Everyone is so quick to defend Pollard with the disclaimer "we aren't saying that the call cost us the game." Obviously Pollard's comments are an appeal to somehow change the culture of officiating in the Big 12, and I applaud him for it, despite the unintended consequence. I do think it is unfortunate that many outsiders will check out Pollards comments on ESPN or whatever, and will think he is whining, and that ISU has a bad underdog complex. But when you look at the actual reversal, it is clearly such an incredibly egregious error- absolutely no indisputable evidence to reverse the call on the field- that I think it puts conspiracy theories on the table. Is money changing hands? is there unethical pressure on officials from the big dogs in the league? Was the replay official an effing Cowboy fan? wtf?! Whatever the reason for the call, that's not the point of this post. I would like to criticize the defensive point of emphasis coming from many people who are defending Pollard with the above disclaimer. "nobody is saying the call cost us the game." I understand the point, but I think its the wrong point of emphasis. Everybody knows that momentum is a very significant dynamic in a game. Intangible, but significant. Rather than saying, "hey we're not saying we would have won. . . " i'd like to hear something like, "the call was incontrovertibly horrible, it changed the momentum in a major way, and therefore, it influenced the outcome of the game beyond what the scoreboard reflects. Without a doubt." Personally, I would be inclined to say that, if we get that stop at the end of the half, we have maybe a 30% chance of winning the game. But as it turned out, our chances were slim to none without a wave of momentum and confidence coming into the 2nd half.
