Texas gets the Rose Bowl!!

[Jimcs50]

Sunday, December 5, 2004


Associated Press
Now Auburn knows what it's like to be the odd team out -- a feeling Southern California knew only to well last year.


This year, though, the Trojans have no complaints.



USC and Oklahoma finished atop the final Bowl Championship Series standings Sunday and will meet in the Orange Bowl on Jan. 4 in a title game that -- again -- might not end the argument over who is No. 1.



Auburn, 12-0 just like the top two teams, finished third in the BCS points system that relies on The Associated Press and coaches polls, plus computer ratings. So the Tigers will have to settle for a Sugar Bowl berth against Virginia Tech on Jan. 3.



"It's not a perfect system, and if it was we'd all be happy today," Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville said during ABC's broadcast of the BCS pairings.



At least Auburn gets to play in one of the glamour games. California was left out of the BCS altogether after Texas passed the Golden Bears and moved into fourth in the final standings. The Longhorns (10-1) will play Big Ten co-champion Michigan (9-2) in the Rose Bowl. The Bears (10-1) were relegated to the Holiday Bowl, certainly not the showcase they were hoping for as the fourth-ranked team in the country.



"As a program, we were set on the Rose Bowl," Cal coach Jeff Tedford said. "I felt like we did enough to earn that."



USC finished with .9770 in the standings, and Oklahoma had .9681. Auburn's grade was .9331. Oklahoma's strong computer rankings kept the Sooners ahead of the Tigers in the BCS standings, while USC held on to first place thanks to its strong showing in the polls.



Last season, USC was left out of the BCS title game, despite being No. 1 in both the AP and coaches polls at the end of the regular season. Instead, Oklahoma played LSU in the Sugar Bowl, even though the Sooners lost the Big 12 title game.



When all the bowls were finished, LSU won the BCS championship, and USC was No. 1 in the final AP poll.



"We certainly understand what it feels like when you wished you'd been in this game," said USC coach Pete Carroll, sympathizing with Auburn's plight. "Unfortunately, there were three undefeated teams and with this system one of them was going to be left out."



In an attempt to avoid a repeat of 2003's mess, the BCS scaled back its formula, making it far more reliant on the human polls. But another problem arose, of course: For the first time since the BCS was implemented in 1998, there were more than two unbeaten teams from major conferences.



"The bottom line is whatever formula we have is going to be the target of some significant criticism at the end of the day," BCS coordinator and Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg said.



It worked great for Utah (11-0), which officially became the first team from a non-BCS conference to receive a bid to one of the four $14 million bowl games, earning a spot in the Fiesta Bowl against Big East representative Pittsburgh (8-3).



The Utes, from the Mountain West Conference, will play their last game under coach Urban Meyer on Jan. 1 in Tempe, Ariz. Meyer is headed to Florida.



The Trojans and Sooners went wire-to-wire as one and two, respectively, in both polls, and lined up the same way in the BCS standings for all but the first week, when Miami was No. 2 and Oklahoma third.



Auburn worked its way up both the polls and the BCS. The Tigers shared No. 2 with the Sooners in the AP Top 25 for one week but could never get past the Sooners.



So Sunday's Orange Bowl announcement was not surprising after Auburn, Oklahoma and USC all finished their regular seasons with wins Saturday.



Texas' move past Cal might have caught some people off guard, however.



It looked as if the Bears controlled their BCS destiny a few weeks ago and simply needed to win out to reach the Rose Bowl for the first time since 1959. But Texas began gaining ground in the polls, especially with the coaches, as Longhorns coach Mack Brown lobbied for votes.



Texas' first BCS bid also means the Rose Bowl won't have its traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup. :elephant
As for the Orange Bowl, it's Oklahoma, the team that most people thought shouldn't have been in championship game last year, against USC, the team that most people thought should have been there instead.



"No question you have just a better feeling going into it," Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops said. "It sure is a lot easier. Those wins give you a lot of energy and a boost."



The Sooners and Trojans bring a total of 11 AP national titles into the game.



Oklahoma's seventh and last national title came in 2000 and was wrapped up with an Orange Bowl victory over Florida State. The controversy heading into that game was whether the BCS had picked the best one-loss team to face the unbeaten Sooners. The Seminoles made it to the title game despite losing in the regular season to Miami. The Hurricanes won the Sugar Bowl and finished second in the final rankings to the Sooners.



The Sooners and Trojans also have four of the leading Heisman Trophy contenders -- two on each side.



Oklahoma quarterback Jason White is making a run at becoming just the second two-time Heisman winner, while tailback Adrian Peterson has a chance to become the first freshman to win the award.



USC quarterback Matt Leinart has put up numbers equal to White, and versatile scatback Reggie Bush might be the most exciting and dangerous player in the country.



"It's going to be a nightmare for the defensive coaches," Carroll said. "I think it's a perfect matchup."

