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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

:rolleyes:

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]

^ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[VPI97]

If there has been a good argument as to why Pitt deserves to be in the Fiesta Bowl, I haven't heard it. They won the Big East....that means that they did what they needed to do to guarentee a spot in the BCS. On the flip side, Cal knew what they needed to do to guarentee the same bid and they failed...if they want to blame someone, they should wipe the tears from their eyes and look in the mirror. Case closed.

[Chief Rum]

They won the Big East....that means that they did what they needed to do to guarentee a spot in the BCS. On the flip side, Cal knew what they needed to do to guarentee the same bid and they failed...if they want to blame someone, they should wipe the tears from their eyes and look in the mirror. Case closed.

That works within the system. That doesn't work if you consider the ideal goal of the system to get the best teams into the BCS or believe that the best teams should be playing in the best bowls (or that college football should be striving to reward the best teams with the best rewards a la a meritorious system).

So while you're right, VPI, it doesn't excuse a very poorly constructed system, nor does it mean Pitt deserves to be included among the best teams in college football. It does not, and indeed, the entire Big East didn't deserve to be anywhere near a discussion of the top conferences or teams this year.

The fact that the powers that be have locked us into this system that requires us to accept the champion from such a piss poor conference this year just--once again--goes to show that this system is broken.

It's really sad that I would rather see the champion for the WAC, MWC and C-USA before the one from the Big East. Heck, even the MAC might give them a run for their money.

So in that respect, Cal got screwed in every sense of the word except for the screwed up system D1 college football has foisted upon us.

CR

[Honolulu_Blue]

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

Beats the hell out of arguing about politics! :D At least here there is some mystery as to what side people will take.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, well, I'm waiting for someone to bring up the asinine point of "well, if there were a 4 team playoff, we'd still be screwed today", completely missing the forest for the trees.

SI

[VPI97]

That works within the system. That doesn't work if you consider the ideal goal of the system to get the best teams into the BCS or believe that the best teams should be playing in the best bowls (or that college football should be striving to reward the best teams with the best rewards a la a meritorious system).Like you said, the goal of the BCS isn't to get the the best teams in...the goal is to get the conference champions in and fill in the rest with also-rans. As long as that remains fact, I have no empathy for a team like Cal that couldn't get the job done on the field.

Now take Pitt and the Big East out of the equation...if people are wanting to get take the top 8 (regardless of conference) and put them in the BCS bowls, then those people are saying to me that since VT is ranked #9, we shouldn't be one of those teams. We're the champions of a conference that's just as tough as both the PAC-10 and the Big 12, but since we we were unranked in the preseason and we play arguably a tougher conference schedule than both Texas and Cal, we should be left out?

[Chief Rum]

Like you said, the goal of the BCS isn't to get the the best teams in...the goal is to get the conference champions in and fill in the rest with also-rans. As long as that remains fact, I have no empathy for a team like Cal that couldn't get the job done on the field.

Now take Pitt and the Big East out of the equation...if people are wanting to get take the top 8 (regardless of conference) and put them in the BCS bowls, then those people are saying to me that since VT is ranked #9, we shouldn't be one of those teams. We're the champions of a conference that's just as tough as both the PAC-10 and the Big 12, but since we we were unranked in the preseason and we play arguably a tougher conference schedule than both Texas and Cal, we should be left out?

Strength of schedule is a consideration of all the polls. It is a direct addition to the computer polls, and as you know, the human voters also consider strength of schedule (otherwise Utah and Boise State would have been ahead of Cal and Texas in all of the polls).

So, yes, if you went to that hypothetical system (top eight), I have as little sympathy for VT as you do for Cal.

CR

[VPI97]

Strength of schedule is a consideration of all the polls. It is a direct addition to the computer polls, and as you know, the human voters also consider strength of schedule (otherwise Utah and Boise State would have been ahead of Cal and Texas in all of the polls).

So, yes, if you went to that hypothetical system (top eight), I have as little sympathy for VT as you do for Cal.At that point, it would become a chicken and egg scenario. If conference games are suddenly stripped of any importance, why would VT have played USC this year? We would have made the top 8 in the hypothetic scenario if we had opened with a win over a mediocre team like Syracuse, rather than come in at #9 with a loss to USC. The small drop in SOS would more than be compensated for by the removal of a loss and a bump in the polls.

Now, the idea that we would suddenly become a better team by playing weaker competition is ridiculous...but that's the type of college football scheduling that you would start to see if BCS bids were based solely on final BCS rankings. At least with conference champions being guarenteed a bid, a school can be bold and play top 10 teams OOC because in the end it doesn't damage your chances for a conference title. You take that guarentee away and I don't even know if there's any justification to even being in a conference. If I'm a top 25 team, I would just become independant and try to schedule as many 6 win teams as possible. If you go 11-0 against all 6-5 teams, you'll likely end up with a better SOS than Cal has this season (if the 61-61 opponents record reference in the first post is correct) and in the end, it would be feasible to make it to a BCS slot without playing anyone of merit. Yeah, that's sounds like a far better college football season than what we have now....

