over them.

VT offense executed better than Michigan. Only problem is they couldn't score a td in the red zone and had to settle for FGs (4/5 in the whole game from a 3rd stringer). 3 of Michigan's scores came from key VT miscues, without which Michigan would not have rallied. The score should have probably already been VT 21-0 before the Michigan rally. Also, what led to the UM rally was VT's roughing the kicker on the punt. Then VT fumbled the following kick off, leading to a U of M field goal.

VT really should have won and I'm not arguing the OT call regarding the catch nor am I agreeing with it. With how their offense executed most of the game, they should have won and many Michigan fans I know agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collegetrumpet2010

Just to let you know a loss, especially a field goal loss in OT, is not automatically equal to a choke. Last year's Orange Bowl? THAT was a Choke because they let Stanford run all over them.

VT offense executed better than Michigan. Only problem is they couldn't score a td in the red zone and had to settle for FGs (4/5 in the whole game from a 3rd stringer). 3 of Michigan's scores came from key VT miscues, without which Michigan would not have rallied. The score should have probably already been VT 21-0 before the Michigan rally. Also, what led to the UM rally was VT's roughing the kicker on the punt. Then VT fumbled the following kick off, leading to a U of M field goal.

VT really should have won and I'm not arguing the OT call regarding the catch nor am I agreeing with it. With how their offense executed most of the game, they should have won and many Michigan fans I know agree with me.

---

I dont think you understand what choking is, in sporting terms.
VT did not choke v. Stanford, they got the shit beat out of them and embarrassed on the field.

VT did choke v. Michigan because they gave away a game they should have won, i.e. choking.

VT shouldn't be too upset, they lost in a bowl they had no business in and didn't deserve, I thought they'd get blown out of the place...but losing like that was actually funnier to see.

Yeah nothing against VT, at least they can make a bowl unlike the boys across the state line. Cough cough tennessee.

Anyways, Roll Tide!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gchs_devils

Yeah nothing against VT, at least they can make a bowl unlike the boys across the state line. Cough cough tennessee.

Anyways, Roll Tide!

---

Disclaimer: This is probably going to open up a huge can of worms...but what the heck...
If VT were in the SEC, I'd doubt we'd have to worry about seeing them in any bowl games either. Hokie fans, feel free to disagree, but until you do something about your candyass schedule and actually play and beat a team worth anything, you won't have much of an argument.

Well 1 Virginia is Stomping some ass. Has a West In front of the name. Damn!!!! What happend to Clemson? I missed most of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeJones

Well 1 Virginia is Stomping some ass. Has a West In front of the name. Damn!!!! What happend to Clemson? I missed most of it.

---

Andre Ellington was going in to score from short yardage, but lost the ball. WVU took it 99 yards for a TD, and proceeded to score like 43 unanswered points.

I know I was away for like 20 or 30 min and that involved halftime. All hell musta broke lose

Tavon Austin thats what happened. The is legit!

And VT cant hang with the big boys of the SEC. Teams like UT, UK, and Vandy suck and should be kicked out of the SEC and let Tech and anyone else who wants to give it a shot In

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gchs_devils

Tavon Austin thats what happened. The is legit!

And VT cant hang with the big boys of the SEC. Teams like UT, UK, and Vandy suck and should be kicked out of the SEC and let Tech and anyone else who wants to give it a shot In

---

Holy Geez SMH

What stripes? You know its true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gchs_devils

The ball was touched the turf, therefor by rule makes it an incomplete pass, ALSO another reason why it was incomplete, the ball was moving as Coale slide out of bounds. The rule states a player must have complete control and the ball must not touch the ground, both were broken makingvit an incomplete.

---

Actually that's not true. Here is the rule

"Eligible A80 is airborne when he receives a legal forward pass. He
grasps the ball firmly in his hands, and as he is returning toward the
ground, the nose of the football touches the ground before any part of
his body. A80 retains his firm control of the ball and it does not move
during this action. A80?s knees then touch the ground and he maintains
control of the ball. RULING: Completed pass."

Here is the catch:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/846244/catch.gif

The nose of the ball touches the ground but he does not bobble in any way. The elbow comes down in bounds. The call on the field was correct, and overturned for no reason. But honestly you can make a legitimate case for either side. Since that is the case, the call on the field should not have been overturned because there was not indisputable video evidence to change it.

I'm not that delusional though. It definitely shouldn't have come down to that play. As usual in big games, VT made numerous mistakes (on and off the field). But the fact of the matter is it did come down to that play, and I believe that was the wrong decision.

The ball does move in his hand. Not much but a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1inStripes

The ball does move in his hand. Not much but a little.

