This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Yes, I'd argue we got screwed on that one as well by LuckyMcD

I was surprised to see the replay show that Book fumbled, but in order to overturn the call there needs to be clear evidence of a recovery. After the fumble, you couldn't see the ball until the Clemson DL stood up with the ball sitting on the ground. There was a clear opportunity for a recovery, there was no clear recovery. Then later in the game Mack made the catch, made a football move (turning upfield with possession), and was ruled incomplete. None of the calls affected the outcome of the game, even cumulatively, but all three were egregiously incorrect and all three went against us.