Illinois 34, USC 32 Postgame

[BZuppke]

I kind of agree with this, IF (and a big “if”) it was just about this win over USC. I think it goes much deeper. I think, and as many on here have already mentioned, in the past, Illinois would have lost this game, given up, mentally packed their bags. As DeeAndDWill posted, "Still going to take time for me to fully exorcise 'Illini gonna Illini". Illinois never wins that game, kudos to the offense and Olano.” But they didn’t lose. The ending of this game was like a frustration release, or catharsis, finally getting the monkey off their backs. Illinois is here, proud, and has a we can win mentality for every game. I don’t know how many of the fans who rushed the field consciously had this idea in their head, but I am sure many did.

What is the purpose of calling out a fan base for storming the field. I agree completely with you here. For those of us who have lived our history the IU game brought back decades of success followed by failure. To win on a walk off FG against a glamour school, on Homecoming was cathartic. The emotion had more to do with our modern program history than a win over #21 USC. So my retort to those who mock us (fanatics) is stfu.

 

[Todd99]

Targeting is the opposite of porn: I CAN define it but I DON’T know what it is when I see it.

 

[aaeismacgychel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972352174697914567

I have no clue how Kreutz isn't way up there or why there's only 1 OL on there but a ton of our defenders. PFF grades make next to no sense this week in my opinion.

 

[21ChampaignSt]

Genuine Question: when we get down to those 2 minute situations, opponent needs a TD, we need a FG after their TD... why don't we just let them score? Your obviously not going to stop them - your just not - and with a quarterback like that in a 2 minute drill, it's almost a certainty he'll get you 3 points.

JMO, but the staff probably doesn't like the message that would send to the defense. Plus we had stopped them in the red zone earlier in the game. And still had all our timeouts.

That said, there does come a point when you do just have to give up and let the other team walk in. You do see teams do this from time to time. If USC would've just ran the ball and milked the clock longer, we probably would've called off the defense and let them score. But they inexplicably went for the win with 2 minutes remaining.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

JMO, but the staff probably doesn't like the message that would send to the defense. Plus we had stopped them in the red zone earlier in the game. And still had all our timeouts.

That said, there does come a point when you do just have to give up and let the other team walk in. You do see teams do this from time to time. If USC would've just ran the ball and milked the clock longer, we probably would've called off the defense and let them score. But they inexplicably went for the win with 2 minutes remaining.

Tepper did it once i believe.

 

[Pikeillinifan]

Tepper did it once i believe.

He did, it didn’t work.

 

[Todd99]

What is the purpose of calling out a fan base for storming the field. I agree completely with you here. For those of us who have lived our history the IU game brought back decades of success followed by failure. To win on a walk off FG against a glamour school, on Homecoming was cathartic. The emotion had more to do with our modern program history than a win over #21 USC. So my retort to those who mock us (fanatics) is stfu.

• You fall in the rankings and are passed by the very team you’re playing that week
• The increased media attention with Fox in town all week
• A million questions about how the team will respond after the Indiana game
• A touchdown underdog at home
• All the hype of Homecoming
• Only picked by two of the “experts” on the pregame shows
• Give up the lead for the first time all day with a minute and a half to go
• A game winning field goal as time expires

It was an emotional release, and proof not only to ourselves but to our critics that this is a top 25 team and shouldn’t be judged so harshly by one uncharacteristic performance. The fanbase needed this win as much as the players and coaches.

 

[Point-Illinois]

As someone else said, they really need to fix the rule. If there's doubt, let the play go on. That makes sense. But to then say that letting the play go on means that the ruling on the field is "fumble", and that that ruling needs to be given deference, is stupid. It's essentially saying, everything is a fumble unless proven otherwise. How about saying that letting the play go on DOESN'T automatically mean that the ruling on the field was "fumble?".
Maybe that's what the rule is (i.e., the refs can let the play go on even if they think the runner was down), but my impression is that it's not.

The biggest issue here isn’t the fumble itself, but as you said, the ruling on the field that has to be overturned.