[Jimcs50]

Why am I excited? Well two reasons, first and foremost, Texas deserves it, IMO they are the best team in the Big 12 as of right now. The second reason is, now A&M is probably going to the Cotton Bowl and that means I am going. :elephant

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm kinda torn on that one. On the one hand, it'll be a lot shorter drive.

On the other, we'll have to be up earlier (or maybe just party all night), and some friends and I already had planned out our San Antonio to San Diego roadie.

[Hook Dem]

I'm happy! :)

[Jimcs50]

AHF, some of us can not take the time off to drive to SD and it is impossible to fly there without changing planes 2 times, so I am haooy that they are in Dallas where they get more money anyway and play a better opponent.

[exstatic]

The one thing that is great about SD is that you know that there isn't going to be snow or ice. The same can NOT be said of Dallas that time of year. Think of Leon Lett and the ice bowl, or Joe Montana almost getting pneumonia in the very same Cotton bowl. From a game/money/opponent standpoint, the Cotton is probably a better choice, but from an atmosphere/party perspective, it's SD, hands down.

[timvp]

But Texas began gaining ground in the polls, especially with the coaches, as Longhorns coach Mack Brown lobbied for votes.

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/buck/img/jul03/rick721.jpg

[Jimcs50]

ex, also the game starts at 10 am...which makes it even colder...but wtf cares...I am stoked. I have not been to Cotton Bowl since 1977 when my Terps played Houston, so it will be great to be there.

[DrRich]

How sweet it is!!

Cal, us longhorn fans know exactly what you are going through!

[tlongII]

Texas deserves a BCS sport, but not at the expense of Cal. Cal is a better team than Texas. They beat #1 ranked USC up and down the field before losing at the end. Texas got dominated by Oklahoma. After USC mops up Oklahoma it will be very difficult to understand why Cal was left out of the BCS.

[samikeyp]

this is why we need a playoff. settle it on the field.

[Hook Dem]

Texas deserves a BCS sport, but not at the expense of Cal. Cal is a better team than Texas. They beat #1 ranked USC up and down the field before losing at the end. Texas got dominated by Oklahoma. After USC mops up Oklahoma it will be very difficult to understand why Cal was left out of the BCS.
Oklahoma dominated Texas??? = 12-0 ? Don't let your hatred for Texas blind you. Surely, you don't believe that statement. Oklahoma beat Texas....Yes! Oklahoma deserves to be there but lets not get carried away!

[DrRich]

^^^agreed!!!

Texas is playing as well as anybody right now!!

[samikeyp]

some UT vs. Cal numbers....

combined record of opponents:
UT: 67-56 non conference 15-18
Cal: 60-61 16-17

Both teams played teams from the Sun Belt Conference which is ranked #15 as a conference...UT played teams from the SEC (5) and WAC (9). Cal played teams from the Mountain West (7) and Conference USA (10).

UT played four teams (A&M, OU, OSU and Tech) rated in the top 25 in the BCS, Cal played two (USC and Arizona St.)

UT played six teams (A&M, Colorado, OU, OSU, Tech and UNT) that are going to bowls, Cal played five (ASU, Ore. St, Southern Miss, UCLA and USC)

[Jimcs50]

tlong....what he said^^^^^


Thanks Mikey, you show thoses Left coasters what's what.

[ducks]

are they going to be vbookie in bowl games?

[samikeyp]

Thanks Jimbo. Although I get why Cal is pissed, my answer to them is what my answer was to UT last year and would have been this year....do it on the field. UT almost beat OU and Cal almost beat SC...tough shit, almost doesn't count. Win the damn game. I feel for Auburn though...they got screwed.

[FromWayDowntown]

Well, still, the Texas/Cal debate has to center on the one loss for each team, since the poll voters apparently didn't see fit to accord Cal any respect for not artificially inflating its score against Southern Miss -- as it could have.

I see it this way:

Cal was much closer to beating #1 on the road than UT was to beating #2 on a neutral site.

Cal also had a larger margin of victory and its most significant struggle in winning this year was on the road at a bowl-bound Southern Miss. Texas struggled mightily on the road against a home for the holidays Kansas, and some would argue, won that game only by virtue of a curious p.i. call late in the game.

And even if you could argue that Cal's opponents were somehow inferior, Cal did also roll its opponents by a 24 ppg average margin.

Based on those criteria, I can't see that there's any clear cut reason to believe that UT is better than Cal -- if anything, those facts suggest just the opposite.

Frankly, I think Tedford got hosed for playing in a sportsman-like fashion on Saturday, while Mack Brown got rewarded for whining publicly. Somehow, that just doesn't add up.

[samikeyp]

Good point. Conversely, when based on the criteria I posted, Texas is the better team. I think that is the crux of the problem. For every reason that can be given for Cal to be there...one can be given for Texas to be there. They both should be there, especially over an 8-3 Pittsburgh team that plays in a conference that is not as good as a whole as the Big 12 South Division is by itself!

