Seattle Sportsnet

While I was watching the Rose Bowl yesterday, I couldn’t help but yell at the TV:

“Are you guys even trying to win this game?”

Of course, I wouldn’t normally cheer for a non-Pac 10 team in a bowl game, assuming one of the teams playing in the bowl was from the Pac-10. However, when it comes down to money, all allegiances are off.

I had a good chunk of money riding on the Nittany Lions +10.5. That means all they had to lose by was 10 or less to the Men of Troy. The line was strong–or at least I thought it was. After all the talk of how this was going to be a defensive struggle I was predicting a final score of 17-10 in USC’s favor. Unfortunately USC was just faster on both sides of the ball and I could sense the confusion in Penn State’s secondary (I blame the coaching) which ultimately led to their downfall. For some reason I left the TV on after the 24-point clobbering Penn State took in the 2nd quarter. The look on the face of the fans wearing white told the entire story:

That’s just an awkward pleat in the khakis. Trust me, this guy does not have a boner.

24 points! That’s an insurmountable lead! Maybe if I smell my hands things will get better!

The Penn State faithful may not have smelled victory in those hands, but with the second half came new hope. USC’s first drive of the half resulted in a C.J. Gable fumble and Penn State took over. Things look promising when the Nittany Lions actually began moving the ball on their possession.

Unfortunately, hope quickly ended with a serious of questionable decisions that brought the Lions to their knees.

Questionable call #1

4th and 7 with Penn State at USC’s 36 with 6 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter. Sure, a punt here might net you 16 yards. But was a 54 yarder out of range for Kevin Kelly who owns the Penn State school record with a field goal from 53 yards out? To me, a field goal from this distance is less of a risk than a dump off play that nets you 10 yards less than a punt would have. Of course, a field goal also doesn’t make much sense here, until you compare it with…

Questionable call #2

After giving the ball back to USC on QC#1 where the only open player I saw was Jordan Norwood (poor coaching again) USC runs some more time off the clock but amazingly Penn State’s defense stops them. We start the 4th quarter with the teams exchanging touchdowns and the margin is still 24 points. Penn State now has the ball in the red zone with 8 minutes left, 4th and 2 at USC’s 7 yard line. Can someone tell me why they go for it on QC#1 but bring the kicker out this time? They can’t QB sneak it 2 yards for the first down? Or run the same play in QC#1 which netted them 6 yards? What are the coaches thinking here? You’re down by 24 points within 7 yards of getting 6 of those back and they go for 3? Imagining their thought process makes me sick: “Well we’re going to need the the points sooner or later.” Yes, you will. But first you have to get 21 points, then hold USC’s offense which has been cutting you apart to zero points and then your three points actually makes sense.

It was almost as if they were doing some favor to the senior kicker, getting him out there for a field goal for his last game. I think a big fat “W” in the Rose Bowl would count more to him when he looks back on his storied kicking career at Penn State than a pointless 25-yarder.

Questionable Call #3

I can feel the momentum shifting. USC goes 3 and out after the field goal, Penn State scores another touchdown. Margin down to 14. Penn state gets the ball back again after another USC three-and-out with three minutes to go and suddenly QC#2 isn’t looking like such a terrible move. Unfortunately on the first play from scrimmage Daryll Clark gets popped and throws up a duck that gets picked off. First of all, three minutes is enough time to possibly get two scores. Penn State given the same field position had just previously closed the gap with another touchdown in a little over a minute-and-a-half. Sure the odds were long (it would have required a successful onside kick), but did they really need to go for the 25-yard pass play on first down? Aren’t crunch-time drives filled with quick out routes? I have to blame this one on the coaches again because there were TWO Penn State receivers in the middle of the field waiting for that duck, when Clark should have only been looking to the sidelines.

So with that interception the game was basically over. But wait! On fourth down following the interception, USC, unaccustomed to punting late in games, loses 37 yards on a very long snap from their seldom-used long snapper. Penn State recovers the ball at the USC 14-yard line with 45 seconds to go.

Maybe I can still win my bet. All I need is a touchdown…

Four chances. All they do is waste time. And the best part of it? They spike the ball on 3rd down with seconds left to stop the clock and regroup, only to have a delay of game called on them which moved them backwards from the seven-yard line to the 12. Isn’t the whole point of spiking the ball to figure out what you’re doing next in a timely fashion? For some reason I think Penn State was thinking they were down by seven instead of 14 and were playing to tie the game. The next best thing during this “drive” happens when Clark throws up another duck on fourth down to absolutely no one to pad USC’s defensive stats and the game is over.

All I needed was four points.

Penn State could have won this game. They let the game get away from them in the second quarter, then when it seemed like things started going their way the players either made mental mistakes, or the coaches set them up to fail. I’m sure there were plenty more questionable calls during this game, but in the end what matters is what was on the scoreboard…and in turn my wallet.

Not a good way to start the new year for me, but kudos to the Pac-10 for going undefeated in the bowl series this year.

The Husky Men’s Basketball team is ready to end the streak that has haunted them for the past three years. In Pullman to face the Washington State Cougars for the start of Pac-10 play, the Dawgs will look to end a seven-game skid at the hands of their archrivals and get out to an early lead in the conference standings.

After suffering a double-overtime, three-point defeat last year at Washington State, the Huskies have proven they can handle the noise at Friel Court. And with winter break still in full swing on the Wazzu campus, the Huskies will likely face a less-than-capacity student section and should be able to do something they haven’t done since Jon Brockman was in high school: beat the Cougs.

