Ohio State's loss to LSU in the MNC was two TDs on the scoreboard, but 3 TDs in meaningful time, before the defensive starters started sitting. Whether or not you think LSU would have scored again if they didn't get irritated that OSU had the gall to score after the snowball would determine whether you think it was a 3 or 4 TD "type" of lopsided game. But I think, one way or the other, OSU wouldn't have scored again if LSU hadn't started subbing liberally.
Personally, I think LSU's foot would have been as firmly off the gas on the offensive side as it was the defensive side, and it would have stayed a 3-TD differential if OSU didn't score. i.e., LSU only scored their final TD because the defense allowed OSU to score....sans that, LSU's offense would have gone into Les Miles' patented Hibernation/Clock-Kill mode. IMO, anyway. So it was a 14 pt game I view as a 21 pt type of game, which one could potentially view as a 28 pt type of game, though I'd disagree.
My team has been in plenty of these on both sides so I've come up with a theory that I think is a better measure than the final score.
My theory is that the best measure is time. Specifically, at what point in the game would a neutral fan* have considered the game to be more-or-less over.
As applied to LSU's 38-24 win over tOSU in the 2007 NC/2008 SugarBowl there is a strong argument for mid third quarter.
If you remember, Ohio State jumped out to a 10-0 lead so when LSU took over (which they most certainly did) their first 10 just made it even. At halftime it was 24-10 and felt worse (for me, better for you) than that because LSU had scored 24 straight but a 14 point game at the half is clearly NOT over. Lots of teams have come back from being down 14 at the half. About midway through the third quarter LSU scored AGAIN to conclude a 31-0 run that made it a three-TD game with roughly a quarter and a half (of a quarter) to go. IMHO, at that point a neutral fan could conclude that the Buckeyes weren't going to suddenly take over and score enough points to win.
I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for anything earlier. I *COULD* make an argument for later. Now I looked it up and after Ohio State stopped the bleeding with a TD to make it 31-17 (2 TD game) late in the third, the Buckeyes forced a three-and-out to take possession down two TD's early in the fourth quarter. The Buckeyes then drove to the LSU 37. I think there is a reasonable argument that the game wasn't 'over' when Ohio State had a 1st down inside the LSU 40 with almost a full quarter to play and down by 14.
I don't think you could argue for anything much later than that because even though tOSU forced a three-and-out there, by the time they got the ball back there was only around eight minutes to play and Ohio State was 80 yards from the goal line.
The absolute latest you could possibly argue was the int at 5:43 to go. After that the teams traded TD's but, as you indicated, neither was relevant.
I only slightly differ from you here. Your post made it sound like tOSU's second-to-last TD was completely inconsequential and I disagree. That happened in the third quarter and made it a two-TD game. If I were a neutral fan I *might* have turned the game off at 31-10 mid-way through the third but if I didn't I would have thought 'well maybe this will be interesting' when it got to 31-17 with more than 15 minutes to play.
