I've..."re-thunk" my position about 'furd fans and their "one bad call" claim. I've simplified. It was a mistake to over-analyze. The gist of it is: One call? REALLY? Is your team THAT fragile? To whit:

The Ducks survived 2 interceptions, 1 lost fumble, a 21-3 deficit, and a ridiculous "12 men in the huddle" call (huddle? what the F%$K is a "huddle?"). Result: 21 points in 6 minutes in the second quarter and 28-0 in the second half.

Stanford? Had a 21-3 lead in the first QUARTER. But one play loses the game? WHEN THEY HAD A 7 POINT LEAD? Puh-leeze. Sure, Oregon scored. Result: A TIE GAME.  Stanford fumbles, Oregon scores. STILL ONLY DOWN 7. INT, punt, to/downs, INT. It wasn't that "one call changed the game." It was that Oregon took control and didn't give it up. "Win with cruelty?" That is what is known as hubris. Oregon imposed its will. Oregon took their best shot and shrugged it off. Oregon adapted, adjusted, and prevailed. What happened is quite simply that the better team won. If you insist that Stanford lost the game due to one play, you are essentially admitting they are fragile pretenders. Oregon had EVERY OPPORTUNITY to lose heart and mail it in. They didn't. If your team can't withstand ONE averse call (and a correct call to boot), you aren't where you think you are. Fin.