Rise, all Loyal "Flatly Lucky" Cougars?

On the eve of one of the most significant Cougar football games in a long time, I--the junior editor of this blog--have decided to publicly defend the Blue and White and rebuke the Haters.

Last week, it wasn't enough for Cougar fans to have to suffer through an entire game of the most blatantly biased PAC-10 commentary that FSN could assemble. After the game, we had to put up with an entire nation of sportswriters accusing the Cougars of being "flatly lucky" (Pat Forde, ESPN). Having read myriads of ignorant words previously in the week, Forde's were the last straw. I wrote him a biting email, to which--obviously--I have received no response.

To call the Cougars 'flatly lucky' is to openly admit that you did not watch the game, had no intention of researching the game, and are only interested in writing a flashy headline. I think it is only fair that you, the reader, get an honest, unbiased, analysis of the end of that game. Unfortunately, I don't know where you can find that--but I will offer you my own biased analysis in its place

BYU vs UW
Dennis Pitta caught 10 passes for 148 yards on his way to defending his spot atop the receiving yards list for the entire NCAA. Harvey ran the ball 23 times for 136 yards for an average of 5.9 yards/carry. The BYU offense had 475 total yards to UW's 337, we held the ball longer than they did and could not be stopped all game long. Lucky? Please!

On the last play of UW's final drive, Jake Locker made a great run, weaving around both BYU's contain men and ending with 6 points and paydirt. Then the flag came: a correct call, a terrible rule. I hated the call as much as the next man, however, that is where my similarity to the country's beat writers ends.

The ball moved back 15 yards creating a 35 yard extra point. Problem? Shouldn't be. Pat Forde and countless other writers have credited UW's demise to the longer field goal. They should be embarrased for writing such things in public, this is why.

Exhibit A: Many have said that the trajectory of the kick was changed and lead to the block--writers should know better (well, they probably do). In case you fell victim to this idea, here is why it is a crock, from the mouth of the kicker himself, Perkins from UW


"A lot of people are saying when you back up it will be a lower trajectory, and that's not the case,'' he said. "The kick should be the same no matter what, and after looking at the form on my kick, everything looks the same as it did all day. I was fine. We did a 35-yard field goal against Oregon the week before and essentially it is straight down the middle, so that didn't bother me at all.''


Strike One.

Exhibit B: Did the entire country forget that we blocked the kick? It was blocked, the kicker didn't miss it, it was blocked. Did I mention that the kick was blocked? Forde and his compadrees state that the kick would not have been blocked if it were kicked from the 10 yard line. Really?


For novices, those four (4) white jerseys should NOT be where they are. Oh, and if you look close, the ball was blocked with Jorgensen's (84, in air) mid section. Even with altered trajectory (which we know is not the case) this ball is still blocked...by a lot. UW lost because BYU made the play to win the game. They blocked the kick.

Strike two.


"Flatly lucky"?
Please!
Exhibit C: Anyone who actually watched that game felt robbed because we knew that OT would have been a fun, hotly contested match. To call the Cougars 'flatly lucky' is to admit either you made no attempt to even read a box score or maybe you are admitting that you don't know how overtime works or maybe--the most probable option in my opinion--your company pays you to back those schools who you have television contracts with. That's low.

Strike three.


Go Cougars! Beat Norm and the Boys!