2006 Rose Bowl NOT best game ever

The thing is that the games he said were better were great games but they didn't include everything that this game had. It was the Rose Bowl with No. 1 vs No. 2. Both teams with perfect records. It was one of the few years that the BCS got it right without controversy. It lived up to the hype. Etc.
 
Looking at the games he implies were better than the Rose Bowl one gets different concludsions. They were great games but still don't beat out that 2006 Rose Bowl. Doug Flute's Hail Mary Pass was good but it was doing the season and was just a miracle play. The Cal-Stanford game was great but had they had replay it is likely that the td play wouldn't stand. Boise State vs Oklahoma was great but it wasn't for an NC. And Woody Hayes punching a Clemson tiger in the face is something to be ashamed of in college football not something great as implied. Overall regarding the article - strange ideas.
 
The idea that that game didn't have any defense is ludicrous. Both offenses were so epically powerful that they could rack up tons of points even on defenses that were playing well. Neither holding Texas to 41 nor holding USC to 38 was a common occurrence that year.
 
Whatever.
Any such list is subjective, and they mention some of the other "greatest ever" games, but don't take a stab at ranking them. No, we didn't finish by running through a marching band which had taken the field.
I have a problem with calling USC's defense poor because Texas was able to move the ball and score on them. I have a problem with Keith Jackson whining about the official's call on VY's pitchout, like that would have decided the game. It would have still produced a first down inside the ten yard line, would it not? Texas was rolling down the field, and there was every reason to expect a score there, even if it did not occur on that particular play.
The game goes in the handful of games considered as the best college game ever, and no one should argue with that.
No game was for more marbles, in a better venue, or featured higher ranked teams. The game didn't end on the very last play with a hail mary, and Notre Dame wasn't playing, so some people won't find it too notable, but what do they know?
 
Hard to take the guy seriously when the caption to the photo of VY diving into the end zone refers to the winning touchdown. He also referred to football ananlyst Mel Brooks. What the? Maybe the whole article was meant as a joke. I'm checking the settings on my sarcasm meter.

By the way, I get it...Corso looks like Mel Brooks. Very funny. Sort of shows that maybe the whole article is tongue-in-cheek.
 
What a moron. I just read the replies here and not his article for fear of it making me stupid.

What was his pick for #1 game of all time? The 3-2 barnburner in the SEC last week?
 
He didn't give what he thought was the best. He just mentioned several games that could be better. As stated above, their were some more infamous plays but not better games.
 
The last line of that article says it all...

"Just because college football fans say it is the greatest game of all time does not make it so."

Oh really ?
 
Just because he says it isn't doesn't make it not.

Or something.

hookem.gif
 
If its not the best game then the only ones that I would say are better are 71 OU-NU, 84 Orange Bowl, and 03 Fiesta. Hail Mary=no, wasnt for a championship, Cal Stanford=great finish but no one remembers anything else, Stanford didnt even make a bowl that year, 93(?) FSU-ND=no, ND won but still didnt win the MNC over FSU even though they had the same amount of losses.
 
The article actually gives credit to Texas for being the more complete team and fights the commonly held idea that the game was a big upset.
 
A little personal research reveals that Phillip is a USC graduate. So I'm less surprised by him trying to minimalize our victory.

Sour grapes Pip.
 
Talking defense, lets also remember the game was a pretty low scoring affair at halftime. However, like mentioned before, Texas was held to 9 points below their season average and USC was held to 12 points below their season average. Defenses were pretty good.
 
Defense may not have been the hallmark of the 2005 Rose Bowl, but I do remember a fair number of big hits and big stops. In fact, UT's defense deserves more credit for the win than it gets. VY would not have been on the cover of Sports Illustrated if USC had been able to kill the clock.

The statistics partly bear out how well the defenses played. For the season, Texas had given up around 14.5 ppg. That's not all-world, but it's pretty stout. USC had given up around 21 ppg, which is decent as well. The fact that these defenses were unable to stop two of the better offenses in CFB (or is FBS???) history does not make the defenses poor -- just overmatched.

Looking at it from the flip side, USC averaged 50 ppg coming in, and we came in averaging 51. This would have been MUCH higher were it not for garbage time in blowouts. Thus, the defenses deserve some credit for holding the offenses to 41 and 38 in a game where neither team ever took their foot off of the pedal.
 
At best, this guy is doing what schlock sportswriters get paid to do: come up with a contrarian position designed to piss people off. When people go check it out, the publisher sells more newspapers and/or web advertising. Then, profit!

As with all trolls of this nature, it's best to just ignore them.

At worst, this is a case of USC sour grapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top