dear cal/pac-10 lovers and texas/big-12 haters

[IMetTrentGreen]

this was posted on another board. i hope this ends this rediculous debate:

The Pac 10 commish, the Cal coach, and many others are harping on some of the voting patterns that may have tainted the BCS. Let's talk about it. Let me take item by item some of the problems that have been discussed (and I will make adjustments accordingly).

-- You complain about the 3 Texas based AP voters who switched and put Texas ahead of Cal. I'm gonna switch it back for ya. (typing). There you go!

-- You complain about the Alabama jerk who suddenly realized Texas is not the #9 team, but he suddenly moved us up to #5. Bear in mind, he still had Texas behind you guys, but what the hay? Let's take away those four points from Texas, shall we?

-- You are offended (and you have a case) that some coaches put Texas #2 or #3. You are right. That is wrong. I'm taking it all away. I will take away those points from Texas, and because y'all are so damn confident that you unequivocally outrank Texas, I will reassign all these #2/#3 Texas coach votes to Texas as a #5 vote. (More typing). There we go! And I'm being so nice today, I'm gonna go ahead and leave the pro-Cal #3 vote that mysteriously appeared in the final coaches poll.

-- You are offended that 6 coaches put you #7 or #8. Yes, that's wrong, too. Forget the fact that 8 coaches had Texas #7 or #8, the media is not mentioning that fact at all, but whatever. What I will do for y'all... I will take all 6 Cal #7/#8 votes, and because y'all are so convinced you are the better team, I will magically turn those into #4 votes, ahead of Texas.

So where do we stand after all these very generous changes?

#4 Texas 0.8442
#5 Cal 0.8397
0.0045

That's right. We eliminated a little more than half of the difference. So much for the razor thin margin. So much for the conspiracy taking away your Rose Bowl bid. Y'all need to get together, figure out another injustice, and let me know, so we can try to plug a way for you guys to win.

OK. Now that I have mathematically shown (and given you all are very smart students at Berkeley, and you know based on what I said above, I'm right), let me give you all the reasons why you need to shut up already and just accept your damn Holiday Bowl bid.

1. The "Conspiracy Effect" Doesn't Add Up
This is what was just proven above. In the end, it makes for a neat Trev Alberts, PTI, New York Times, Seattle Times story, but it didn't really matter.

2. You Outranked Us in Both Human Polls
Al Gore wanted a recount, investigations, because he had LOST the human vote. You guys won it, damn it! Not only do you outrank us #4/#5 in the coach's poll, but you have the added benefit of a wedge (Utah) to outrank us #4/#6 in the AP poll. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?? How can you allege fraud in the human polls, when in the end, they WENT IN YOUR FAVOR?

Forget the fact that both teams have identical records, and a good case to make as both teams lost to undefeated national title contenders. It's understandable that some voters will vote Cal #4/Texas #5, and vice versa. If you refuse to accept that premise, you are being naive. It is not a slam dunk case, that in every voter's mind, that you are better than Texas. You know it and we know it. I will never argue that every voter should have Texas higher than Cal, and you should never argue the opposite. It's a grey area.

And in the end, the grey area was in your favor. You are unhappy, because it wasn't overwhelmingly ENOUGH in your favor. Oh well.

3. There's a reason the computers liked Texas
Cal's cumulative opponents win/loss was 61-61, a perfect breakeven.
Texas' cumulative opponents win/loss was 67-56, 11 games over 0.500

That's right. The best way we can try to demote our schedule to your level, is to pull out the undefeated 12-0 record of our best opponent, Oklahoma. But given that you guys bitch and bitch and bitch how close you came to beating your undefeated opponent, I don't think we can accomodate you there.

We beat 5 teams that had 7 or more victories. You defeated one. One. One team that won 7 or more games.

4. Be fair about each of our losses.
I am more than willing to grant you that you played USC better than we played OU. But don't go saying that you practically beat USC (because you outgained them, and your wideout tripped on his route), while we got blown out by OU. The score of the OU game at halftime was Oklahoma 3, Texas 0. It was Oklahoma 6, Texas 0 up until 8 minutes in the 4th quarter. I realize that given you are Pac 10 fans, you must shiver when you see such a defensive struggle. But this was a very close game.

Again, we did not do as well against our rival as you did against yours. You guys were close. But don't go saying that we were blown out by OU.

