Offline
When did college football change the rules to permit the team on defense to score on an extra point attempt?
Offline
Mags wrote:
When did college football change the rules to permit the team on defense to score on an extra point attempt?
That's been around as long as I can remember, Mags. As far as I know, the NFL is the only league in which you can't return another team's extra point try for a deuce.
Not that the Sun Devils played well enough to win that game anyway ...
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
Mags wrote:
When did college football change the rules to permit the team on defense to score on an extra point attempt?
That's been around as long as I can remember, Mags. As far as I know, the NFL is the only league in which you can't return another team's extra point try for a deuce.
Not that the Sun Devils played well enough to win that game anyway ...
Wow.
"As long as I can remember" for me means earlier this morning, but I get the point. When I switched over to the game and caught the replays, I thought it must have been a blocked field goal but then I finally realized it had only counted for two points.
If ASU had USC's no. 2 QB, they would have won going away.
I really thought the refs did a terrible job in letting the USC players get away with all the taunting of ASU's no. 7. On the other hand, the guy obviously has chosen to wear a bullseye on both front and back.
Offline
Mags wrote:
artie_fufkin wrote:
Mags wrote:
When did college football change the rules to permit the team on defense to score on an extra point attempt?
That's been around as long as I can remember, Mags. As far as I know, the NFL is the only league in which you can't return another team's extra point try for a deuce.
Not that the Sun Devils played well enough to win that game anyway ...Wow.
"As long as I can remember" for me means earlier this morning, but I get the point. When I switched over to the game and caught the replays, I thought it must have been a blocked field goal but then I finally realized it had only counted for two points.
If ASU had USC's no. 2 QB, they would have won going away.
I really thought the refs did a terrible job in letting the USC players get away with all the taunting of ASU's no. 7. On the other hand, the guy obviously has chosen to wear a bullseye on both front and back.
Threet has been a mixed bag. He plays well on occasion, but he's prone to throwing a pick-6 at the most inopportune times. I refer to these as "Jeff George Moments."
ASU's other options at QB aren't enticing. Their second string QB is Brock Osweiler. His arm is so weak, he couldn't throw a tantrum. They had high hopes for another kid named Samson Szakacsy, but he spends most of his time in a hot tub.
Elway's kid really screwed Erickson. They were counting on him to start last season, but he left the program and decided to join Todd Marinovich's naked surfing league. I suppose being John Elway's son is a mixed blessing. Doors open for you right away, but the expectations are well beyond unrealistic. And then there's the genetic problems with orthodonture.
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
Elway's kid really screwed Erickson. They were counting on him to start last season, but he left the program and decided to join Todd Marinovich's naked surfing league.
Is this a co-ed league? If so, is there a cable/satellite channel that carries this programming?
Offline
artie_fufkin wrote:
Mags wrote:
When did college football change the rules to permit the team on defense to score on an extra point attempt?
That's been around as long as I can remember, Mags. As far as I know, the NFL is the only league in which you can't return another team's extra point try for a deuce.
Not that the Sun Devils played well enough to win that game anyway ...
I have no clue why the nfl doesnt allow it.
Offline
"I have no clue why the nfl doesnt allow it."
Naked surfing? Because there's no way to enforce the rule that a player has to pull his socks up to meet his pants.
I read an article several weeks ago about Todd Marinovich's younger brother, who is a linebacker at Syracuse. The gist of the article was the kid trying to say "I'm not a bizarre closet case who was ruined by an obsessively domineering father," followed by 1,500 words that brought the reader to the conclusion that the kid is a bizarre closet case who was ruined by an obsessively domineering father.