[Spurminator]

I don't know that I agree that Cal could have run up the score against Southern Miss... the score was 17-16 with less than 6 minutes left in the game. I'm sure the voters would have seen this as a "close game" regardless of whether or not Cal scored another touchdown in the last few minutes after icing the game with their last one.

[samikeyp]

I think they could have and it looked like Tedford decided not to. Props to him on that. I also though Mack Brown was whining which was not needed. Besides of the voters that changed their votes from the week before and put UT above Cal, only two were from a Big 12 city (Austin and OKC) and only one other was in Texas. (Dallas)

[FromWayDowntown]

Good point. Conversely, when based on the criteria I posted, Texas is the better team. I think that is the crux of the problem. For every reason that can be given for Cal to be there...one can be given for Texas to be there. They both should be there, especially over an 8-3 Pittsburgh team that plays in a conference that is not as good as a whole as the Big 12 South Division is by itself!

The Pitt thing is a red herring, though.

I think if you look at the situation objectively, you can only say one thing happened this weekend: a few voters penalized Cal for a narrow victory at Southern Miss (a game in which a late touchdown was taken away on a questionable call) and moved Texas up in their rankings. So, even if you take the loss to USC vs. the loss to Oklahoma thing out of the mix, you're left with comparing bad wins. I don't really see how you can argue that Cal's narrow win over S.Miss was somehow worse than UT's narrow win over Kansas. Particularly since Southern Miss and Kansas have a common opponent in Nebraska -- a team that Southern Miss beat in Lincoln, while Kansas lost in Lincoln.

[Jimcs50]

Thanks Jimbo. Although I get why Cal is pissed, my answer to them is what my answer was to UT last year and would have been this year....do it on the field. UT almost beat OU and Cal almost beat SC...tough shit, almost doesn't count. Win the damn game. I feel for Auburn though...they got screwed.


I do not feel sorry for Auburn at all. They were so far down in the polls at the start of the season and they moved up each week...1 and 2 never lost, so they do not deserve to supplant them...nuff said.

Next year, they will start the season high in polls, so it might be anothet team that takes their place next year and so on and so forth....if they go undefeated next year as USC did last year and this year, they will get their shot, just as USC did this year when last year they were out in the cold.

[Jimcs50]

It is payback for last year when UT was left out...they paid their dues, now Cal has to pay theirs. Just at USC did last year when they were left out of title game, now they get their shot.

[FromWayDowntown]

But this isn't about who was better last year, or who's paid their dues -- if that's the way the system works, then its the clearest indictment of its failure. It's about who was better this year, and until Saturday, the voters understandably believed that California was the better football team.

It's shameful that Cal's decision to sit on the ball cost them the Rose Bowl and it's shameful that supposedly-unbiased voters could be swayed, as much as anything else, by the sniveling whining of a coach who's never managed to accomplish anything significant on his own.

[jalbre6]

Mack was guilty of whining too much, but Cal didn't go out and take care of business the way that they were predicted to. The Bears were 22 point favorites. As far as running up the score goes, Utah did it all season. Same with Louisville. They did it becuase one slipup would have either knocked them out of the running (Utes) or out of the BCS dicussion (L'ville). Stoops and OU were widely questioned vs Nebraska and Baylor for NOT doing it. Cal was going for an at-large BCS bid, and they knew that Mack was going to use every means at his disposal to sway voters. You can say it was classy not to run up the score, but if Cal would have, their team would have made the Rose Bowl for the first time in FORTY-FIVE fucking years. Trust me, Tedford would have been forgiven by the entire state.

Face it, this system sucks.

[DrRich]

Same can be said for Cal. But I lost some respect for their QB, calling Mack Brown "classless". Mack Brown may not be the best coach but he is anything but "classless" If standing up for your players who got screwed last year and lobbying for them is classless, then so be it!

The Cal Qb just needs to STFU and wait til next year like Texas did!

[jalbre6]

It doesn't bother me what the QB said...he's just conveying the attitude of his team. I doubt that Mack is losing any sleep over what some 20 year old kid in a different conference said about him. It's not like coach Tedford called him classless.

Which idiot came up with the other 3 BCS matchups, anyway?

UT v Mich, Rose
Auburn v Va Tech, Sugar
Utah v Pitt, Fiesta

Much better matchup seeing if Utah could hang with SEC champ Auburn. Va Tech at 10-2 could face 9-3 Pitt...see if the current Big East champ could knock off the ACC traitors.

[samikeyp]

I think if you look at the situation objectively

so you are accusing me of otherwise?

and are you assuming that if Mack Brown did not whine, the voters would have automatically kept Cal ahead of Texas? Mack Brown does not have that much pull.