5. Be fair about each of our sloppy wins.
Kansas. Boy, the media sure loves that game. We played sloppy in that one no doubt, but you guys know that as time was winding down, the Oregon WR dropped a wideopen, easy pass that puts them well within field goal range. So those are both near misses against sub-0.500 teams.

Arkansas. Well, I was happy with that one, it was an electric environment. It was probably closer than it should have been. Honestly, I do think this is a wash with your Southern Miss game. On the road, close at the end (game was nearly tied 17-16 with a mere 6 minutes left). But in the end, the better team won.

If you try to assert that any of our wins beyond KU and Arkansas were low quality or squeakers in nature, you are wrong (in my opinion). I attended and re-watched each of these games. Kansas and Arkansas made me sweat, but as the games concluded, none of the others were really in question, and they were all by reasonable victory margins. Yes, a comeback was needed against Okla State, but we won that game by 21 points.

6. Quit harping on the Big 10/Pac 10 sanctity crap.
For years, the Rose Bowl has been diligent in preserving tradition by always inviting the champion of the Big 10, to play the champion of the Pac 10.

Three teams: Michigan, Cal, and Texas. Only one of them meets this tradition, and last time I checked, that team is going to the Rose Bowl. Tell me, again, how the tradition is being violated.

7. Quit saying Mack Brown's "whining" did the trick.
While you and Utah were off, and after we defeated a ranked A&M team in a rivalry game, Mack Brown made public statements asking for voters to reconsider their votes. Some have portrayed this as "whining," some may say he was politicking, but whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. He was certainly making an appeal to voters.

When the polls came out merely 2 days later (again bearing in mind that Texas beat a ranked team, Cal and Utah were off), here's what happened: Cal GAINED 4 points relative to Texas in the human polls. Texas LOST ground after defeating a ranked team by 13pts, while Cal was off. If ANYTHING, the "whining" backfired. It clearly didn't help.

Here's a thought.... maybe Cal lost ground in the human polls in the following week (a full 9 days after Mack's "whining") because of a subpar performance against a mediocre conference USA opponent. Because they were virtually tied with Southern Miss with only 6 minutes remaining in the game. Not because of Mack's "whining." And if you think it is wrong for Cal to be penalized on ballots because they didn't look good against a mediocre opponent -- welcome to college football. Teams have constantly been tweaked because of soft performances. Nebraska, in 1997, lost considerable votes (relative to Michigan) when it needed some luck to squeak by Mizzou. The precedent is ample, and reasonable. In fact, Texas according to many voters was being penalized for its performance against Kansas. What goes around, comes around.

[Noop]

Texas in my opinion would get creamed by Cal and also they lost to USC and atleast gave them a game while Texas just bent over and let OU run the train.

[SackAttack]

I stopped reading when he said that because the overall result in the human polls is what Cal wanted, that fraud is irrelevant.

He introduced the comparison between national elections and the BCS, so let's extend that a bit. Bush's final margin of victory in Ohio appears to have been a little over 116,000. Let's call it 116,500 for the sake of this argument. If 116,499 of those votes are fraudulent (and all other votes cast are legitimate except for those 116,499 Bush votes), but the remaining one vote still results in the same outcome, does that mean that measures to prevent election fraud shouldn't be investigated, because the outcome doesn't change?

Likewise, if there are shenanigans going on in the coaches/AP polls that are affecting the BCS formula, shouldn't those shenanigans be investigated and corrected regardless of whether or not it would change Cal's ranking (from #4 to #5? from #4 to #3? stays the same?) or Texas' (from #7 to #4? from #5 to #4? from #4 to #5? no change?)?

[SackAttack]

dola,

Or, let's say, if Kerry had 100,000 fraudulent votes - that seems to be a more apt comparison than the example I gave, upon further reflection.

[Cuckoo]

I disagree that Texas bent over for Oklahoma in any way. That was a good game, highlighted by some very good defensive play. Yes Texas gave up a lot of yards to Peterson, but they didn't give up a lot of points. OU's defensive performance that day was outstanding, and there's no reason to fault Texas for that.

