USC Beats Utah 23-14....No, Wait, USC Beats Utah 17-14....No, Wait...

by srr50 on Sep 12, 2025 3:37 PM CDT in Texas Longhorns and Other Football

USC beats Utah 23-14.

It was an (apparently) meaningless touchdown that was at first nullified and then hours after the stadium was emptied, put back on the books. For Utah either way it still meant a loss in their inaugural Pac 12 game...for Vegas, it was one of the most important plays/non-plays of the early season.

With just seconds to go in the Saturday night contest and USC -- an 8.5 point favorite -- leading 17-14, Utah kicker Coleman Peterson lined up for a 41-yard field goal attempt that would send the game into overtime.

Then all hell broke loose.

The score from the blocked kick was originally disallowed when USC players poured on to the field in celebration, leaving the final score USC 17-14. Two hours later, the Pac 12 issued a reversal, stating that the touchdown should have counted and so the final score reverted to 23-14 USC -- and the Trojans cover the spread. The penalty stemmed from a new NCAA rule allowing for points to be taken off the board for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that happens before the points are actually scored.

However, Pac 12 officials decided that this unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was a dead ball foul, and since the game was over, it could not be enforced.

Pac-12 Officiating Consultant Mike Pereira said: "The new Unsportsmanlike Conduct rule states that Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls by players are administered as either live ball or dead ball fouls depending on when they occur. The rule does not apply to substitutes. All Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls by substitutes are enforced as dead ball fouls. Since the game was over, the penalty could not be enforced and the referee stated it was declined by rule. The officials did rule it a touchdown making the final score 23-14."

Since the ruling happened hours after the game officially ended, those holding Utah tickets in Vegas collected on their bets. Sports books decided to follow their own "House Rules." For some, that meant paying off both sides, if the USC bettors had held on to their betting slips. Others said they do not recognize overturned scores once the game is over. It is estimated that that the game generated from $50,000 to $100,000 in bets at each of the major sports books in Nevada.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Crazy, I had wondered what would happen on those bets.

by TDiddle on Sep 12, 2025 3:46 PM CDT reply actions

I had a friend in Vegas who collected on a Utah bet.

It’s crazy to me that some casinos decided to pay both sides. Those fuckers make way too much money.

by dick on Sep 12, 2025 3:56 PM CDT reply actions

I believe the Pac 12’s official position was that the referees correctly ruled it a TD on the field, but there was a miscommunication with the press about the final score.

by Texas Wahoo on Sep 12, 2025 3:56 PM CDT reply actions

Ref, Lefty and Fingers would like to have a little talk with yous. No, no, dat’s fine, you could sit in the front seat.

by Tex Long on Sep 12, 2025 3:58 PM CDT reply actions

By the way, does anyone know whats up with the game analyst site? I can’t access any of the articles.

by TDiddle on Sep 12, 2025 4:17 PM CDT reply actions

I left the game early to come home and watch the last seven minutes of the Texas game on a shitty stream.

I regret none of it.

by Garry Crowbar on Sep 12, 2025 4:23 PM CDT reply actions

Unmentioned in the preceding is the EXTREMELY long film review the officials did before Utah tried the FG. Utes were ruled short on a fourth-down try that was so badly mismarked you could see it was wrong if you were watching from Saturn. Officials finally re-placed the ball (still not where it should have been), re-measured, and granted the first down.

Utah then ran a couple of plays and advanced the ball a few yards before the crazy ending.

What I take from the USC-Utah ruling is that if Quan Cosby’s “penalized” dive into the end zone against Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl had happened as time ran out . . . the score counts. But if time remains, it does not count.

by edsp on Sep 12, 2025 4:39 PM CDT reply actions

“What I take from the USC-Utah ruling is that if Quan Cosby’s "penalized" dive into the end zone against Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl had happened as time ran out . . . the score counts. But if time remains, it does not count.”

I don’t think that’s right at all. Quan Cosby was not a “substitute.” Quan Cosby was in the game at the time, and thus his dive would have taken away the touchdown.

by Texas Wahoo on Sep 12, 2025 4:45 PM CDT reply actions

For all the NCAA’s hypocritical moralizing about gambling, it just goes to show you how much influence gambling has over college football. Unless you are a gambler or a book maker, there was absolutely no reason for the PAC 12 to change the game score. It didn’t effect the outcome.

In fact it was pretty brazen of the Pac 12 to change the score. I wonder what would have happened if Utah was a 10 point dog and the spread didn’t come into the equation.

At least pro football is pretty open with its embrace of Vegas, what with the staunch injury reporting requirements.

by roach on Sep 12, 2025 6:04 PM CDT reply actions

im with texas. i think the ruling is if you receive your unsportsmanlike PRIOR to entering the end zone. therefore, as the dive was the “unsportmanlike” conducts, it began prior to entering the end zone and would have been disallowed.

by brett on Sep 12, 2025 6:18 PM CDT reply actions

At ESPN, the article on the score change says " A USC spokesperson said the updated ruling was a “collaborative effort between the Pac-12 and USC.”

A collaborative effort between the PAC-12 and those who bet on USC, I think they mean.

by lurkerinthedark on Sep 12, 2025 6:29 PM CDT reply actions

I’m not saying that gambling isn’t an influence, but I do think that this all would have happened regardless of the spread. The first reason is the whole issue of “getting it right” and the second is that IIRC scores matter in at least a couple of the computer polls used by the BCS, and even if USC doesn’t likely have a chance for it to matter this early in the season they don’t know for sure. Don’t want to have a law suit or even a fracas because USC missed out on a BCS bowl on NC shot due to missing .00001 in the poll.

by jimboLH on Sep 12, 2025 6:31 PM CDT reply actions

jimboLH,

USC is not eligible for a bowl this year. Probation.

by Rex Chapman's Black Girlfriend on Sep 12, 2025 6:46 PM CDT reply actions

@Rex I stand corrected on a pretty glaring oversight on my part. I do still think that the matter of pride / getting it right issue played a (but not the only) role in the process.

by jimboLH on Sep 12, 2025 6:54 PM CDT reply actions

I lost $150 on this one, I had Utah +8. When I went to bed my online account showed it a winner, but by the time I woke up it had changed to a looser. Pretty clear to me they changed it for gambling purposes.

by holdem on Sep 12, 2025 8:37 PM CDT reply actions