Did the SEC Steal a Playoff Win from the Big 12 and Arizona State?

There was plenty of controversy after Texas' win over Arizona State. Should targeting have been called on the Longhorns in regulation?

Get “Open For Business” a Big 12 newsletter sending the key headlines, interviews, and my analysis straight to your inbox. No more college football news through an SEC/Big Ten lens. If you're a Big 12 fan (or just curious), sign up below!

Don’t miss college football and realignment breaking news! Subscribe to the channel

Support Weekly Realignment and College Football Content

Missed the live show? Leave a comment with your Venmo donation, and I will address it to start the next show

Want up-to-the-minute conference realignment and college football content?

[toddwebb]

ASU has the best performance of anyone out of the playoff. They represented the big XII well.

[larryobrien]

ESPN didn't want ASU. All they want is Big10 & SEC

[cfb]

Definitely would have liked the win but I also care that Arizona State represented the Big 12 very well. The rest of the schools need to step up their game especially in non-conference games with power opponents. Really hope the transfer portal will beef up the muscle on the Texas Tech lines. Because if you don't have muscle in the trenches your ceiling is limited.

[dantesinfernopurgatory]

That was a typical Big 12 game (defense optional). It was like Texas never left for the SEC.

[HG-pjik]

Tennessee fan here. Enjoy your podcast.

[brentgerrard]

Plenty of missed opportunities for ASU. They ought to be focusing on their own short comings instead of the targeting call they are crying about. Should have manned up in OT.

[Tejas]

Oh yeah, that one play ‘robbed’ them.
Not the offensive inability to convert on those fourth downplays not the kicker missing at least too easy field goals not the non-call targeting call against Isaiah Bond not the missed call where the office of lineman pulled came into the end zone which is illegal it was this play that cost them the game absolutely absurd and shows poor sportsmanship.

[TxLonghornsFan]

ASU played an incredible game. Lots of respect to your players, coaching staff and program.

Both teams had opportunities to each win this game in regulation and neither could because the opponent stopped them especially in the red zone.

Then it went to overtime and each team had equal possessions and opportunities to score. That’s the beauty of this overtime format whether you like its structure or not.

Instant classic and phenomenal game! Looking forward to seeing ASU continue to rise in the coming years. Arizona produces some really talented football players each year that go out of state to other programs like Texas (eg. Bijon Robinson) and others across the country. ASU is clearly on the way up and I think your team’s performance in this game will definitely help you in recruiting to retain some of that top Arizona recruiting talent going forward.

[Dolph]

Suga's Coach looks waaayyy different in glasses

[mattclark]

The only question is whether the call would be the same had the roles been reversed?

[bullseye]

We all learned from the Holy War that you don’t call a penalty at the end of the game even if it is a legit penalty. Just ask utah fans!

[matt-vrsw]

Funny no one wants to call out the ASU player launching into a defenseless WR neck as targeting

[sunshinedesign]

Better to lose like that than Oregon’s loss. ASUs story will be the talk of the off season

[eschiedler]

Absolutely not. Texas tried to give the game a dozen times which ASU mishabdled for example too many 4th down attempts bad overtime calls. Then Texas made 4 clutch plays.

[ProjectBadass]

Can someone tell me about the FG bounce through the upright?

[ronk.]

Could the problem be that there is so much gambling money is involved. Could it be the SEC and ESPN is in bed with each other? The same with CFP committee and influence from both ESPN and the SEC. The game announcers seem to be so biased against certain teams and conferences.

[jilewis]

Yep that was targeting just like the hit on Bond which would have overturned the interception. Good job being consistent refs

[justinb]

I honestly believe they didn't call it because of the verbiage about attacking a defenseless receiver. Keyword attacking. In this case I don't think he was going into attack and make a huge hit, it look like he was going in for a tackle. I think they're collision made the hit worse, but he actually stood up with the tackle and wrapped him up. He didn't lead with his head, even though their helmets hit. Yes his helmet came down a little bit, but ultimately their face masks hit. I don't know I definitely can see the refs calling that, because they've called very similar before, but to me it looks like a decent hit I'm not going to lie.

[TTURaider_rED]

Tough loss, but how do you allow anyone to get behind you on that 4th and 13??

[storiesandpoems]

You can't argue that they thought it was a no call. It clearly was targeting by every standard. So you only can suspect other nefarious motives. The only possible explanation would be the one John hopes it to be–the hope it is simply deciding to unfairly permitting the rules to go ignored at the end of the game so a rule violation doesn't decided the game. First, of all if this was the motive, then the referees should tell the teams upfront before the game at what point they are going to leave the field and just let everyone play 'wild west' style. Second, the logic doesn't make sense because Arizona still had to work the clock down, get in position to make a field goal, and then successfully hit it. All of that is not a given especially since Arizona's kicker had missed two field goals earlier in the game. There is no way that making this call would logically have decided the game. I think there had to be something more nefarious at play because they had time to review the play and get it right. That's why we have replay, I thought. That's why we have rules, I thought.