[Chief Rum]

At that point, it would become a chicken and egg scenario. If conference games are suddenly stripped of any importance, why would VT have played USC this year? We would have made the top 8 in the hypothetic scenario if we had opened with a win over a mediocre team like Syracuse, rather than come in at #9 with a loss to USC. The small drop in SOS would more than be compensated for by the removal of a loss and a bump in the polls.

Now, the idea that we would suddenly become a better team by playing weaker competition is ridiculous...but that's the type of college football scheduling that you would start to see if BCS bids were based solely on final BCS rankings. At least with conference champions being guarenteed a bid, a school can be bold and play top 10 teams OOC because in the end it doesn't damage your chances for a conference title. You take that guarentee away and I don't even know if there's any justification to even being in a conference. If I'm a top 25 team, I would just become independant and try to schedule as many 6 win teams as possible. If you go 11-0 against all 6-5 teams, you'll likely end up with a better SOS than Cal has this season (if the 61-61 opponents record reference in the first post is correct) and in the end, it would be feasible to make it to a BCS slot without playing anyone of merit. Yeah, that's sounds like a far better college football season than what we have now....

You sure about that in the first case? What if V-Tech was helped in voter polls because they gave USC a good game? What if they pulled a "Cal" against Syracuse and didn't beat them convincingly? That could actually hurt your stance there.

It's your hypothetical, BTW, so don't look at me if what you suggest devalues or even eliminates conferences. I am merely running with what you offer. :)

I'm also not sure what you're saying int he second paragraph would end up being true, in the long run. For one thing, few poeple are going to be able to forecast a schedule of 6-win teams, particularly years in advance, as it is done now. And if you do end up with a schedule like that, you know the voter polls will absolutely kill you (just like they do with non-BCS teams now). Three poor OOC opponents essentialyl killed Auburn's shot at the BCS this year--how do you think voters would react with 11 games of, at best, mediocrity?

Since that wouldn't work, the rest of your hypothetical draw out doesn't work either. Teams would try and schedule harder, or at least as hard as they think their team can handle and have a reasonably good shot of winning through. This could be even more pronouned if strength of schedule were re-introduced into the BCS ratings on its own, or perhaps have its effect increased in the computing polls. If there's one thing the BCS is willing to do, it is tinker with a system to try and get it right. You know if they saw the situation you describe coming to pass, they would change the system to make that strategy less desirable.

It might be that what should be done is that conferences and conference champions be held to annual standards. They have the top 15 standard right now, but it's a five-year average. That's BS--make it every year, a standing qualification. If your champion is lower than, let's say, #15, in the BCS standings, then that team (and its conference) lose their bid that very year. Under a system like this, this year, Pitt would not have the right to a BCS bowl because it isn't of the necessary quality to qualify. And the Big East would lose its automatic bid because of it, at least this year. That spot can then be replaced with an at large.

Let's face it, if it's a quality conference, top 15 in the BCS for the conference champ shouldn't be that hard. And if it is, then that team (or that conference) is likely not representative of what the best teams in college footbalkl should be.

If we went to a system like this, I would also eliminate conference championships, and put the emphasis back on the season instead of one game. What if Colorado beat OU in the B12 championship game this year? Then the Big 12 loses its bid that year because of a fluke of a poor game (although OU likely then gets in as an at large team--maybe even the at large spot freed up by its loss, ironically enough).

My main point is, though, that this situation with Cal & Texas this year is exacerbated by the inclusion of a real piss poor champion in Pitt (relative to the other champions that is; I realize Pitt isn't a bad team or nothing), and that tells me the system is broken. Better to get the best teams in there, or at worst find a way to do so while maintaining some semblance of relevance for conference ties.

CR

[moriarty]

They won the Big East....that means that they did what they needed to do to guarentee a spot in the BCS. On the flip side, Cal knew what they needed to do to guarentee the same bid and they failed...if they want to blame someone, they should wipe the tears from their eyes and look in the mirror. Case closed.

So I'm sure if Virginia Tech was ranked #4 in the country and playing in the Holiday Bowl you would be completely understanding, look in the mirror and have no complaints against the BCS. :rolleyes:

Every year it seems some team gets screwed and their fans (rightfully so) get upset. Last year (two years ago?) we heard the same thing from Texas fans. I love the self righteous folks who think Cal (or Utah or anyone else for that matter) have no reason to complain.

On a side note - if you think Cal's schedule was weak this year, you should see their schedule for next year. They could go undefeated and be ranked #8 with that schedule.

[cartman]

Well, I guess I'll need to chime in here :)

One good thing to come out of this, is that Michigan and Texas will FINALLY play each other. They are two of the four winningest programs of all time, and they never managed to meet before this. That by itself will generate a little more interest otherwise.