The Pitt situation is exactly why this is messed up. FWD, we are coming toward the same conclusion but from different sides. Jalbre said it best...this system sucks.

Play it on the field.

[FromWayDowntown]

Mack was guilty of whining too much, but Cal didn't go out and take care of business the way that they were predicted to. The Bears were 22 point favorites.

Now wait a second -- Texas was a 23 point favorite at Kansas and won by 4. They are rewarded, while Cal, a 22 point favorite at Southern Miss wins by 10. You can't tell me that's right.


The Pitt situation is exactly why this is messed up. FWD, we are coming toward the same conclusion but from different sides. Jalbre said it best...this system sucks.

That's NOT my point, mikey. My point is that even if Pitt is in the BCS, Cal deserves to be playing in the Rose Bowl this season, because the objective evidence shows Cal to be the better team. Until they did right by Southern Miss (and until the voters were persuaded to change their views, by whatever means), the voters agreed with that. Now, the UT supporters are saying "well, you see: Cal didn't take care of business against Southern Miss." But as noted above, the truth of the matter is that Cal did a better job of taking care of its business in its bad win than Texas did, both on the scoreboard and in light of the "betting opinion." In either event, a more-deserving Cal team gets screwed because it refused to play the system, choosing to believe instead that it's exploits on the field should carry the day.

The system is flawed, but not because Pitt or Utah got in -- those were the rules going in, and everyone knew it -- it's flawed because Texas was somehow annointed over a California team that outplayed it all year long.

[FromWayDowntown]

Same can be said for Cal. But I lost some respect for their QB, calling Mack Brown "classless". Mack Brown may not be the best coach but he is anything but "classless" If standing up for your players who got screwed last year and lobbying for them is classless, then so be it!

The Cal Qb just needs to STFU and wait til next year like Texas did!

Somehow, had the roles been reversed, and had Vince Young said similar things about Jeff Tedford, I suspect you'd have his back.

[jalbre6]

UT- will get looked at as whiners and interlopers of Cal's place in Rose Bowl.

Cal- State's public flagship school allegedly gets screwed out of homestate game again...haven't been there since '59.

Auburn- ran table in SEC and doesn't get any love? LSU did last year, and they weren't preseason top 5.

Utah- reward for going unbeaten is to play Pitt? Pitt lost to Nebraska, Syracuse, and UConn! There's MWC teams tougher than that trio.

[jalbre6]

Now wait a second -- Texas was a 23 point favorite at Kansas and won by 4. They are rewarded, while Cal, a 22 point favorite at Southern Miss wins by 10. You can't tell me that's right.

No, that's right, I can't. And they weren't exactly rewarded...they made up ground that they lost when they beat A&M, a top-25 ranked opponent. Can you tell me that Tedford didn't know he needed a resounding W? He knew his teams situation, he knew Mack was rustling up votes, and the best thing he could do was hang half a hundred on some C-USA trash. And he didn't.


The system is flawed, but not because Pitt or Utah got in -- those were the rules going in, and everyone knew it -- it's flawed because Texas was somehow annointed over a California team that outplayed it all year long.

Sez who? Objective evidence? Who's schedule was tougher? Who's conference? Barely beating Oregon 28-27 at home? Or beating Southern Miss 26-16 when they knew they needed a 30+ margin of victory?

To me, close W's over Oregon and Southern Miss equal close W's over Arkansas and Kansas. They're both good teams, but Cal knew what it had to do and then didn't do it.

[samikeyp]

because the objective evidence shows Cal to be the better team.

objective evidence according to who? objectivity is based on fact. If you are trying to figure out who is better between Cal and Texas the only fact is that both teams are 10-1. Everything else is subjective. The numbers you and I came up with are real but they do not definitively determine who is better. My point is, and always been, there needs to be a playoff.

[Jimcs50]

Cal will get the bid next year if they go 10-1...it is all about waiting your turn. UT had to wait last year because Kansas St upset OU in title game, now Cal has to wait. Would have been fair if UT was left out two straight years?

[FromWayDowntown]

No, that's right, I can't. And they weren't exactly rewarded...they made up ground that they lost when they beat A&M, a top-25 ranked opponent. Can you tell me that Tedford didn't know he needed a resounding W? He knew his teams situation, he knew Mack was rustling up votes, and the best thing he could do was hang half a hundred on some C-USA trash. And he didn't.

That C-USA "trash" did beat Nebraska at Lincoln this year; the same Nebraska club that beat Kansas.


Sez who? Objective evidence? Who's schedule was tougher? Who's conference? Barely beating Oregon 28-27 at home? Or beating Southern Miss 26-16 when they knew they needed a 30+ margin of victory?

To me, close W's over Oregon and Southern Miss equal close W's over Arkansas and Kansas. They're both good teams, but Cal knew what it had to do and then didn't do it.

