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 ing years. Trust me, Tedford would have been forgiven by the entire state.
Face it, this system sucks.
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!
It doesn't bother me what the QB said...he's just conveying the at ude 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.
Last edited by jalbre6; 12-06-2004 at 04:19 PM. Reason: spelling
so you are accusing me of otherwise?I think if you look at the situation objectively
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.
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.
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.
Somehow, had the roles been reversed, and had Vince Young said similar things about Jeff Tedford, I suspect you'd have his back.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
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.because the objective evidence shows Cal to be the better team.
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 le game, now Cal has to wait. Would have been fair if UT was left out two straight years?
That C-USA "trash" did beat Nebraska at Lincoln this year; the same Nebraska club that beat Kansas.
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?
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?
How does getting shut out 12-0 equal UT almost beating OU?
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
(by the way good argument. I'm enjoying this...)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?
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.
, 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.
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.
typical bandwagoner hate. Texas had opportuinities to score but could not execute. OU was the better team but Texas had their chances.
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 after entering OU's side of the field.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
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.
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 horse . 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 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.
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
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.
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 chicken /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.
definetly. none of this crap about building up your standing on weak ass teams.No polls until the middle of October
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
