Does the fact that the Vegas line went from A&M -4 to UofL -5 not give you some indication that the general sentiment around the country was that the game went from a probable A&M win to a probable A&M loss because the two QB's quit? In other words, the announcers were not so much making excuses but affirming the judgment of the nation as a whole.
Man these 2 announcers blow.
- Thread starter Louisvillian
- Start date
Does the fact that the Vegas line went from A&M -4 to UofL -5 not give you some indication that the general sentiment around the country was that the game went from a probable A&M win to a probable A&M loss because the two QB's quit? In other words, the announcers were not so much making excuses but affirming the judgment of the nation as a whole.
Wonder what the line would have been if they knew Burgess would only get to play 11 seconds. In a fair scenario, seems that would have been the bigger story to yap about. After all millions of dollars are changing hands over some pretty incompetent judgments...Hmmmm.
Yep, affirming, and reaffirming, and reaffirming, and reaffirming, and....well I think you understand the point. No need to keep beating this dead horse like the announcers did.
Peace, out.
The Burgess play is one of the reasons I don't bet on college sports. Not a smart play by any means. I agree that it was not a clear cut targeting offense - it was borderline at best. But I think officials are apt to err on the side of making the call as opposed to not in order to reinforce the philosophy behind the rule. And yes, had I bet on UofL to cover the spread, my sphincter would have tightened quite a bit about then.
Similar threads
