Holding so obvious, even kids can see it

Pictures taken during the Washington game, by a seven-year old kid. 

Just astounding. Zero holding calls on Washington all game. 

I don't think my esteem for PAC-10 refs can sink any lower. Those guys are scum.

BYU at Washington highlights

BYU at Washington highlight reel, courtesy of Furious Monkey, a poster on cougarboard.com. 

Note Fui's blocking, Hall's accuracy, and BYU's dominance on the offensive line. 

Oh, and the holding by the Huskies' defensive line. 

UCLA thoughts later this week.

BYU at Washington

So BYU beat Washington today.

I'm not sure if you'd heard yet, seeing as to how ESPN's coverage of the game has unexplainably focused on an excessive celebration penalty assessed against Washington QB Jake Locker with two seconds left in the game. 

I'll cover that quickly before moving on to the more important stuff.

The college football rulebook states that after a touchdown, the player who scored must either a.) hand the ball to the ref or b.) place the ball on the ground where he was down. 

The rule goes on to explain that an example of how to break this rule is "throwing the ball high in the air." 

Note the rule is not about throwing the ball high (or how high, if you're a senile Lou Holtz). The rule is about giving the ball to the ref or placing it on the ground.

Locker scored a touchdown on third down with two seconds left by scampering past four BYU defenders who were apparently wearing shoes made of concrete (I'll rant more about this later). 

As he entered the endzone, he underhand threw the ball about 20 feet into the air and jumped around as his teammates surrounded him. 

Now, going back to the rule, did Locker either a.) hand the ball to the ref or b.) place the ball on the ground where he was down? 

NO.

As a result, the refs called an unsportsmanlike penalty against Washington, pushing their game-tying extra point attempt to a 35-yard field goal. 

This was apparently the biggest travesty in the history of western civilization. 

I'm going to make three points and be done with the whole thing.

1. This was a call made by PAC-10 refs in a PAC-10 stadium. There is no way on earth they wanted BYU to win the game. What happened is the refs realized they had only called two penalties on Washington all game, despite obviously missing several egregious holds by Washington lineman. The needed to make the final box score look like they'd called a fair game, so an official threw the flag on the excessive celebration, figuring it wouldn't hurt the Huskies. 
2. It shouldn't have. You're a PAC-10, BCS team playing an MWC team at home. A 35-yard, straightaway field goal is a chip shot. For your line to get absolutely destroyed and the kick easily blocked is embarassing. This is the play that won the game for BYU. Not the penalty. To say the unsportsmanlike call removed Washington's chance to go into overtime is simply incorrect.
3. Those arguing that the call was "inexcusable," "pathetic" and "horrendous," (thanks, Mark May and Kirk Herbstreit) are way off base. The crux of the matter is that everyone is used to the old version of the unsportsmanlike rule, where factors such as "premeditated," "prolonged," and "taunting" come into play. The problem is that TODAY, not handing the ball to the ref or placing the ball on the ground is a penalty. Period. Completely independent of whether or not the celebration was premeditated or taunting or anything else. Those who have a problem with the play have a problem with the rulebook. Take it up with the NCAA and get it changed; don't take the credit away from BYU for a game they won.

[/soapbox]

On to game thoughts:

I still worry about Hall's long ball. His touchdown pass to Collie in the first quarter was visibly underthrown, and the only reason it was complete is because Collie had so thoroughly beaten the Huskies' secondary. 

Unga looked great. It's amazing what you can do when you're not hit in the backfield every down. Harvey isn't especially fast, or especially quick, but he's pretty darn good at both. It's a fun combination to watch. That said, his fumble on the .02-yard line early in the fourth quarter really hurt. I know he likes to run people over, but sometimes it's okay to step around them, too.

Pitta is outstanding. NFL scouts are watching this guy. 10 receptions, 148 yards and a touchdown is as much as you can ever ask from a tight end. He had some great, tough catches that kept drives alive. 

BYU's defense was embarrassing. I blame both the coaches and the players for this. Coaches: how can you not put a linebacker or two on Locker? The number of times the seas parted for him and he scrambled straight down the field for 10 or 15 yards drove me crazy. Several times the ref was in better position to stop Locker than anyone wearing a BYU uniform. 

Secondly for the coaches, if you're going to rush four and drop eight, check to make sure your secondary coverage is actually doing something. During the Huskies' last touchdown drive, apparently Bronco felt like going soft prevent would be a good idea. Sadly, no. Despite BYU having eight guys is coverage, Locker was able to find receiver after receiver running wiiiiide open down the field. Luckily, Locker either made a poor throw or the receiver dropped the ball on most of these ocassions, but BYU's defense was so consistently bad, Washington was able to score anyway.

Bronco, BRING THE HEAT. If your linebackers are doing jack squat for your pass coverage, bring them to pressure Locker. He eventually did so, but far too late, in my opinion.

As for the players, BYU's linebackers and corners overestimated their own speed and underestimated Locker's all game. Several times Locker or another Washington player took off running and Cougar defenders were in decent position to make the tackle. However, they chose terrible pursuit angles and ended up behind the play. A better angle might not have sacked Locker or taken the running back down for a loss, but often would have stopped them from gaining more than one or two yards. Play smart, guys.

The other problem with the defense is that they are just slow. Washington had better team speed overall, and it burned BYU more than once. Sweeps, end-arounds, crossing routes in man coverage, etc. BYU won because they outexecuted the Huskies; it certainly wasn't because the Cougars were more talented.

And to revisit an earlier whine: I cannot believe the severity of the missed holding calls by the PAC-10 refs. Prior to the unsportsmanlike penalty and an offsides call on a meaningless onsides kick, the Huskies were assessed two total penalties. Two. One for intentional grounding and one for an illegal substitution on a PAT for five yards. Somehow Washington managed to make that kick.