It's b.s. that it matters more that Cal only won by 10 and that UT was fortunate to have an extra game to make up for its bad win. UT should be thanking its lucky stars for a hurricane, of all things. Had Cal won by 10 at Southern Miss in September, it would have been a strong win, and Cal would have finished its season on a crescendo. Instead, Cal has to come back from beating its biggest rival, travel halfway across the country to play a bowl team, beats that team by 10, and still gets penalized.

But with all that -- fair enough, I'd agree that close wins over Oregon and Southern Miss equal close W's over Arkansas and Texas.

Still, you can't deny that Cal's only loss was: (1) on the road; (2) by 6 points; (3) to the consensus #1; (4) who was playing with revenge. Meanwhile, UT's only loss was: (1) on a neutral field; (2) by 12 points; (3) to the consensus #2; (4) with UT seeking revenge. And if you want to go by the line: Cal was a 7 1/2 point dog at USC and lost by 6; Texas was a 7 1/2 point dog vs. OU and lost by 12.

Now how exactly is it that UT is in the better position here?

[jalbre6]

alternate reality: Cal beats Southern Miss 35-7 in August. UT's game against Rice gets postponed until December 4th due to massive free dope giveaway at Matthew McConaghey's house.

Texas has to beat Rice by 40 or so to sway BCS voters. Is there any doubt that Mack would have ran the score up?

[tlongII]

Thanks Jimbo. Although I get why Cal is pissed, my answer to them is what my answer was to UT last year and would have been this year....do it on the field. UT almost beat OU and Cal almost beat SC...tough shit, almost doesn't count. Win the damn game. I feel for Auburn though...they got screwed.

How does getting shut out 12-0 equal UT almost beating OU?

[DrRich]

Somehow, had the roles been reversed, and had Vince Young said similar things about Jeff Tedford, I suspect you'd have his back.

No, I still wouldn't condone such a stupid comment. The immature actions of that 20 year old kid was truly "classless". A coach standing up for his kids is not classless in my book. I was waiting for him to stand up ansd say he was just gonna take his ball and go home!!!

[tlongII]

Actually I have no qualms with UT getting a BCS berth. They had an excellent season and should be rewarded for it. What bugs me is the suggestion that they are more deserving than Cal. That is just NOT TRUE! The guy that should be strung up by Cal boosters is that idiot Bob Davie. In my opinion he is the one that cost Cal the BCS berth with his negative comments during ESPN's broadcast of the Cal/Southern Miss game.

[samikeyp]

It was 6-0 up until deep in to the 4th...one play here or there could have swayed the game.

Personally I think both teams are deserving, as is Auburn.

[DrRich]

They are both definitely deserving. The problem now lies in the Big East. That conference truly suck ass and their automatic bid should be taken away next year. With the departure of Va Tech, Miami and whatever the other school was now makes that the equivalent of the MAC or I might even say the MAC is better.

[jalbre6]

It's b.s. that it matters more that Cal only won by 10 and that UT was fortunate to have an extra game to make up for its bad win. UT should be thanking its lucky stars for a hurricane, of all things. Had Cal won by 10 at Southern Miss in September, it would have been a strong win, and Cal would have finished its season on a crescendo. Instead, Cal has to come back from beating its biggest rival, travel halfway across the country to play a bowl team, beats that team by 10, and still gets penalized. But with all that -- fair enough, I'd agree that close wins over Oregon and Southern Miss equal close W's over Arkansas and Texas. Still, you can't deny that Cal's only loss was: (1) on the road; (2) by 6 points; (3) to the consensus #1; (4) who was playing with revenge. Meanwhile, UT's only loss was: (1) on a neutral field; (2) by 12 points; (3) to the consensus #2; (4) with UT seeking revenge. And if you want to go by the line: Cal was a 7 1/2 point dog at USC and lost by 6; Texas was a 7 1/2 point dog vs. OU and lost by 12. Now how exactly is it that UT is in the better position here?

(by the way good argument. I'm enjoying this...)

My statement about hanging 50 or so I feel is legit. Cincinnati won 52-24 against the Golden Eagles, and then Cincy got throttled by Louisville 70-7 Thanksgiving weekend, who's ranked below both Cal and Texas.

Tougher schedule belongs to the Horns. They beat five bowl teams, and Cal beat four. (By the way UNT plays Southern Miss in one of those bowl games)

UT's loss to OU by twelve in Dallas versus Cal's loss to USC by ten in LA, to me anyway, cancels out. Since none of us really know if SC is better than OU, we'll have to go by the polls and the BCS, which agree with your side. So Cal's loss is of a higher quality than Texas'.

It's just my opinion, but the Big 12 South trumps the Pac-10, at least this year. Out of six teams, five are going bowling. Out of twelve, seven are. And UT beat four bowl teams in it's division alone. Cal beat three of the Pac-10's five.