Also, in this year's BCS voting, I think we have a similar situation that sometimes happens in Heisman voting. There have been instances where the Heisman was given someone who didn't have quite a good a year as another candidate, but they were voted based on their overall career. I think that *MAY* have played a part as a sympathy vote from some people for Texas. Over the past several years, Texas has been the best team in the country in games not played in the Cotton Bowl in October :), yet hasn't been to a BCS bowl. Only a couple of years ago, Cal was 1-10. Not saying it was a correct decision to make, but that might have been the motivation behind some of the votes for Texas.

[VPI97]

So I'm sure if Virginia Tech was ranked #4 in the country and playing in the Holiday Bowl you would be completely understanding, look in the mirror and have no complaints against the BCS. At least Cal was beaten out by a team that ranked higher in the BCS...four years ago, we were ranked #6 in the BCS and went to the 2001 Gator Bowl because the Fiesta wanted Notre Dame (#10). So to answer your question, yes, I would be completely understanding about losing a BCS bid to a higher ranked team. Cal fans act like this is the biggest screwjob that's ever been committed...newsflash: it's not.

[Blackadar]

At least Cal was beaten out by a team that ranked higher in the BCS...four years ago, we were ranked #6 in the BCS and went to the 2001 Gator Bowl because the Fiesta wanted Notre Dame (#10). So to answer your question, yes, I would be completely understanding about losing a BCS bid to a higher ranked team. Cal fans act like this is the biggest screwjob that's ever been committed...newsflash: it's not.

No, it's really tough to figure out the all-time BCS screw-job.

Is is Cal this year or Texas a couple of years ago?
Is it VT in 2001?
Is it in 2000, when 1 loss Florida State, who was beaten by one loss Miami, goes to the Championship game over Miami. Or that 1 loss Washington, who gave Miami their one loss, is also passed up?
Is it 2001, when Nebraska, who doesn't win their Conference, goes to the BCS Championship game over Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon?
Is it USC last year?

It's tough to choose which is the biggest screw-job.

My vote: 2000, when a clearly inferior Florida State team went to play in the BCS Championship game over Miami or Washington.

[Cuckoo]

Yeah, well, I'm waiting for someone to bring up the asinine point of "well, if there were a 4 team playoff, we'd still be screwed today", completely missing the forest for the trees.

SI

Asinine - "1. Utterly stupid or silly: asinine behavior"
"2. Of, relating to, or resembling an ass."


As hard as it will be for me to accept, I suppose I'll resemble the ass. Not really interested too much in the forest. :)

[WSUCougar]

I think one good thing to try and fix this would be to start the polling process on November 1st. Anything before then is pretty silly IMO.

[moriarty]

No, it's really tough to figure out the all-time BCS screw-job.

Is is Cal this year or Texas a couple of years ago?
Is it VT in 2001?
Is it in 2000, when 1 loss Florida State, who was beaten by one loss Miami, goes to the Championship game over Miami. Or that 1 loss Washington, who gave Miami their one loss, is also passed up?
Is it 2001, when Nebraska, who doesn't win their Conference, goes to the BCS Championship game over Colorado, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon?
Is it USC last year?

It's tough to choose which is the biggest screw-job.

My vote: 2000, when a clearly inferior Florida State team went to play in the BCS Championship game over Miami or Washington.

I'd agree with this one. USC got their share of the title, Cal is talking about a game that doesn't have national championship implications. 2000 although I'm straining to remember the FL State team that year sounds like a cluster.

[WSUCougar]

Cal is talking about a game that doesn't have national championship implications
Well, they're also talking about 12 million implications...

edit: fixed typo

[moriarty]

Well, they're aslo talking about 12 million implications...

True, especially when you're trying to fund facility upgrades.

[Franklinnoble]

Bah. Cal would beat Texas like a rented mule.

[judicial clerk]

Now I want to see Cal and Texas play. it could be like the JV national championship. Maybe they could pay it at the Orange Bowl before the SC OU game.

[Noop]

My vote: 2000, when a clearly inferior Florida State team went to play in the BCS Championship game over Miami or Washington.
I hate to give an excuse... but I will... We lost to Miami true indeed but I am of the opinion if we had played again we would have beat them. As for the title game Mark Ritch in my opinion should have not been coaching he was the head coach at UGA and should have left to be there. Bobby Bowden made a bad choice to ask him to stay( Followed by hiring his son but thats a different story) Bad offensive gameplan, Wide recievers either suspended or dropping pass + an amazing OU defensive game plane = 13-0 shutout( I dont count the 2 points)

[SnDvls]

The BCS could keep #1 vs #2 and conference tie ins "if" the conference champion had no more than 3 losses and was ranked 12th or higher in the final BCS poll and that would fix this whole mess we have now.

[Chief Rum]

The BCS could keep #1 vs #2 and conference tie ins "if" the conference champion had no more than 3 losses and was ranked 12th or higher in the final BCS poll and that would fix this whole mess we have now.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I suggested (or thereabouts ;) ).

Great minds...

CR