Although it pains me to say so, Texas is a good football team. I don't know who would win between Texas and Cal, and I'm not sure which one deserves the BCS bid or not. But both teams are very good football teams.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I disagree that Texas bent over for Oklahoma in any way. That was a good game, highlighted by some very good defensive play. Yes Texas gave up a lot of yards to Peterson, but they didn't give up a lot of points. OU's defensive performance that day was outstanding, and there's no reason to fault Texas for that.

Although it pains me to say so, Texas is a good football team. I don't know who would win between Texas and Cal, and I'm not sure which one deserves the BCS bid or not. But both teams are very good football teams.

Hmm no one.. I watched that game and never once did I get the feeling Texas was going to win. Not once... Where as Cal/USC I felt that Cal was going to score and win meaning that it was a good game. I watched all of OU/Texas for Adrian Peterson because I was in awe of his talent.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Noop

Hmm no one.. I watched that game and never once did I get the feeling Texas was going to win. Not once... Where as Cal/USC I felt that Cal was going to score and win meaning that it was a good game. I watched all of OU/Texas for Adrian Peterson because I was in awe of his talent.

I somewhat agree with you, but I don't know if that's because OU was in control of that game or just because I'm an OU fan. It's difficult for me to separate that bias when talking about whether I thought Texas would win.

I do agree with you about Cal/USC though. But just because OU/Texas was more of a defensive struggle doesn't mean it was less of a good game, and it doesn't make Texas a lesser football team, in my opinion. They're a very different kind of team than Cal, but still very good. Again, just my $.02.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I do agree with you about Cal/USC though. But just because OU/Texas was more of a defensive struggle doesn't mean it was less of a good game, and it doesn't make Texas a lesser football team, in my opinion.

How about the fact that it was a much closer game? Texas never threatened Oklahoma. I think Cal is a touch better then Texas and wouldn't base it on just the 2 games in question here, but I don't see how someone could watch Cal/USC and Texas/Oklahoma and think the games were of equal quality.

[larrymcg421]

Where the teams were ranked last week or the week before or the week before that does not matter. It is a problem if voters are changing their votes at the last minute to effect the outcome of the BCS, whether they do it for Cal or for Texas. Texas just happened to be the overall benificary of it this time. Doesn't mean it was right the way it happened.

[panerd]

Cal Fans...

Here's how you could have avoided this controversy all together. You could have defeated USC and right now you would be playing OU for the national championship. You didn't. Too bad.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

How about the fact that it was a much closer game? Texas never threatened Oklahoma. I think Cal is a touch better then Texas and wouldn't base it on just the 2 games in question here, but I don't see how someone could watch Cal/USC and Texas/Oklahoma and think the games were of equal quality.

One was played on a beautiful day in Southern California. The other was played in crappy Dallas cold/rain. I think that could certainly affect the quality of the game.

I agree that Cal may have been the best team that day, but I'm not sure that it is fair to say that Texas never threatened OU. Texas had the ball in OU territory most of the first half, but they couldn't put points on the board. It was a one score game (a Benson or Young run) well into the fourth quarter. I think Texas certainly threatened OU.

Having said that, I can also understand an OU fan saying they never felt like they were going to lose that game. I think the two points are distinct.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by panerd

Cal Fans...

Here's how you could have avoided this controversy all together. You could have defeated USC and right now you would be playing OU for the national championship. You didn't. Too bad.

Got it. So an order to even get into the BCS, Cal has to beat the #1 team and mnaybe best overall team in the country. Meanwhile, Texas doesn't even have to show up for a matchup against the #2 team, but they get a free ride.

Sure, I should have figured that out. Thanks, panerd.

CR

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by digamma

One was played on a beautiful day in Southern California. The other was played in crappy Dallas cold/rain. I think that could certainly affect the quality of the game.

I agree that Cal may have been the best team that day, but I'm not sure that it is fair to say that Texas never threatened OU. Texas had the ball in OU territory most of the first half, but they couldn't put points on the board. It was a one score game (a Benson or Young run) well into the fourth quarter. I think Texas certainly threatened OU.

Having said that, I can also understand an OU fan saying they never felt like they were going to lose that game. I think the two points are distinct.

I agree with this. Saying the games are of "equal quality" is not what I said, nor do I completely understand what that means. What I said was that based on those two games, it looks to me like both Texas and Cal are good teams. They both played tight games with one of the top two teams in the country.