Cal had two weeks to prepare for Southern Miss. Getting 14 days after beating a sub-par Stanford team is plenty of time for a #4 team to prepare for a squad like Southern Miss. They knew what they had to do and didn't do it.

I agree that it isn't fair to Cal to be left hanging by the BCS. It's also unfair that they had to play a non conference make-up game on the other side of the country. But you have to play the hand you're dealt. But the Bears knew what was at stake. I'd like to think that if the roles were reversed, Mack is bloodthirsty enough to run up the score. Sporting, no. But effective.

Shit, at this point I'd rather the Horns play Cal than anyone else, just so we have an answer. UT beat Tech, Cal's Holiday Bowl opponent, 51-21. This might be as good of a barometer as we're gonna get.

[Duff McCartney]

It was 6-0 up until deep in to the 4th...one play here or there could have swayed the game.

The problem is the Longhorns were nowhere near being close to that play that could have swayed the game. They were completely dominated by the Sooners...something the score didn't reflect.

[samikeyp]

typical bandwagoner hate. Texas had opportuinities to score but could not execute. OU was the better team but Texas had their chances.

[jalbre6]

The problem is the Longhorns were nowhere near being close to that play that could have swayed the game. They were completely dominated by the Sooners...something the score didn't reflect

Were you watching this game? Texas kept Oklahoma out of the end zone until Adrain Peterson's backup scored with about eight minutes to go. It was 3-0 at halftime and 6-0 at the end of the third. Texas had four guys with over 10 tackles. OU won because they had the ball for almost forty minutes, they pretty much stopped throwing after Johnson picked off White at the end of the third, and UT wasn't doing shit after entering OU's side of the field.

Before that TD, one play would have changed the game. Vince Young fumbled in OU's red zone in the 2nd, for example. They lost a hard-fought game, not in a pseudo-blowout like you suggested.

[jalbre6]

It's one thing for us to Monday Morning Quarterback, piss and moan about UT, Cal and the like. These head coaches know what they're up against to get BCS entry. It's their livelihoods. Urban Meyer knew that for Utah to get BCS respect, he had to kick every ass in the MWC, look good on the few national TV audiences he was offered, and publicize his team to all that would listen. He was on ESPN more times than Tuberville, Tedford, and Brown combined.

Mack saw that UT was on the outside looking in. So he started to grandstand, press flesh, and kiss babies. Under the way, shape and form that the BCS is under, this was something he felt that he had to do.

Likewise, Jeff Tedford knew that he had to blast Southern Miss. And he didn't. Whether it was sportsmanship, not wanting Arrington to get hurt, or the flat play of Rodgers, he didn't get it done. That's why he isn't talking about what a crock it is that he's not at the Rose Bowl.

Regardless, all this is horseshit. We're going to see this same BCS exculsion thing, in a different manifestation each time, every year until there is a playoff. We shouldn't have to thank God that UT's coach is a better politician than Cal's. This shit needs to be decided on the field, not by brothers and former assistants in the coaches poll and lazy, biased alums in the AP. Cal is just as deserving if not more if all things BCS were equal. Of course this year it wasn't and the Horns prospered.

[FromWayDowntown]

For what it's worth -- Sagarin's ratings have UT's schedule ranked #19; the same ratings put Cal's schedule at #16.

Sagarin Ratings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm)

I don't mean to leave anyone thinking that I don't understand the UT argument -- I do -- I just think Cal's the more deserving team. That's my opinion, and mikey and others are right -- I've tried to make my opinion into an objective view somehow. I still think I'm right, but I don't mean to suggest that I take great umbrage at those who disagree.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Here's the big problem with the last week of the season for the purists: Tedford takes a knee when he could have run it up in the last minute of the game, Mack cries like a little girl when he can't even win his division on the field, and look who gets rewarded.

For starters, there needs to be a playoff. Apparently the NCAA is too chickenshit/corrupt to do the right thing there though, so here's my next best idea:

No polls until the middle of October. By then, most teams have played 5 games or so, and everyone has a better idea of who is for real and who isn't. The polls are inherently biased in that it's all but impossible unless you're top 6 or 8 to find your way to the NC game, even when undefeated. Similarly, the "traditional" powers like Florida, Notre Dame, etc. who have sucked ass of late that always get ranked pre-season top 15 or so because of the lovefest of the writers/coaches, wouldn't start the season with an unfair advantage.

[samikeyp]

No polls until the middle of October

definetly. none of this crap about building up your standing on weak ass teams.

[Duff McCartney]

definetly. none of this crap about building up your standing on weak ass teams.

Well there goes UTs season.

[Hook Dem]

Duff....I doubt seriously if you even know what a football looks like.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

WHOA, the plot thickens, from ESPN...