If you want to fix this, there has to either be a faster whistle when forward progression stops, or when a scrum happens on short yardage situations, the ruling on the field is always “the player was down” and then let video replay overturn it.

If refs can’t see into the scrum to determine if a player is down, they then can’t also assume a defender was able to rip the ball free before the runner went down.

This is akin to the refs simply closing their eyes as the RB gets the ball and then opening them 3 seconds later to see what happened and who has the ball.

A ball squirting out of the scrum (or a player taking it like at the Citrus Bowl) should mean nothing. Since a turnover can be backbreaking and completely change a game, it should be assumed they didn’t happen and then go to the monitor to see if they did.

Bottom line: Let video evidence prove the fumble (which, IMO would be easier) than the other way around.

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

It is worth noting that in all of our one poss. games - win or lose - Luke has always been given an opportunity with enough time to lead a drive (other than maybe 2023 Wisconsin?). That alone INSTANTELY wins you more games than you'll lose. Whether its lick, coaching, etc.. you always want to give your guy a fighter's chance.

Its the number 1 answer when people go “they won so many close games last year.”

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

I haven't heard. Have we had a player with a return, pass, receive, and running TD before? How often does this happen in college football?

Wow.

AI Overview

Only one player, Gale Sayers, is documented as having scored a touchdown via reception, run, pass, and punt return in the same college football season. This incredible feat was achieved by Sayers in 1965 while playing for the Kansas Jayhawks.

 

[therealmiket86]

I have no clue how Kreutz isn't way up there or why there's only 1 OL on there but a ton of our defenders. PFF grades make next to no sense this week in my opinion.

It’s very hard for pff to grade not knowing blocking assignments

 

[therealmiket86]

Its the number 1 answer when people go “they won so many close games last year.”

part of it’s luck but good teams find ways to win.

 

[IlliniCaboose]

I told my dad during the 2 minute timeout we should run a cover 0 all out blitz, either they score immediately or we get a huge sack, win win.
Henry didn't do that, but he did what he does best, give up a touchdown anyway. So it all worked out in the end.

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

I told my dad during the 2 minute timeout we should run a cover 0 all out blitz, either they score immediately or we get a huge sack, win win.
Henry didn't do that, but he did what he does best, give up a touchdown anyway. So it all worked out in the end.

Its exactly what Iowa did and got burned.

 

[DeeAndDWill]

I get it didn’t matter. But someone needs to explain that last 3rd and 4 run and ball placement. The ball was snapped at 27. The first down was the 23. Feagin went down with the ball at the 21 and a half. Yet it was then marked at the 24. Like it wasn’t even close. Worst case the ball should have been placed at the 22 - a full yard past the first down marker.

How is the officiating this [grrrrrrrrr] bad? This wasn’t a case of placement of like 6 inches. It was 2.5 full yards off.

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

I get it didn’t matter. But someone needs to explain that last 3rd and 4 run and ball placement. The ball was snapped at 27. The first down was the 23. Feagin went down with the ball at the 21 and a half. Yet it was then marked at the 24. Like it wasn’t even close. Worst case the ball should have been placed at the 22 - a full yard past the first down marker.

How is the officiating this [grrrrrrrrr] bad? This wasn’t a case of placement of like 6 inches. It was 2.5 full yards off.

This felt like a sabotage attempt...

 

[FloridaMan]

I get it didn’t matter. But someone needs to explain that last 3rd and 4 run and ball placement. The ball was snapped at 27. The first down was the 23. Feagin went down with the ball at the 21 and a half. Yet it was then marked at the 24. Like it wasn’t even close. Worst case the ball should have been placed at the 22 - a full yard past the first down marker.

How is the officiating this [grrrrrrrrr] bad? This wasn’t a case of placement of like 6 inches. It was 2.5 full yards off.

IMO because it is allowed to be this bad. When replays don't even get the play calls right, and when teams like IL are called for every very questionable target review while "brand" name teams are not, something other than "bad breaks" is afoot.