One was more of an offensive battle that came down to a final possession pretty much, and the other was more of a defensive struggle that came down to capitalizing on opportunities to score. "Equal quality" is a subjective phrase that is almost impossible to determine, let alone define. All I'm saying is that both teams are very good football teams.

Edit: Upon rereading my comments, I think I understand what the "equal quality" statement was based on. What I said was that just because it was a defensive game didn't make it less of a good game than a more offensive one. That's my opinion. Honestly, I'm not even making a judgment on which game was better, mainly because of my afforementioned bias. I'm bound to enjoy an OU game more even if it is more of a defensive one. I was just responding to Noop's comment that it wasn't as good of a game. I disagree with that. Both games were tight - seven point difference in Cal/USC and twelve in OU/UT if I'm not mistaken.

[HornedFrog Purple]

anyone who says Texas didn't show up against OU is out of their minds. The defense played outstanding holding OU to 12 points. The offense didn't execute, but this was not a beatdown like last season.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

anyone who says Texas didn't show up against OU is out of their minds. The defense played outstanding holding OU to 12 points. The offense didn't execute, but this was not a beatdown like last season.

I am out of my mind then... I think Texas is a good team but I dont see them being better then Cal. Like I said before no once did I feel Texas was going to win that game against OU. Where as with Cal I thought I was going to see an upset. Cuckoo may just be trying to support the Big-12 I dunno but as someone who doesnt not really root for either team. I think Texas is a notch below Cal... one more point I didnt say Texas/OU was a bad game but rather it was a game where from the beginning I and I am pretty sure the rest of the nation knew the outcome.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by HornedFrog Purple

anyone who says Texas didn't show up against OU is out of their minds. The defense played outstanding holding OU to 12 points. The offense didn't execute, but this was not a beatdown like last season.

Well, I could have phrased that part differently, of course, but the essential point is the same. Apparently in order to get into the BCS (according to panerd anyway), Cal has to beat the best team in the country, while Texas doesn't even have to come within a touchdown of the #2 team int he country and they DO get in.

CR

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Noop

I am out of my mind then... I think Texas is a good team but I dont see them being better then Cal. Like I said before no once did I feel Texas was going to win that game against OU. Where as with Cal I thought I was going to see an upset. Cuckoo may just be trying to support the Big-12 I dunno but as someone who doesnt not really root for either team. I think Texas is a notch below Cal... one more point I didnt say Texas/OU was a bad game but rather it was a game where from the beginning I and I am pretty sure the rest of the nation knew the outcome.

I understand what you're saying about that OU/UT game, and I honestly don't know if Texas is better than Cal or not. I think that if they played, it'd be a good game. Honestly, though, I couldn't care less about supporting the Big 12. If anything, I hate Texas so much that I should degrade them. I'm just giving my honest opinion. I don't think there's a lot of difference between the two as far as overall talent.

[ice4277]

Eh, it doesn't matter, Michigan would kick either school's ass.


Discuss.

[illinifan999]

Boise State should be in a BCS bowl.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Cal Fans...

Here's how you could have avoided this controversy all together. You could have defeated USC and right now you would be playing OU for the national championship. You didn't. Too bad.

You're mistaken if you think the only people upset are Cal fans. I could care less about Cal/Pac10/Texas/Big 12. I don't root for any of those teams. I'm pissed about what happened because it could happen to my team in the future.

Your comment doesn't make any sense. Why did Cal have to beat USC but Texas didn't have to beat Oklahoma? The problem is that voters wildly changed their votes right right before the final BCS rankings. It shouldn't matter what teams were involved. It sucks no matter what.

[Chief Rum]

I actually don't know which team is better either. Cal-Texas would be a great game actually.

I just think it's a shame that they are both left out. If there was a year when a playoff would have made terrific sense, this was the one.

CR

[HornedFrog Purple]

There is no talent difference, just having Mack Brown and Greg Davis is an automatic handicap.

Texas against OU at that point of the season, Texas was one-dimensional. As the year progressed, they became better balanced. They didn't slip up against anyone else as has been their fate over the last few seasons and pounded some quality teams in the process.

As I said in another thread, blame Hurricane Francis. Southern Miss is not very good. Everyone thought when they beat Nebraska that it was a incredible win, but as the season progressed, Nebraska proved to be pitiful. Cal should have beat Southern Miss by 30 points. My very bad Frogs beat them by 25!