Position-by-Position Breakdown

Point guard: Isaiah Thomas (UW) vs. Taylor Rochestie (WSU). While the freshman Thomas has outscored the senior Rochestie so far (14.8 PPG for Thomas, to Rochestie’s 10.2 PPG), Rochestie has posted better numbers in nearly every other essential stat category. The heart and soul of this Cougar team, Rochestie has recorded a better assistant-to-turnover ratio and hauled in more rebounds than Thomas, while coming on as of late with three consecutive double-digit scoring games.

Thomas, meanwhile, is coming off a career-high 27 points in Tuesday’s game against Morgan State. The Husky frosh is quickly becoming the team’s second option behind Jon Brockman and is an early frontrunner for Pac-10 Freshman of the Year. Edge: Push.

Shooting guard: Justin Dentmon (UW) vs. Klay Thompson (WSU). The senior Dentmon has quietly put together a decent beginning to his final collegiate season. Despite a three-year tenure marred by inconsistency, J.D. has stepped up and recorded nice numbers for a ballclub in need of a leader to take pressure off Brockman. With 12.4 PPG and 2.6 APG, Dentmon has outproduced his counterpart Thompson in every essential category except rebounding, where the 6’6″ Cougar holds a 5.1-to-2.7 RPG advantage.

Thompson, a freshman who is as heralded a newcomer as the Cougs have ever had, is the son of former Los Angeles Laker Mychal Thompson and has NBA potential. So far, the first-year Coug has contributed 11.0 PPG, good for second on the team behind Aron Baynes, and has emerged as a go-to option on the offensive end. If nothing else, the freshman will hold a considerable size advantage over the 5’10″ Dentmon, though contending with Dentmon’s quickness may be an issue for the youngster. Edge: Washington.

Small Forward: Quincy Pondexter (UW) vs. Daven Harmeling (WSU). The junior Pondexter has spent the first part of this season continuing a trend two years in the making. Nothing if not an enigma, the talented forward has been as inconsistent as anyone on the team and has done nothing to warrant the hype that preceded his venture to Montlake back in 2006. After recording a season-high 21 points against Portland State on December 14th, Q-Pon has followed up his most brilliant performance of the year with three straight duds resulting in 3 points, 4 points, and 4 points again. Averages of 8.8 PPG, 2.2 APG, and 5.7 RPG give him the statistical edge in all categories over his opponent.

Harmeling, who would be a decent bench option on a better team, has become a full-time starter for a Washington State team that prides itself on defense. The 6’7″ senior can step back and hit the three, but has trouble getting to the rim. With 7.3 PPG, 0.8 APG, and 1.8 RPG, Harmeling’s value is as a steadying presence on the court and he should likely concede stats to Pondexter in this contest. Edge: Washington.

Power Forward: Jon Brockman (UW) vs. Aron Baynes (WSU). A heavyweight matchup of powerful bigs that has resulted in an interesting power struggle over the previous three seasons that, if nothing else, is fun to watch. The 7-footer Baynes is the Cougars go-to presence inside and has proven valuable in slowing Brockman’s game over the past six matchups. As his team’s leading scorer with 11.4 PPG, the towering Aussie will undoubtedly create problems for a Washington defense unaccustomed to slowing down big guys.

Brockman (16.5 PPG, 10.2 RPG), like Baynes, will play a physical style underneath that will create problems for the Washington State defense. Despite giving up five inches in height to his Cougar counterpart, Big Jon should have no problem putting up his usual double-double averages as the Huskies look to pound it inside on the Wazzu defenders. Edge: Washington.

Third forward: Darnell Gant (UW) vs. Caleb Forrest (WSU). Gant and Forrest, despite bearing no physical resemblance to one another, are starters for the exact same reasons. Both are hardworking, scrappy players that have earned their roles due to sweat and effort. Neither are considered prolific scorers, neither pull in an obscene number of rebounds, and neither really do any one thing particularly well. But each player has earned the respect of his coach, leading to an opportunity to start ballgames and provide energy when needed to each of the respective teams.

Gant (3.8 PPG, 0.4 APG, 4.2 RPG), a redshirt freshman, has yet to record double figures scoring in his short career, and is little more than an afterthought on the offensive end. Forrest (6.2 PPG, 0.3 APG, 3.3 RPG) a savvy veteran in his senior season, can contribute inside and outside on offense and has even been known to attempt a three-pointer now and again. While both players stand 6’8″, Gant’s length should create a disruptive atmosphere on the defensive interior and disallow Forrest to play a role in the paint. With his ability to stretch the floor, however, Forrest should provide more value to his team in the long run of this one. Edge: Washington State.

Sixth man: Matthew Bryan-Amaning (UW) vs. Nikola Koprivica (WSU). Koprivica, a junior shooting guard, has become a key contributor off the bench for this year’s Cougars. After a disappointing sophomore season in which he averaged only 11 minutes per game, the third-year player has seen that number swell to over 25 MPG this year as his role has expanded. The 6’6″ Serbian is a three-point threat that can bust a zone defense and will allow the Washington State interior players to get reps on the block by extending the Husky defenders.

Bryan-Amaning, a 6’9″ sophomore, is everything but a starter for UW. The bruising forward has been a fantastic complement to Brockman’s physical style of play, and should provide severe matchup problems for a Cougar team with only one true big man in Aron Baynes. In tandem with Brockman, expect MBA to get his share of mop-up points off rebounds, and look for him to display his hook shot against the much taller Baynes. Edge: Washington.

Outcome: Washington breaks down a stifling Cougar defense to the tune of a 65-59 Husky victory.