---

And not only that, but the moment the ground helps him to complete the catch (ball touches ground, moves closer to Coales body), it's an incompletion...as the ground can't assist you in making a legal reception. It's in his hands up and down, point of the ball hits, moves the the point of the ball into his elbow. Had the ball hit the ground and not moved in his hands--that would have exhibited complete control of the football, and a legal reception, but it did indeed move and the ground aided him in securing the football.

I'll give you a large scale scenario to illustrate: say you're my WR and I'm the QB. you're 10 yards away from me. I only get the ball 5 yards, but the ball bounces off the ground and up into your hands, allowing you to secure the ball. Is that a legal reception? No. That's what happened here on a much smaller/faster scale.

the ball shifts. its plain as day. more of the ball was below his grip, then when he lands the ball moves upward in his grip. GREAT CALL! Should of made the FG afterwards and then it would of went into double OT more than likely

Was an ok game like I have said earlier...both teams were not that good and certainlly not BCS worthy and the QB's were horrible IMO but I still feel that Boise State deserved to be at one these BCS games and felt they got ripped off. Fan base talks though I guess. I think Boise would have beat either Michigan or Va. Tech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slobber Knocker

Was an ok game like I have said earlier...both teams were not that good and certainlly not BCS worthy and the QB's were horrible IMO but I still feel that Boise State deserved to be at one these BCS games and felt they got ripped off. Fan base talks though I guess. I think Boise would have beat either Michigan or Va. Tech.

---

I agree that Boise had a good team. But according to BCS rules they were not eligible for a BCS bid. They A) didn't win their conference B) their conference champion wasn't eligible.

Well you all must know more about officiating than the Supervisor of ACC Officials. He doesn't have a clue why it was overturned.

From roanoke.com

ACC official wants call at end of Sugar Bowl explained

From his vantage point in front of a high-definition television set in Miami, site of Wednesday night's Orange Bowl game between West Virginia and Clemson, ACC supervisor of football officials Doug Rhoads was watching intently as the Sugar Bowl went into overtime.

Virginia Tech had the ball first and appeared to score a touchdown on a pass from Logan Thomas to Danny Coale. Or, at least a touchdown was signaled.

There was a delay as the play was reviewed by a replay official assigned by the Pac-12. Rhoads doesn't know if he saw the play from every camera angle, but he saw multiple shots.

"I understood why they went to replay because it was a scoring play and it certainly met the criteria for being reviewed, but based on the replays I saw, I did not see indisputable evidence to overturn it," Rhoads said. "That's probably all I can say at this point.

"I thought the play would stand."

When the decision came down from the replay booth, the referee said the pass had been ruled incomplete because Coale did not maintain possession of the ball after hitting the ground.

Virginia Tech missed a subsequent field-goal attempt before Michigan converted a field goal for a 23-20 Wolverines' victory.

Rhoads said he emailed the Pac-12 supervisor of officials shortly after the game and expects an interpretation that first will be shared with ACC commissioner John Swofford. As of late afternoon Wednesday, Rhoads' email had not been answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

VT shouldn't be too upset, they lost in a bowl they had no business in and didn't deserve, I thought they'd get blown out of the place...but losing like that was actually funnier to see.

---

Now that is a stupid post. VT had as much right in the game as Michigan. Take away VT's loss in the ACCCG to make all things equal as UM didn't even make their title game and you have an 11-1 VT PLUS VT was ranked ahead of UM in the BCS. So in fact UM shit someone out of the Sugar.

While I'll readily admit that the Hokies choked the game away, they beat the dog shit out of UM all night long. 56 yards rushing and 184 totals yards by UM. Shoelaces 13 carries 13 yds. The VT coaches should apologize to the VT fans and players for giving the game to UM because the game should have been over long before OT. But this is what I've come to expect.

To defend VT being in that game is what is stupid, they had the easiest schedule in the country, it was a complete joke...they didn't deserve to sniff a BCS game. Look at their wins - Appy State, East Carolina, Ark St., Marshall, Miami, Wake, BC, Duke, UNC, UVA - their only halfway decent win comes against an 8-5 GT team, they get embarrassed by Clemson TWICE. I never said anything about Michigan, just because another mediocre team made it doesn't mean they deserved to be there anymore. They were by far the most overrated team in a BCS game, give them a schedule that's modestly more difficult and they're struggling to make it into a bowl game period. There's no need for them to apologize, they lost a game everyone but VT fans were expecting them to lose. For them to have the numbers they did against Michigan, yet still lose shows how sorry they are. It's not like they led the whole game and just pissed it away at the end. They lead 6-0 at the end of the first, they're losing 10-6 at halftime, losing 17-9 at the end of the 3rd, they manage to tie it up twice in the 4th to lose in OT. VT had better numbers, but Michigan controlled most of the game on the scoreboard and finished it. VT didn't give anything way, they just played exactly like the sorry team they are the whole game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