[JW]

Finally the obvious. Cal nearly lost to a poor Southern Miss team. Yet even the ESPN announcers were trying to build Cal up, talking about how hard it is to come into Southern Miss's stadium. rotflmao. Cal did not take care of business in a critical game.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Well, I could have phrased that part differently, of course, but the essential point is the same. Apparently in order to get into the BCS (according to panerd anyway), Cal has to beat the best team in the country, while Texas doesn't even have to come within a touchdown of the #2 team int he country and they DO get in.

CR

No, one of the two teams had to do something. Both lost to teams higher than them, and neithor was blown out. Therefore, they were still more or less equal based on those games. One has to get in , the other can't. There is always a loser, you cant say that one team had to beat the best team, they just had to be a little better on the season to get in.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JW

Finally the obvious. Cal nearly lost to a poor Southern Miss team. Yet even the ESPN announcers were trying to build Cal up, talking about how hard it is to come into Southern Miss's stadium. rotflmao. Cal did not take care of business in a critical game.

Ok, well I'll be waiting for the excuse for Texas's performance against Kansas and Missouri.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Ok, well I'll be waiting for the excuse for Texas's performance against Kansas and Missouri.

They held OU to 12 points they good.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by wbatl1

No, one of the two teams had to do something. Both lost to teams higher than them, and neithor was blown out. Therefore, they were still more or less equal based on those games. One has to get in , the other can't. There is always a loser, you cant say that one team had to beat the best team, they just had to be a little better on the season to get in.

That's exactly my point, wbatl. panerd is saying Cal has to beat USC, but Texas doesn't have to beat OU. He is basically saying there is no other way Cal could have gotten in (that Texas is conclusively better than Cal). I disagree with the notion that Texas is conclusively better than Cal.

CR

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Ok, well I'll be waiting for the excuse for Texas's performance against Kansas and Missouri.

They didn't play either one of them this last weekend.

Its simply this. Cal is playing a bad team. They need to demolish a bad team on the last week to hold serve. They didn't.

If for example, OU had only beat Baylor by 10 points a couple weeks ago, Auburn would have taken #2, because voters care about what you just now did when considering keeping your spot.

What if OU needed to pull the game out in the last 6 minutes to win by 10 against Colorado. You think OU stays #2? The answer is no. They blew them out by 39. They took care of business.

[Chief Rum]

That may be the way it is, but that doesn't mean it's right. Teams should be judged on whole seasons, not on what they did on the last weekend.

It's interesting to note that in a situation with similiarities (OU losing to K-State in the B12 championship game last year), the B12 team won out in that situation, too, despite it being essentially the polar opposite of what happened this season with the Cal-Texas situation (and even worse, OU actually lost, instead of winning by less than what voters thought they should have).

CR

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That may be the way it is, but that doesn't mean it's right. Teams should be judged on whole seasons, not on what they did on the last weekend.
CR

I totally agree with you on this, but it wasjudged unfairly like this with the polls long before the BCS came into use. If anything, the BCS helps level this out a bit. Not that it ever seems to make much difference.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

this was posted on another board. i hope this ends this rediculous debate:

Another intelligent post by ImetTrentGreen.

Shut up and enjoy the Rose Bowl already you idiot.



Oh, and if you're going to try to use big words like 'ridiculous' I suggest you also use spell check.

[Noop]

^ I think that was uncalled...

[DeToxRox]

I know it's been brought up, but honestly, F Pre-Season Polls.

what did USC do to deserve #1 to start the year? They should've been #2, may not seem like much, but look at what happened.

polls should make their debut in mid-october, the same time as the BCS. It'll help some of this nonsense.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Noop

^ I think that was uncalled...

Really? Do you think he posted this to actually "end the debate" or just to stir Sh#t up?

He posts "I'm right), let me give you all the reasons why you need to shut up already and just accept your damn Holiday Bowl bid." and you think my reply was uncalled for?

[sterlingice]

You know, I know this probably sounds crazy to those who have made up their mind, but I gotta say this article made me switch from backing Cal to Texas and that's as someone who watched my Jayhawks one biased ref's offensive pass interference call away from beating them.