California coach Jeff Tedford and the commissioner of the Pac-10 Conference called for coaches to make their votes public after California was dropped below No. 6 by six voters in the final ESPN/USA Today coaches' poll

Everyone here who was saying the vote was legit has a little bit of crow to eat. I've got a bad feeling the coaches in question were from the B12.

[samikeyp]

yeah Duff, because Texas is the only team that schedules weak teams at the beginning of the season. :rolleyes

[IcemanCometh]

Cal 10-1 Oregon 5-4 28-27 hmmmmm how come no one mentions this game.

[samikeyp]

Good point Ice.

[tlongII]

Cal 10-1 Oregon 5-4 28-27 hmmmmm how come no one mentions this game.


Probably because Texas beat Kansas 27-23 and they beat Arkansas 22-20.

[jalbre6]

Well there goes UTs season.

Duff, you're a fool. Name a BCS conference team that doesn't schedule patsies before league play begins. I see that you don't know shit about college football since your lame takes are polluting this thread.

[jalbre6]

Here's the big problem with the last week of the season for the purists: Tedford takes a knee when he could have run it up in the last minute of the game, Mack cries like a little girl when he can't even win his division on the field, and look who gets rewarded.

Absolutely right if you're a purist. But this BCS horseshit prevents that. Regardless of how fair it is to one side or another, Cal needed to run up the score Saturday and they didn't. It sucks that becuase they showed some semblance of sportsmanship, the Bears are in the Holiday Bowl.


California coach Jeff Tedford and the commissioner of the Pac-10 Conference called for coaches to make their votes public after California was dropped below No. 6 by six voters in the final ESPN/USA Today coaches' poll

The Longhorns gained points in both polls, so the writers have explaining to do as well. Still, I believe that if Cal would have went off for 55 or 60, they would have avoided most of this. I can totally see Mack and his brother (UAB coach) putting Cal at like 8 or so.

[2centsworth]

If Cal and Texas played, TEXAS WOULD BE FAVORED. CASE CLOSED!

[slayermin]

Just in case any of you are planning on going to the Rose Bowl, the Spurs play on New Year's Eve against the Clippers too. Clipper tickets are very reasonable and available.

If you haven't been to the Staples Center before, you should check it out.

[Duff McCartney]

Duff....I doubt seriously if you even know what a football looks like.

Your head.

[Marcus Bryant]

USC and Cal didn't face anything like a Big 12 South schedule.

[Mr Dio]

We'll see how good Cal is when they play Tech. UT won by 30 @ Tech. This will be their only common opponent.

[samikeyp]

Cal will kick the shit out of Tech. Hate to see it but it will happen.

[2centsworth]

Cal will kick the shit out of Tech. Hate to see it but it will happen.

I don't think so. Tech gets rolling on "O" Cal is gonna have a hell of a time. This is my upset special, take Tech plus the 12.

[samikeyp]

I hope I am wrong.

[Mr Dio]

Thankfully you were wrong. Cal was & IS overrated. They get up for 1 serious foe (USC) a yr while UT has to play teams that are almost always in the top 20-25. UT does go to Columbus to play OSU next yr & I can't wait for that one. UT now needs to take care of business in the Rose.

[samikeyp]

Yes I was and gladly. 600yds of offense? That is sick. Well done Tech. Hopefully the rest of the Big 12 will follow suit.

[Spurminator]

Good riddance. I'm so sick of the annual national bitchfest on behalf of a California team. Last year it was USC, this year it was Cal. I hate the BCS, but in this case, they got it right.

Kudos to the Tech fans for being the voice of sentiments throughout the Big 12. "Over-rated."

[T Park]

WAY TO GO UT!!!

That was awesome comeback last night.


QUESTION

Does this win in a big BCS bowl game, get the Mack Brown haters off his back??

[Mr Dio]

No, UT & Mack haters are needed because when you suck is when people aren't jealous of you..Jealousy breeds hate, ignorance & contempt.

[whottt]

FWDT, your thoughts?


<<<<Stunned Longhorn Fan

[FromWayDowntown]

I stand by my previous assessments.

Look, Cal got beat by Tech and beaten pretty soundly at that. But you can't look at that in a vacuum and say, well Texas > Tech > Cal. It doesn't work that way.

Human beings play football and they bring their emotions to play in any given game. I figured (and was glad to see, frankly) that Tech would beat Cal. That was true largely because, once Cal got dissed by the BCS, it had absolutely nothing to play for and a tremendous disappointment to overcome. It was damn near impossible for them to get back to the emotional pitch that they had reached during the regular season. Tech, meanwhile, had everything to play for an was overjoyed to be playing in the highest profile game it has seen in a decade. Cal was emotionally vulnerable and Tech was able to exploit that. It's not unlike the affliction that has gotten to UT in a few of its recent bowl games (Holiday 2003, for example).