 

[Todd99]

I get it didn’t matter. But someone needs to explain that last 3rd and 4 run and ball placement. The ball was snapped at 27. The first down was the 23. Feagin went down with the ball at the 21 and a half. Yet it was then marked at the 24. Like it wasn’t even close. Worst case the ball should have been placed at the 22 - a full yard past the first down marker.

How is the officiating this [grrrrrrrrr] bad? This wasn’t a case of placement of like 6 inches. It was 2.5 full yards off.

And 31 seconds on the clock when the whistle blew and two timeouts to work with.

 

[Battle89]

That's all the defender. That's why this is tricky. It looks like it's Feagin. It's not. You have to watch the play in very slow motion. It's clearer (or, rather, clear-ish... which on replays is the bar) that there is a defender under Feagin. No part of his "downable" body hits before the ball pops out.

The beauty, or agony, of it is this: even if we disagree, that means the refs still got it right. We're on the same Illinois bandwagon and can't come to a definitive conclusion what happened. Non-biased refs certainly aren't going to make a decision on this with the video evidence provided. Thus: call is upheld.

Refs did everything right on this play as they are taught:
1. Let the play go due to the turnover
2. Go to video review to make a determination
3. Uphold the call because it's either obvious he wasn't down (my take) or it's not clear if he was down OR reverse it because there is undisputable video evidence (which clearly there is not if everyone has their own take on it).

The result sucked. Refs usually suck.

But hey, Illinios won! So... at least we have that!

Then how about forward progress stopped? Or was he going to wiggle like a worm along the defender without touching the ground? (Sarcasm directed to incompetent officials and not anyone here.)

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

at the same time, if the refs were that biased, then how did SC get the lineman penalty? Sure by the letter of the law it happened, but if their intent were to favor SC, it's far, far from a call you ought to go out of your way to make.

Breaks go both ways.

 

[TheChief4Life]

Then how about forward progress stopped? Or was he going to wiggle like a worm along the defender without touching the ground? (Sarcasm directed to incompetent officials and not anyone here.)

The forward progress is the better argument here. I think refs swallow their whistles at the most random times when it comes to forward progress.

 

[Curbelo Fanboy]

This included Mike Pereira...he confirmed the extra "beat", so he said he would not have flagged it...would have let it go like the refs did. I've actually heard that before. I think that slow substitution deal that the defense was doing plays into it, as well. That was also something that Pereira commented on...that something needs to be done about players jogging off the field in that situation. He understands the defense needs to substitute, but I think he feels they shouldn't lolly-gag off the field.

I know for years it seemed Aaron Rodgers got 2 or 3 beats. Annoyed the crap out of me.

 

[FloridaMan]

The forward progress is the better argument here. I think refs swallow their whistles at the most random times when it comes to forward progress.

I also thought Priestly jumped early on the play with no call when I saw it live. Just watched the replay and confirmed, I still believe he false started.

 

[Battle89]

The forward progress is the better argument here. I think refs swallow their whistles at the most random times when it comes to forward progress.

Agree. Lots of folks here say similar (and correctly) about targeting / not targeting, but I see just as much with forward progress. Less impactful in the old days because the offensive push was not allowed...but today one ref blows it dead right after contact and the other waits for offensive players to push back against the defensive push.

 

[aaeismacgychel]

at the same time, if the refs were that biased, then how did SC get the lineman penalty? Sure by the letter of the law it happened, but if their intent were to favor SC, it's far, far from a call you ought to go out of your way to make.

Breaks go both ways.

Now this part I agree with. Against Indiana, it was far far far more blatant and completely obvious illegal man downfield and not called. Refs easily could've swallowed their whistle and nobody would be the wiser.

If you want my actual non pithy explanation for what might have happened this game was make-up call syndrome. Refs let the Feagin fumble play out and didn't overturn it knowing full well it was garbage and cost 7pts. So they dial a TD back for USC. Even steven though not really.

As for the spot on the final play being 3yds off, that was a straight up job, there's no other rational explanation. The "mistakes happen, sometimes refs just accidentally make bad calls" argument holds about as much water as saying Michigan never gets beneficial calls. It was purposefully misspotted to make the kick much harder. That's all it was.