There were at least three egregious holds by Washington offensive lineman during big plays by Locker. At least. Now, I understand that refs have a lot of things to watch for on any given play. I understand that if there is a large group of players around the quarterback they can't catch holds that may or may not occur.

But these holds took place as an offensive lineman clearly held a BYU player (and in some cases tackled him from behind), and these two players were the only ones near Locker. If the ref was watching the play, he saw the hold. And chose to do nothing about it. 

It's no wonder every team in the country hates playing PAC-10 teams at home. Just ask Oklahoma. 

That's all for tonight. I may rant more tomorrow. For now, let's just say UCLA scares me to death. 

The Associated Press is biased

I opened up yesterday's edition of the Post Register this afternoon and looked to see what was on the front page. After all, the paper ran the day following Governor Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. Surely there would be something about the historical nature of the address, much like there was with Senator Obama's address to the DNC a couple weeks ago.

Instead, the big national story on the front page was an AP story titled "McCain camp plays the sexism card." Subheading: "It appears the strategy is to entice the female vote and bash on the media for questioning Sarah Palin's past." 

I was stunned. The Associated Press is THE national news service for the country, and prides itself on being unbiased in its news coverage. Somewhere along the way they decided to abandon that principle. The headline reeks of bitterness and cynicism. 

Honestly, the AP? You really ran a story like that instead of, oh, I don't know, reporting on what Palin said?

In the interest of being fair, I did a search on their site for a story titled "Obama camp plays the race card," but came up empty. 

It's one thing to headline your story "Obama claims McCain camp of playing the sexist card," or "McCain camp accusses Obama camp of playing the race card," but it's entirely different to inject your own opinion into a news story like AP writer Ron Fournier obviously did here.

It's disgusting, and yet again I am embarrassed to be going into the field of professional journalism. 

Oh, and in the case of the Post Register, I checked today's front page to see if there was anything about Palin's speech there. 

Nope.

There was a nice story about an Idaho Falls attorney helping to evict a couple anti-war protesters at the convention, though, effectively giving said protesters the coverage they wanted. 

Oh, and there was a great opinion column by Ellen Goodman, decrying Palin's lack of experience and criticizing the governor for being anti-abortion. 

Good grief.

A quick note on experience: Neither Obama nor Palin have resumes typical of presidents of vice-presidents. For either side to scream about the other ticket is appallingly hypocritical. 

I don't see why McCain made the pick, as it completely undermines any argument he can make against Senator Obama re: experience, while any time Obama brings up Palin's lack of qualification I cannot believe my ears. 

Yay politics.

Keys to a Cougar win

If BYU wins at Washington tomorrow, it will be the first Cougar win against a BCS team on the road since Doman and Staley beat Mississippi State 41-38 in 2001. 

That was a long time ago. 

I personally believe it'll be a BYU win tomorrow, but I thought the same thing about Tulsa last year, and look what happened there.

If Hall, Unga, Collie and Co. win this game, it will be because of three things:

1. Unga gets holes. Unga is not the kind of back who can create something out of nothing. If the play doesn't develop like it should, he's down in the backfield almost every time. And if the offensive line can't get the run game going, Washington's defensive backs will force Max to beat them long. As I mentioned in my thoughts about the UNI game, I don't think Hall can do that. 

2. BYU needs to contain Washington quarterback Jake Locker and make him beat them with his arm. Locker is a fast and quick, but he can't throw worth beans from what I've seen. If the Cougars stick one or two linebackers on him and prevent the scramble, that will stop the Huskies dead in their tracks offensively.

3. If Washington brings the linebackers on every play, essentially denying BYU the ability to run the ball, Pitta will be the key, much like he was against UNI. Hall will need to look for him early and often.

That's it. We'll be able to see pretty quickly whether or not BYU can do these three things or not on Saturday.

Go Cougars!

The surge has worked? Welcome to the bandwagon, Mr. Obama

Senator Obama met with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly today. I respect that... it's impressive to have an interview with someone who so openly opposes you. 

As part of the interview, Obama finally conceded the surge, as proposed by Senator McCain and President Bush, has worked, and Iraq is moving closer and closer to stability. Momentum is definitely on our side.

It's amusing to watch both presidential candidates make the traditional slide to the center as they court the votes from moderates across America. 

McCain spent decades voting with the Democrats, standing against the Bush tax cuts, and criticizing Mitt Romney for managing a company for profit.

And starting tonight, he'll sound like Ronald Reagan.

At least until the general election is over.

Google Chrome

Last night I was perusing Cougarboard.com, the fount of all knowledge, and came across a poster talking about Google Chrome. I'm a sucker for anything Google does, and so once I found out it was a new browser, I downloaded it and gave it a shot.

In short, it's fast. My friend Jimmy was quick to point out that this is because it's based on Webkit, or the same application framework used for Macintosh's OS X and Safari web browser. Jimmy is kind of an Apple fanboy.

Anyway, my page load times are at least twice as fast as they were in Firefox 2 and 3, and it seems to take less system memory to run. It's like I doubled my internet speed for free.

Can't argue with that.

Download it here if you'd like.

In other computer news, my five-year old laptop has been giving me bluescreens with messages about "unmountable boot volumes" lately, so I've been thinking about a backup solution. I wasn't really interested in a giant external hard drive, so I decided to give Carbonite a shot.

Carbonite is a program that uploads the files on your home computer to an off-site server. It's nice because the process is automatic, and therefore very low-maintenance. Plus it's only $50 a year, less than $5 a month.

Since upload speeds are ridiculously slow compared to download speeds with residential internet, the initial backup can take several days. Once that's complete, however, daily backups only take a couple minutes.

I'm running a 15-day trial now, and I'll post an update on how it's going in a week or so.