So long as this system is in place, it looks like the right team went because even with all the impropriety taken away, they still would have come out ahead in the sense that Cal still got voted ahead of Texas but you really can't drop them any lower than 6 in the human polls with any legit argument and that still wouldn't move them behind Cal in the BCS. What? Drop them behind 2 loss Georgia or 1 loss Louisville? No. Even dropping them behind Utah is a stretch in the sense that if you think Utah should be ahead of Texas, why not ahead of Cal which puts it back to a 1 place difference- that seems more legit to me than any Cal-Utah-Texas ranking.

I must be missing something but the computer polls aren't being changed by Brown's yearly whiny bitch act and in the polls, you can't legitimately drop them to the point where it would have made a difference so how again was Cal screwed within the current system? Yes, the system needs to be changed, badly. But, how can we this year really put Cal above them? Frankly, I prefer a 6 (or 12) team playoff (top 2/4 get byes so there is some real incentive to finish undefeated/one-loss in that there is 1 less game against really tough competition) but until then, we can't entertain that notion.

Seriously, I'm genuinely confused that if these things above are true, how does Cal have a beef about where they were placed in the final standings?

SI

[Noop]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Really? Do you think he posted this to actually "end the debate" or just to stir Sh#t up?

He posts "I'm right), let me give you all the reasons why you need to shut up already and just accept your damn Holiday Bowl bid." and you think my reply was uncalled for?

Nah I was just trying to stir the shit up... just playing I was fucking around.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Seriously, I'm genuinely confused that if these things above are true, how does Cal have a beef about where they were placed in the final standings?

SI

I think the beef comes that they were 4th in the BCS entering the last week (computers and all combined). They won their last game, Texas didn't play and they dropped. That's the beef.

Now, did they drop because of their performance agaist So Miss or Brown's vote plea? Most likely their peformance. Was it fair to judge them on one game? Nope, but unfortunately that's the way the system works. Frankly I don't think Texas bears any blame. I don't think it was the classiest move by Brown, but I don't think it had any real effect on the voters.

Texas has gotten the short end of the BCS deal before. You would think if anyone would be sensitive to Cal and their fans disappointment it would be Texas and their fans.

The best indicator we'll have of really who should have gone to the Rose Bowl will probably be the outcome of the USC/OK game since both Cal and Texas are not that far behind their respective counterparts.

[MrBug708]

If it takes 10 paragraphs to defend one side as opposed to "Lost on final posession to #1 team vs shutout against #2 team" you are really stretching.

*shrugs*

Texas will lose in California, yet again.

[dawgfan]

I'm pretty neutral on the issue of which team is better - Cal or Texas. In that regard, I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about how the coaching votes turned out.

That said, the point that Tom Hansen and the Pac-10 are making, that the coach's poll voting shouldn't be completely confidential has merit - there's conflict of interest involved that can affect large sums of money distributed to their school. While it may not have made the biggest difference in the Cal/Texas debate - that was decided by the computer polls - it still stinks when you see some awfully fishy-looking votes as detailed by that post.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If it takes 10 paragraphs to defend one side as opposed to "Lost on final posession to #1 team vs shutout against #2 team" you are really stretching.

*shrugs*

Texas will lose in California, yet again.

This I'm not surprised about at all. But if the system allows the worse team to get in legitimately then the problem is with the system not with the voters. To me, it seems like if Al Gore blamed the electors because he didn't like the electoral college rather than trying to change the electoral college system.

SI

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This I'm not surprised about at all. But if the system allows the worse team to get in legitimately then the problem is with the system not with the voters. To me, it seems like if Al Gore blamed the electors because he didn't like the electoral college rather than trying to change the electoral college system.

SI

Ultimately I think most everyone blames the system (not one team or the other). If Cal had finished 5th and gone to the BCS fiesta bowl in stead of Pitt I doubt they would be complaining much. But it's a long drop from the RoseBowl to the holiday bowl (no offense to Texas Tech or whomever they're playing).

[IMetTrentGreen]

guess i was wrong. it didnt end it. i think you guys are missing a few things here

1. cal and texas both deserve this bid. this post is about why texas got it. thats all. (i do think texas would win, because of a top 5 defense and a powerful running game. but it doesnt matter. until the system is fixed, this isd all we have)

2. the usc vs. ou debate is stupid, and if you think judging performances against TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TEAMS, then there is nothing i can tell you

3.

