Sugar Bowl: #13 Michigan def. #11 Virginia Tech, 23-20 (OT)

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Sugar Bowl: #13 Michigan def. #11 Virginia Tech, 23-20 (OT)
D

dave

Senior Member

4,558 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:34 AM
WebFire;1037988 wrote:DL is a concern, but they also have a lot coming back.
I'm not too worried about DL since that is where the depth is. More worried about center, WR, TE, and safety unless Gordon makes some progress.
Jan 4, 2012 12:34am
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:34 AM
wildcats20;1038004 wrote:I don't disagree with you, but it was played on Jan 4 last year. A Tuesday and the attendance was 73,879.
With local Arkansas in the game. An SEC team would ~10,000 extra tickets sold.
Jan 4, 2012 12:34am
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:37 AM
Dennis Dodd tweeted that it was the 1st Sugar Bowl since 1945 without a top 10 ranked team, so maybe the lack of hype played into the ticket sales as well.
Jan 4, 2012 12:37am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:38 AM
dave;1038007 wrote:I'm not too worried about DL since that is where the depth is. More worried about center, WR, TE, and safety unless Gordon makes some progress.
DL is without a doubt the #1 concern next year.
Jan 4, 2012 12:38am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 12:39 AM
bigkahuna;1038006 wrote:What are they saying? I'm checking some other scores on SC.
Not much. Just wondered why it wasn't a false start.
Jan 4, 2012 12:39am
wes_mantooth's avatar

wes_mantooth

Tomfoolery & shenanigans

17,977 posts
Jan 4, 2012 6:57 AM
Didn't watch the game, but saw a replay of the overturned catch. Looked like a catch to me, just because the ball didn't look like it moved. I don't know though...too close to call.
Jan 4, 2012 6:57am
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:30 AM
wes_mantooth;1038094 wrote:Didn't watch the game, but saw a replay of the overturned catch. Looked like a catch to me, just because the ball didn't look like it moved. I don't know though...too close to call.
Wasn't this the same replay official from the Syracuse/Toledo game that ruled the Orange extra point good? :o
Jan 4, 2012 7:30am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:36 AM
UM was..."fortunate" to win this one 377-184 total yards, Denard 9/21, 13 carries 13 yards, questionable calls regarding the TD, fortunate indeed.
Jan 4, 2012 7:36am
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:38 AM
Hb31187;1037953 wrote:I agree that was def a penalty on the kicker.

The "catch" however by the VA tech player was pretty obvious the ground helped

No, it didn't.
WebFire;1037955 wrote:If he wouldn't have bobbled, it's a catch. I honestly don't think he had control when he hit the white.
No, he didn't.

It was a catch, and you both know it. It wasn't pretty, but a win is a win, so congrats to the skunkbears. I'm already looking forward to 11/24/12.
Jan 4, 2012 7:38am
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:44 AM
wes_mantooth;1038094 wrote:Didn't watch the game, but saw a replay of the overturned catch. Looked like a catch to me, just because the ball didn't look like it moved. I don't know though...too close to call.

That was my assessment, the ball didn't move... Plus they called it a catch on the field. Vegas must've made the call
Jan 4, 2012 7:44am
killer_ewok's avatar

killer_ewok

iRep

11,379 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:48 AM
It looked to me like he caught it cleanly and his elbow came down in the end zone prior to any part of him touching out of bounds. It didn't appear to me that the ground assisted him in catching or maintaining control of the ball.

But I'm not the replay official....so it doesn't matter.
Jan 4, 2012 7:48am
GOONx19's avatar

GOONx19

An exceptional poster.

7,147 posts
Jan 4, 2012 7:58 AM
I thought the ball moved, but I didn't think anything was indisputable. I didn't think they'd overturn it, and if they had ruled in incomplete on the field I also didn't think they'd overturn it.
Jan 4, 2012 7:58am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 8:26 AM
vball10set;1038115 wrote:No, it didn't.



No, he didn't.

It was a catch, and you both know it. It wasn't pretty, but a win is a win, so congrats to the skunkbears. I'm already looking forward to 11/24/12.
Uh yeah he did. You honestly didn't think the ball was moving around? LOL. Must look different on a scarlet colored TV.
Jan 4, 2012 8:26am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 8:26 AM
killer_ewok;1038120 wrote:It looked to me like he caught it cleanly and his elbow came down in the end zone prior to any part of him touching out of bounds. It didn't appear to me that the ground assisted him in catching or maintaining control of the ball.

But I'm not the replay official....so it doesn't matter.
I thought he caught it, but when he actually had control he had already hit the white stuff.
Jan 4, 2012 8:26am
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Jan 4, 2012 8:27 AM
didn't watch the game...should vtech have won? did they have a chance to win and blow it?
Jan 4, 2012 8:27am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 8:28 AM
ytownfootball;1038113 wrote:UM was..."fortunate" to win this one 377-184 total yards, Denard 9/21, 13 carries 13 yards, questionable calls regarding the TD, fortunate indeed.
One ESPN guy had a good point last night, of the difference between 2011 Michigan and 2010 Michigan. 2010, if you held Michigan to under 200 yards, they had no chance to win. 2011, hold them under 200 in a bowl game and they found a way to win.
Jan 4, 2012 8:28am
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Jan 4, 2012 9:08 AM
This game hurt more than watching the Bucks go down. scUM has found a way to win tight games again and that worries me.
Jan 4, 2012 9:08am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 9:27 AM
Jan 4, 2012 9:27am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 9:32 AM
FYI - the field goal attempt that looked like it could have been a fake or muffed FG was indeed a called fake FG, but not everyone heard the call.
Jan 4, 2012 9:32am
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Jan 4, 2012 9:50 AM
WebFire;1038165 wrote:Uh yeah he did. You honestly didn't think the ball was moving around? LOL. Must look different on a scarlet colored TV.
Cute, and uh, no he didn't--stop trying to justify the bad call and just appreciate the fact that the football gods were smiling on you this season. 11/24/12.
Jan 4, 2012 9:50am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 4, 2012 10:01 AM
vball10set;1038262 wrote:Cute, and uh, no he didn't--stop trying to justify the bad call and just appreciate the fact that the football gods were smiling on you this season. 11/24/12.
Jan 4, 2012 10:01am
K

ksig489

Senior Member

943 posts
Jan 4, 2012 10:16 AM
The point of the ball hit the ground and you could see the ball move...no catch. I would think that the officials who know the rules and got an extra few looks at it would know that they made the right call.
Jan 4, 2012 10:16am
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Jan 4, 2012 10:26 AM
ksig489;1038305 wrote:The point of the ball hit the ground and you could see the ball move...no catch. I would think that the officials who know the rules and got an extra few looks at it would know that they made the right call.
Just like the replay official at the Syracuse/Toledo game did, right? :rolleyes:
Jan 4, 2012 10:26am
Tiger2003's avatar

Tiger2003

Kill or be Killed

15,421 posts
Jan 4, 2012 10:26 AM
WebFire;1038231 wrote:FYI - the field goal attempt that looked like it could have been a fake or muffed FG was indeed a called fake FG, but not everyone heard the call.

Still doesn't clear up why linemen were down field.
Jan 4, 2012 10:26am
Scarlet_Buckeye's avatar

Scarlet_Buckeye

Senior Member

5,264 posts
Jan 4, 2012 10:28 AM
WebFire;1037984 wrote:Probably not long since they start with Alabama. They may start high, fall, and have to win their way back. Not an easy schedule next year.
Should make up for the soft schedule they had this season then ;-)
Jan 4, 2012 10:28am