It's an emergency, someone get me the precedent!

First, I'm going to hit on something Oregon QB Dennis Dixon said on ESPNEWS: "it's something you always dream of, being a quarterback in that situation, in a hostile environment, especially at home ... I fulfilled the answers towards the end, that's what a great quarterbacks do it in the clutch."

Look closely at that quote, or go to espn.com and listen to the piece yourself. I find a number of things disturbing, just in that small snippet. And, it leaves me wondering "why do they interview people like this?" First, Dixon is referring to himself as a great QB. Didn't Dixon get pulled from the OU game for a bit in favor of Brady "I wish I had Ryan's talent" Leaf? Yep, same guy. If I made a list of great QB's, Dennis Dixon wouldn't even be on the really, really, really, long list. He can't even hold Joey Harrington's jock! Second, use the correct word, even if it's not as catchy a word. "In a hostile environment, especially at home" ... that's a contradiction if I've ever heard one. The people in Eugene love their Ducks. Alex Rodriguez confronts hostile environments at home, Dennis Dixon does not. Perhaps he doesn't realize what hostile means. Or, maybe he just likes to throw cliches out there. Finally, "that's what a great quarterbacks do"? Dixon is not a freshman, he's a junior. You'd think that in his first two years in college someone at Oregon would be concerned enough about him academically to turn "that's what a great quarterbacks do" into either a) that's what great quarterbacks do or b) that's what a great quarterback does. No wonder Oregon doesn't rank first in the nation among public universities in national merit scholars per capita!

Now, I'll move on to the precedent issue. Personally, I think OU should be awarded a victory (and Oregon a loss) in response to the hideous officiating. That's my opinion. If you don't agree, I guess that's ok. I might try to convince you to see it my way, or you might be able to convince me to flip sides. However, what I don't understand at all is the people who say "there's no precedent for it." Precedent for what? When was the last time a local replay official blew two obvious calls in the last 75 seconds of a game that led to a win being turned into a loss for the visiting team? Is there precedent for not changing the result? There is never precedent until something happens once. Schools used to be segregated. The first desegregation (way before my time) was met with a lot of resistance from some parties. But, now, the situation is a lot better. I won't turn this into a social commentary on race relations because I'm definitely not an expert in that field. The only liberal arts type classes I had in college were engineering related seminars ... sorry. You get the point though: just because there isn't precedent for something does mean that it shouldn't happen.

What happens if a team uses an ineligible player? They forfeit the game, right? Well, the replay official in the OU v. UO game seems to be similar to an ineligible player in that the official gave an unfair advantage to the Ducks, just like using an ineligible player would. I'm not going formulate a conspiracy theory to explain the officiating. The Oregon Ducks may have nothing to do with the official other than the fact that the official gave them a victory. However, sometimes teams don't realize players are ineligible (St. Bonaventure bball team in 2003).

Replay is fairly new, especially in college football. Judging by the reactions to the job done by the replay official in the OU v. UO game, problems with replay in college football are fairly new. Therefore, people need to be proactive in dealing with problems that occur while the replay system is being optimized.