Share This Page

Bowl roundup: ASU, Graham rout Navy in Fight Hunger Bowl

| Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012, 8:10 p.m.

SAN FRANCISCO — Taylor Kelly threw four touchdown passes and ran for a fifth score to lead Arizona State to its first bowl win in seven years, a 62-28 victory over Navy in the Fight Hunger Bowl on Saturday.

Offensive MVP Marion Grice ran for 159 yards and two TDs for the Sun Devils (8-5), who used their fast-paced spread offense to score touchdowns on their first nine possessions.

That helped provided a bright end to a successful first season at Arizona State for former Pitt coach Todd Graham, who helped the Sun Devils win their most games since 2007 and win a bowl for the first time since the 2005 Insight Bowl against Rutgers. The Sun Devils capped their season by beating rival Arizona and winning a bowl, a feat they had accomplished just once in the past 33 seasons.

Alamo Bowl

Texas 31, No. 15 Oregon State 27 — In San Antonio, David Ash threw two fourth-quarter touchdown passes, the last a 36-yard strike to Marquise Goodwin with 2:24 left, to give the Longhorns a comeback victory over Oregon State (9-4).

The Longhorns (9-4) never led before Goodwin scored his second touchdown on a deep post pattern just a play after Texas converted a fourth-and-1 play to keep its chances alive.

Armed Forces Bowl

Rice 33, Air Force 14 — In Fort Worth, Texas, freshman quarterback Driphus Jackson threw for 264 yards in relief of Rice's hurt starter, including two touchdown passes to Jordan Taylor, and the Owls (7-6) beat Air Force.

Jackson took over for Taylor McHargue, who never returned because of an apparent head injury after a helmet-to-helmet collision with about five minutes left in the first half.

Air Force (6-7) was held to a season-low 214 total yards.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.