To defend VT being in that game is what is stupid, they had the easiest schedule in the country, it was a complete joke...they didn't deserve to sniff a BCS game. Look at their wins - Appy State, East Carolina, Ark St., Marshall, Miami, Wake, BC, Duke, UNC, UVA - their only halfway decent win comes against an 8-5 GT team, they get embarrassed by Clemson TWICE. I never said anything about Michigan, just because another mediocre team made it doesn't mean they deserved to be there anymore. They were by far the most overrated team in a BCS game, give them a schedule that's modestly more difficult and they're struggling to make it into a bowl game period. There's no need for them to apologize, they lost a game everyone but VT fans were expecting them to lose. For them to have the numbers they did against Michigan, yet still lose shows how sorry they are. It's not like they led the whole game and just pissed it away at the end. They lead 6-0 at the end of the first, they're losing 10-6 at halftime, losing 17-9 at the end of the 3rd, they manage to tie it up twice in the 4th to lose in OT. VT had better numbers, but Michigan controlled most of the game on the scoreboard and finished it. VT didn't give anything way, they just played exactly like the sorry team they are the whole game.

---

Well, since you are the genius, who would you have put in the game to play the mighty, all deserving UM team? Who did they beat that left them so deserving? 9-4 Nebraska? Or Notre Dame? Or maybe it was the Western Michigan win that got them over the top? Eastern Michigan, or SDSU? Michigan wasn't any more impressive than VT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC-1

I agree that Boise had a good team. But according to BCS rules they were not eligible for a BCS bid. They A) didn't win their conference B) their conference champion wasn't eligible.

---

Yeah, but Kansas State was eligible. And I think K-State would have beaten either VT or Michigan pretty badly. They're heavily underrated...Bill Snyder coming back to the head coaching spot for them turned them into a winner quicker than anyone else thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

Yeah, but Kansas State was eligible. And I think K-State would have beaten either VT or Michigan pretty badly. They're heavily underrated...Bill Snyder coming back to the head coaching spot for them turned them into a winner quicker than anyone else thought.

---

True, KSU did have a pretty good team. They played OSU close, but their wins are no better than UM/VT and the only comparison is they and VT both played the Canes with similar results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC-1

True, KSU did have a pretty good team. They played OSU close, but their wins are no better than UM/VT and the only comparison is they and VT both played the Canes with similar results.

---

After K-State beat the Canes, I followed them pretty closely for the rest of the season...and while VT was limping towards the end of their season (save for the UVA beatdown), K-State only seemed to get stronger. They only had one bad loss on the year, and that was at home against Oklahoma before they took a nose dive (58-17 was the score on that one). Their only other loss was on the road that next week to Okla State, and that was only by a TD in a shootout.

Just face it--the reason why Kansas State didn't get the nod over VT or Michigan for the Sugar Bowl was because of the fanbases and anticipated TV revenues. VT/Michigan was a sexier matchup for those two reasons than either VT/Michigan vs. K-State, and that's why VT and Michigan got into the game over them.

But, then again, VT and Michigan getting into BCS eligibility only because K-State wasn't a good enough draw, Boise didn't win their conference on a missed last second FG, and Arkansas not being eligible due to 2 SEC teams in the BCS title game...that's what I kind of have to call backing into a BCS payday due to a series of technicalities. Neither team truly deserved to be there, if you go by what teams were ranked ahead of them, and what most folks eyeballs will tell you are better teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

After K-State beat the Canes, I followed them pretty closely for the rest of the season...and while VT was limping towards the end of their season (save for the UVA beatdown), K-State only seemed to get stronger. They only had one bad loss on the year, and that was at home against Oklahoma before they took a nose dive (58-17 was the score on that one). Their only other loss was on the road that next week to Okla State, and that was only by a TD in a shootout.

Just face it--the reason why Kansas State didn't get the nod over VT or Michigan for the Sugar Bowl was because of the fanbases and anticipated TV revenues. VT/Michigan was a sexier matchup for those two reasons than either VT/Michigan vs. K-State, and that's why VT and Michigan got into the game over them.

But, then again, VT and Michigan getting into BCS eligibility only because K-State wasn't a good enough draw, Boise didn't win their conference on a missed last second FG, and Arkansas not being eligible due to 2 SEC teams in the BCS title game...that's what I kind of have to call backing into a BCS payday due to a series of technicalities. Neither team truly deserved to be there, if you go by what teams were ranked ahead of them, and what most folks eyeballs will tell you are better teams.