I still maintain that had Cal played in the Rose Bowl, you would have seen a much different team, playing a much different game. You can try to downplay the role that emotion plays in the game of football, or you can argue that teams should not be so devastated by unfortunate turns of events since they're just being asked to play football, but if you do make such arguments, you must not have played much football and particularly not at very high levels.

[samikeyp]

once Cal got dissed by the BCS, it had absolutely nothing to play for and a tremendous disappointment to overcome.

How about their school? Their fans? Themselves? I would think that the overwhelming desire to prove to the world that they did deserve to be in the Rose Bowl. I am not disagreeing with you, just providing things that I thought could have been used for motivation. You are correct though. The impact of emotion in a football game can never be discounted. If emotion didn't matter, there would never be upsets. I also think that too much emotion can hinder if not used properly. If you work yourselves up too much, you can suffer lapses in concentration and make mistakes.

[IceColdBrewski]

I stand by my previous assessments.

Look, Cal got beat by Tech and beaten pretty soundly at that. But you can't look at that in a vacuum and say, well Texas > Tech > Cal. It doesn't work that way.

Human beings play football and they bring their emotions to play in any given game. I figured (and was glad to see, frankly) that Tech would beat Cal. That was true largely because, once Cal got dissed by the BCS, it had absolutely nothing to play for and a tremendous disappointment to overcome. It was damn near impossible for them to get back to the emotional pitch that they had reached during the regular season. Tech, meanwhile, had everything to play for an was overjoyed to be playing in the highest profile game it has seen in a decade. Cal was emotionally vulnerable and Tech was able to exploit that. It's not unlike the affliction that has gotten to UT in a few of its recent bowl games (Holiday 2003, for example).

I still maintain that had Cal played in the Rose Bowl, you would have seen a much different team, playing a much different game. You can try to downplay the role that emotion plays in the game of football, or you can argue that teams should not be so devastated by unfortunate turns of events since they're just being asked to play football, but if you do make such arguments, you must not have played much football and particularly not at very high levels.

Finally someone who sees things for the way they really are. We see this scenario play out every year. A team that feels slighted because they weren't selected for a BCS game goes out and plays like shit because they know they deserve better.

[samikeyp]

ok again...I agreed with FWD. What is it with you and the blanket statments?

[FromWayDowntown]

How about their school? Their fans? Themselves? I would think that the overwhelming desire to prove to the world that they did deserve to be in the Rose Bowl.

Sure, those things are there, but they are the humdrum motivations of any football team, good or bad. It's awfully hard to reach the great emotional levels that are necessary to compete at a high level if there is nothing beyond those things to play for.

Even if Cal had blown out Tech, it would have made no difference to their argument that they should have been in the Rose Bowl. Even if it would have made a difference (and I don't think anyone who thought it came out right would have rethought their positions) I don't think that was ever really the point of Cal's argument.

For Cal, once the Orange Bowl became unattainable, it was about the Rose Bowl, as an institution, not the Rose Bowl as a big bowl game. Pac-10 schools measure success by Rose Bowl appearances, even to this day. For Cal to reach that particular game, it would have been the highlight of a quarter century or more of football. Having been deprived of that opportunity -- really through no fault of their own -- that bunch suffered a disappointment greater than merely not being a BCS team: they were denied the opportunity to stamp their season with the ultimate success for a school like Cal.

Sure, they could have handled the situation better, but until you've walked a mile in their shoes it's hard to say that you would have handled it any better than those guys did. You have to remember that the Cal Bears (like every other collegiate team) are nothing other than a bunch of 18-23 year olds. Like all kids, they suffer from the emotional nosedives of disappointment.

[samikeyp]

You are absolutely correct which is why I said...


I am not disagreeing with you, just providing things that I thought could have been used for motivation. You are correct though. The impact of emotion in a football game can never be discounted

also, not once did I say I would have handled it better than those kids.

[FromWayDowntown]

You asked the question about other motivations, and I tried to explain why I still think you saw a very flat Cal team that had no interest in playing in the Holiday Bowl and why I don't think you can take Cal's loss as any sort of proof that they didn't belong in the Rose Bowl.

Mikey, I'm not on you. I read your statement and appreciate and respect your viewpoint (and thank you for respecting mine). I wasn't trying to suggest that you were saying you would have handled it better -- those statements are more for others who might come along later to this discussion.



On another front, though, does anyone still have any questions about whether Utah belonged in the BCS? Those guys will have been robbed if they don't end up #3 in the polls.

[samikeyp]

Fair enough FWD. Thank you for respecting mine as well.

As far as Utah at #3...is that assuming Auburn is 2 if they win? If Auburn wins....then I would put OU/USC winner 1, Auburn 2 and Utah 3.

[2centsworth]

I don't think so. Tech gets rolling on "O" Cal is gonna have a hell of a time. This is my upset special, take Tech plus the 12.

It's not easy being a genious.

[samikeyp]

good call. I was wayyyyyyyyy off. But, I didn't mind.