Sorry, that's what I meant -- not that Cal increased it's "lead" on Texas in the computers but that Cal gained on Texas' lead in the computers. I just typed it backwards. It was the human voters who put Texas in the Rose Bowl, plain and simple. While the computers liked Texas more because of SOS, Cal still would have gone to the Rose Bowl if not for the huge vote swing.
Yeah, but we still got our fair share of heat for it. Ask any voter that had us below Cal(Most of them), and they would have given you two reasons:OU shutout and Kansas scare. Enough people saw it/heard about it(And then made their own conclusions), and it definitely had a huge effect on us.
That effect had time to wear off. This is why in the end, Cal's game vs So. Miss had more of an effect than Texas' vs Kansas. It is why Tedford made his comments about both games being one game in the entire season. One shouldn't have more of an effect than the other.
it's the late loss theory but here it's a close win over a sorry opponent. late losses always drop you behind people with early losses. cat's close call came after ours. we got hit good for the ku game, if not that week then like vj23k said b/c no one was going to put us over cal b/c of the kansas game. cal then got their kansas and people realized it was a closer match than they thought. we didn't actually beat cal in either poll, but the coaches pretty much called it a draw (which it was) and the ap still gave cal a nice advantage. the computers liked us b/c our SOS was so much better. in the end, it was extremely close and we just happened to be the one that won. if people are going to overpenalize us for our ou losses over the years and hurt us for kansas, there's no reason not to hurt cal just b/c it happens to be the last game. no one would've felt sorry for us and would've said you knew style points count so you should've beaten kansas by more. cal knew everyone was watching and that they needed to beat So Miss convincingly. not terribly, but by 20 at least i would say. they failed with the pressure on and left the door open to voters to move us up. and they did. and for people that say it could've been 33-16. yeah, it could've, but it wouldn't have been indicative of how close the game was considering it was essentially tied with 6 minutes left. just b/c SM went for it on 4th and 20 in their own territory and gave it to cal close to the endzone doesn't mean cal deserved the score. we didn't try to score on a&m late.
IF every pundit in America had spent the week leading up to the Kansas game saying, "Texas has to beat Kansas convincingly for Texas to make the Rose Bowl" and then the Kansas/Texas game was the only game on national TV in its time slot in a week that didn't have a full slate of games, you might have a point. Since that's not true, I wouldn't say that Texas got its "fair share" of heat compared to the heat Cal got for the Southern Miss game. But I don't want to get in a flame war because I think both Cal and Texas should be in the BCS. I'm just getting sick of the "Cal doesn't deserve it because they didn't step up against Southern Miss" argument. Cal deserves a BCS bid because they lost one game all year and barely lost to a top 2 team. Same with Texas.
I have no problem with this statement. Cal held their destiny in their own hands; win convincingly and go the Rose Bowl. A conservative gameplan did not help in the points department. However, Tedford does have a point in being frustrated that Cal's game vs So. Miss had a greater impact in the end on the voters than Texas' vs Kansas. They're similar type games, yet voters took one into account more than the other. Texas being idle and gaining ground on Cal after beating Stanford 41-6 is baffling as well. Mack scrounging for votes didn't help either. I agree with you in that Cal held their future in their own hands and basically blew it. Nonetheless, there are two issues. One is about Cal shooting themselves in the foot, the other is about the system.
What y'all are saying is that Cal should've run up the score against USM. USM is a bowl eligible team hot for revenge from last year and also pissed about having to wait 3 months, and playing in primetime on national TV in the spoilers role. Cal still beat them by ten and even though it took an extraordinary play, that's what great teams do make extraordinary plays when the game is on the line, its still a victory. Cal didn't run up the score when they could have and Tedford didn't go on TV and beg for votes yet still get screwed. So much for rewarding class.
Here's what Aaron Rodgers (Cal QB) had to say. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/06/SPGTPA73C01.DTL Now I know most of y'all are UT fans and coming from Texas I like the Horns a lot too. In any other situation I would be all for the Horns but Cal had an incredible season, losing only to the #1 team in they country by less than a TD. Cal hasn't been to the Rose Bowl since 1959 and we get screwed out of it because we won playing tough and with class. While it would've sucked for the Horns to get shanked by the BCS again at least the Cotton Bowl's a New Years Day bowl with a great history for those teams of the former SWC. Instead we get shunted off to a consolation bowl not even on a holiday, no matter what they call it.
Oh yea, nobody has ever mentioned the Kansas game. Here's their respective records versus teams that ended up BCS-ranked. Texas: 3 - 1 UT 0, #2 Oklahoma 12 UT 51, #22 Tech 21 UT 56, #24 Ok State 35 UT 26, #20 A&M 13 California: 1 - 1 Cal 17, #1 USC 23 Cal 27, #19 Arizona State 0 Other than Arizona State, Cal didn't play a single quality opponent. And when Arizona State took the pipe against Zona, they really hurt Cal's computer numbers. The computer rankings, not the polls, are where this race was lost, and it's easy to see why the computers preferred a UT team with 3 wins over ranked teams to a California team with only 1.