---

Oh, I don't disagree at all as to why VT/UM got the Sugar. The bowls are about TV and bringing in the cash. I was surprised as heck VT got the bid fully expecting the Chick. We both back into the Sugar for all the reasons above. IMO there could have been other matchups but for stipulations keeping them out. But who's gonna turn down millions? What's really needed is a playoff 8 or 16 teams. 16 preferred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

VT didn't give anything way, they just played exactly like the sorry team they are the whole game.

---

I hope you don't consider this an unbiased statement. That is about the single dumbest comment I have read about the game. Yeah, move the ball well most drives and convert on third and long all night and when you get to the 5 yard line your coach decides to do conservative play calling having to settle for field goals and make a comment like that.

Goodness you have to be one the most biased people on here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC-1

Well, since you are the genius, who would you have put in the game to play the mighty, all deserving UM team? Who did they beat that left them so deserving? 9-4 Nebraska? Or Notre Dame? Or maybe it was the Western Michigan win that got them over the top? Eastern Michigan, or SDSU? Michigan wasn't any more impressive than VT.

---

I never said UM was almighty, but they were more deserving than VT without a doubt. ND was a solid, solid win, ND underperformed all year but it's not like they were bad...they blew the Michigan game right after they blew the So. Florida one, USC, Stanford in the regular season - beat Mich. St. A play here and there and ND is playing in a BCS game easily, but they didn't deserve to under performing. If VT would had ND's schedule, they're probably playing in the Pizza Bowl. VT got in there because of an incredibly weak schedule, they are slightly over mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by collegetrumpet2010

I hope you don't consider this an unbiased statement. That is about the single dumbest comment I have read about the game. Yeah, move the ball well most drives and convert on third and long all night and when you get to the 5 yard line your coach decides to do conservative play calling having to settle for field goals and make a comment like that.

Goodness you have to be one the most biased people on here.

---

Biased? What bias? I'm not some UT fan or UVA fan that makes me hate VT, they are just a sorry team. Yeah, blame it on the coaches when they commit 3 TO's, rack up 7 penalties, can only score more than one 1 td out of FIVE TIMES in the red zone, wasn't a couple of them inside the 5 yard line? I'm biased in some areas of course, that's evident when I only post on certain topics and usually defend/condemn a certain side.... that doesn't mean what I say is false or in any way untrue. And I have no biasness against VT, I just thought it was ridiculous teams like them get to play in a BCS bowl with such a cupcake schedule and their fans hype them up. There are cases where a team is really good and happens to have an easy schedule as well, but in 3 of the 4 'tough' games they had this year, they lost. Why would I think that they are any better than average/slightly above? Those 11 wins don't prove it and they blew three chances to prove to people like me that they were just one of those really good teams that had an easy schedule. It's not being biased when it's truth, they're not that good, hate to burst that bubble VT fans(though I thought Clemson did that twice and UM just did it, figured it might have sunk in).

Again, while VT led in most stats, they didn't control the game...UM never lost the lead after they went up 7-6 towards the end of the first half. They extended it, then VT caught up mid-way in the 4th, only for UM to take another lead and VT tying it up again with a few seconds left. It's not like VT was had this big lead and just blew it, UM was the one that had the multiple-score lead and VT had to rally back. So what's so dumb about that comment? They played exactly like non-VT fans expected them to, poorly, because they were a vastly overrated team.

1) A BCS game shouldnt let anyone but conference winners play
2) Frank Beamer is an idiot for the 4th down call
3) The ACC is a joke (2-6 in Bowls this season)
4) What the hell is Hokie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gchs_devils

1) A BCS game shouldnt let anyone but conference winners play
2) Frank Beamer is an idiot for the 4th down call
3) The ACC is a joke (2-6 in Bowls this season)
4) What the hell is Hokie?

---

1) How are you going to handle all of the media and SEC fans that are pissed that Alabama doesn't get to play for the National Championship, or even a BCS bowl this year? Heck, they wanted to have 4 SEC teams in BCS bowls this year.

2) Agreed. He has been been an idiot for years. Every game we've won in recent history has been in spite of the coaching staff.

3) Agreed. The ACC is extremely weak, but performs even weaker in big games.

4) hokiesports.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eamus Catuli

Heck, they wanted to have 4 SEC teams in BCS bowls this year.

---

And the other two (GA/AR) actually would have been legitimate picks for BCS games. The NC isn't actually a BCS "bowl" (doesn't have the word bowl in it nor did it replace one of the original BCS "bowls") so technically the SEC didn't get anyone in a BCS "bowl" game.