You know, I know this probably sounds crazy to those who have made up their mind, but I gotta say this article made me switch from backing Cal to Texas and that's as someone who watched my Jayhawks one biased ref's offensive pass interference call away from beating them.

i appreciate this, but if you'll rewatch the replay, gordon dropped the ball. it wasn't a catch anyway

4. the week texas played ranked a&m, cal was idle, and mack begged for votes, and this was in the article, TEXAS LOST VOTES! this same thing happens to cal the next week and people cry. shut up

5. all cal had to do was not suck against, southern miss, and they didn't.

[sooner333]

Maybe OU is a better team than USC so Texas did a better job of playing OU than Cal. Anyone think of that one?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Maybe OU is a better team than USC so Texas did a better job of playing OU than Cal. Anyone think of that one?

Guess we'll find out in a few weeks won't we.

Here's the thing that cracks me up about the whole Cal/Texas thing - a few different ESPN people were commenting on Sunday that they thought Cal losing out to Texas was reason for Tedford to go to Washington, because they thought that Washington had a better national rep and wouldn't have lost out to Texas had it been them in that position and not Cal. Naturally, many Husky fans on the Dawgman.com boards picked up on this and bought into.

Of course, that line of argument simply isn't supported by the facts (as I pointed out on the Husky boards, to much derision). The computers have no bias for or against teams based on reputation - it's all about how you perform on the field that year, and how your oppenents have peformed. In the human polls, the area where a reputation bias could creep in, Cal was the highest-ranked 1-loss team at #4 in both polls, while Texas was #5 and #6. So, in the measure where a bias could be present, Cal rated higher. In the computer polls, where no such prestige bias is possible, Texas rated higher.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You know, I know this probably sounds crazy to those who have made up their mind, but I gotta say this article made me switch from backing Cal to Texas.

Ditto. I didn't realize that Cal played such a creampuff schedule. They only have one win over a team with seven or more victories? Why are they ahead of Utah or Boise State?

[larrymcg421]

My point on this is it doesn't matter who got in there. It's how they got in there. I don't care about Cal or Texas. But to me it's clear that some votes were changed to enable Texas to get the BCS bid. Even if that's not clear to others, it should be clear that the potential for that is possible, and it could be a huge problem in the future. I think something needs to be done to prevent that.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Maybe OU is a better team than USC so Texas did a better job of playing OU than Cal. Anyone think of that one?

It's a lot easier to say that Cal is better then Texas

[JHandley]

Everyone involved had a legitimate beef. Utah, Texas and Cal all deserve BCS bids. It wasn't the voters that screwed Cal. It wasn't even Texas that screwed Cal. It was the fact that the BCS gives the Big East champion an automatic bid. If Pitt doesn't get that bowl bid, then all three teams get into BCS bowls. If there has been a good argument as to why Pitt deserves to be in the Fiesta Bowl, I haven't heard it. People are comparing Cal's loss to Texas's loss and yet, there's Pitt. Dropped a 3 point pounding on 1-AA Furman and lost to Nebraska at home. But, the system says they are more deserving of a BCS bowl than Cal. That's where the blame should be placed.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JHandley

Everyone involved had a legitimate beef. Utah, Texas and Cal all deserve BCS bids. It wasn't the voters that screwed Cal. It wasn't even Texas that screwed Cal. It was the fact that the BCS gives the Big East champion an automatic bid. If Pitt doesn't get that bowl bid, then all three teams get into BCS bowls. If there has been a good argument as to why Pitt deserves to be in the Fiesta Bowl, I haven't heard it. People are comparing Cal's loss to Texas's loss and yet, there's Pitt. Dropped a 3 point pounding on 1-AA Furman and lost to Nebraska at home. But, the system says they are more deserving of a BCS bowl than Cal. That's where the blame should be placed.

Agreed. The Pitt anonamly really sours things. The BCS bowls really should have broken down like this:

USC vs. Oklahoma
Auburn vs. Utah
Michigan vs. Texas
Cal vs. Virginia Tech

You basically have all the right teams playing in what should have been four very good games. You could argue endlessly about exactly where those eight should have ended up (e.g., Auburn in the national championship game, Cal in the Rose Bowl, etc.), but at the end of the day this would be a solid BCS line-up.

Pitt is the fly in the ointment. The hair in the soup. The monkey in the wrench. The... You get the idea.

[GrantDawg]

I'm so glad we have the BCS so we can argue over this stupid crap.