I think the term is ‘sore losers’

Boy, I can’t remember a time when a team has displayed as bad of sportsmanship as the Oklahoma Sooners football team.

For those not in the know, last Saturday they played a very tight game against Oregon.  The game went back and forth.  Late in the 4th quarter with the Oregon Ducks down by 13 points, the Ducks scored a TD to cut the deficit to 6.  On the ensuing kickoff they went for an onside kick and recovered.  But wait, there’s a rule for an onside kick that the ball must travel 10 yards before it can be touched by an Oregon player and the replay showed that it might have been touched after about 9 yards (which would give the ball to Oklahoma).  The instant replay team reviewed the play and decided the video evidence wasn’t conclusive and let the play stand.

To make a long story short, Oregon marched down the field, scored a TD and then blocked a last second field goal attempt by Oklahoma to win the game.

Oklahoma has been on a crusade the last 4 days to tell the world how large of an injustice has been committed against them.  Not only has the coach been on the rampage, the President of the University (not just of Athletics, but the whole University) wrote a letter to their conference asking that the game be declared void. (source – about 2/3rds of the way down)

Of course that is never going to happen, seeing as how this is the 4,394,328th game in which the refs “stole” the game from losing team, but thanks for the attempt.

Nevertheless, the Pac-10 conference reviewed the play in question and decided that Oklahoma was correct and that they should have gotten the ball.  They apologized to Oklahoma and suspended the refs in question for a game. (source)

So you’d think that Oklahoma would be satisfied, or at least placated, yes?

No.

Now they’re saying they’re not going to play any more games against Pac-10 teams including canceling an existing contract they have with the University of Washington in 2008 if they don’t get their way and get to pick their own refs for future games in the Pac-10. (source)

I’m sorry but this is just pathetic.  As a friend of mine says, if one call by a ref is enough to change the outcome of the game, the game was so close that any bounce of the ball could have had the same effect.  To claim that you were robbed is overstating.  If you want to keep fate out of the equation, you need to make sure that you’re victory is more decisive.

But beyond that, talk about being sore losers.  Apparently people at the University of Oklahoma don’t realize that football is a game.  I decided to file this both under the sports category as well as the morals category because it seems that we’re marching farther and farther down the road to where people don’t seem to realize the difference between a game and live and death issues.

I’m a very intense fan.  I cheer loud. I rant and rave during the game.  I call referees good judgement into question and whether they need a new optomitrist.  I question what kind of unprescribed medications the coaches are taking.  I even occasionally question whether a player deserves their scholarship.  But you know what, when the game is over, I remember that it is a game and it’s supposed to be fun.

Apparently those at the University of Oklahoma have lost sight of that.

4 Responses to “I think the term is ‘sore losers’”

  1. seth Says:

    oklahoma is a sorry bunch. there are much better things to be mad about in college football right now. like these rediculous new clock rules! who the hell had the idea to do that! oh, that’s right, the ever richeous NCAA!

  2. Ken Crawford Says:

    Well Seth, count me amongst those who likes the new clock rules. Personally I would have preferred changing from the 25 second clock (based on when the refs place the ball) to a 40 second clock based on when the play ended like the pros. That said, I think the games need to be sped up and the way they chose is acceptable to me.

  3. seth Says:

    ken read this, and then read the comments, i think u may have a change of heart… http://www.doubleazone.com/2006/09/two_weeks_in_how_have_the_rule.html

  4. Ken Crawford Says:

    Not really. The kickoff aspect is particularly uninteresting to me. Name an instance where there were less than 10 seconds on the clock when the ball was kicked off and game was won not on the kickoff itself but on the first play thereafter.

    I think scenario most likely to make a difference is the running out the clock one. If you’re going to get the ball back with 1:30, you’re going to have to either (a) have a timeout left or (b) get your offense out on to the field ASAP to not lose lots of extra seconds. Particularly since the clock won’t start until the refs place the ball and the refs are notoriously slow at doing that (giving the offense all kinds of time to get on the field), I don’t think it makes an impact.

    Said more generically, you’ve got three choices with how to speed up games:

    1. force teams to run plays more quickly
    2. run less plays
    3. a combination of the two

    What the new rules do is make it so that for the majority of the game (when there is no reason to rush) there are less plays but at the end of the game (when there is) you don’t lose the plays. I’d prefer the 40 second clock rule because it forces the teams (and refs) to reduce the time between plays throughout the whole game, but I still don’t think the current rules warrant the complaints they are getting.