Ignoring the Kansas game, wouldn't you say that Texas had the slightly better season? We both had losses against top teams(To distinguish between losing to #1 and #2 is stupid, because the only thing separating #1, #2, and #3 is a media bias), we both had close calls, and Texas beat more ranked teams. So why was there a question as to who should be ranked higher? The Kansas game. That's the only reason, so I would say it had a huge effect. I can't say it was more than that of the Southern Miss game, but I don't really believe the difference in these two games is what gave us the spot. I may be wrong, but weren't the Big XII and SEC title games at the same time(Or at least ran into each other or something)? No doubt this game was huge, but I don't think as many people saw it as you think. "Would Bob Stoops (of Oklahoma) or Mack Brown have gone for the score there?" Rodgers asked. "Yes. But coach Tedford is a classy guy. He isn't going to beg for votes, ever." I'm sorry, but obviously Berkeley lowered their admissions requirements for Mr. Rodgers. That's a pretty *******-ish statement to make about Mack, because running up the score is something he doesn't do. Even when perhaps, he should. Cedric Benson would have run away with the heisman if Mack had let him in Stoops-style. We played games in which Vince and Cedric didn't see action past the first sequence/possession of the second half. Tedford seems like a good guy, but to imply that Mack isn't is absolutely ludicrous. I mean, character is the one thing that Mack does have going for him, so at least give him that and avoid making stupid blanket statements. I must say that I feel sorry for Cal. It's amazing that they field that team with that sort of academic prowess. However, if Texas were left out, it would have been just as big a travesty(Just my opinion, but, for reasons stated above and in others' posts, a bigger travesty). It could have gone either way, and I'm still shocked that it went our way.
Yeah, but that's not the point that you were making and that I was refuting. It seemed like you were saying that Cal didn't deserve to make the BCS because they "failed" to impress against Southern Miss on national TV. If you think Texas/Kansas was anywhere near the national story that Cal/Southern Miss was, then you're looking through burnt-orange colored glasses. You can talk all the smack about strength of schedule you want (and your points there are valid), but I still think that Texas fans should feel fortunate that their last game wasn't the Kansas game.
I went to Cal, and I agree with what you said. This isn't the first time that Rodgers has said something this year that makes me embarassed that he's a Golden Bear. On the other hand, I thought Mack's stumping for votes was pretty weak. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that Teford is classy and Mack isn't. That was stupid of Rodgers to say.
OK, I'm on record as saying that both Texas and Cal should be in the BCS, but there's big difference between the teams' performances in those games. Texas got shut out by OU on a neutral field. Cal went into USC's house (a sell out with over 90,000 Trojan fans) and completely dominated USC in every facet of the game except special teams and was 9 yards from winning the game before falling short. That's the difference -- not that one team was #1 or #2. Of course, a loss is a loss. And the fact that Texas beat a few top 25 teams while Cal only beat ASU outweighs the OU and USC games. But hey -- you asked. Well, kind of! I'm going to bed now.
Who had a better season is not the issue right now. The fact is that Cal was ranked higher than Texas before the So. Miss game. Afterwards, it ended up hurting Cal more than the Kansas game hurt Texas. Texas did not overtake Cal at the very end because the voters looked at the entire season and decided who was slightly better. At the point before the So. Miss game, Cal was ranked as the better team. Texas overtook Cal in the final week because the voters didn't think Cal won convincingly enough in the So. Miss game. Thus, that game had more of a negative effect on Cal than the Kansas game did on Texas. As wrath_of_khan has already pointed out, every pundit in America was pointing out the Cal-So Miss. game, claiming that Cal must win big on national TV in order to make it to the Rose Bowl. Texas-Kansas received no such scrutiny or attention. Again, both teams deserve to be in a BCS bowl, no doubt about it. However, Cal was definitely hurt more by So. Miss than Texas was by Kansas.
Its obvious that I went to Cal and bleed Blue and Gold, when I'm not bleeding Rocket Red or Stro's Orange. While it might be a-holish I agree with Rodgers' sentiments. Mack Brown's a great coach and he's probably a pretty good guy but from my standpoint Tedford coached and acted with class and dignity in not running up the score or begging for votes while Mack Brown went on TV and practically got on his knees to the poll voters. I'm sure Brown is a class act but in comparison it really seems to me like Tedford handled himself with more dignity than Brown. I know its not the Horns or Mack Brown's fault that we got reamed by the B c S but I'm still bitter about it and if our positions were reversed it wouldn't surprise me if any UT fans out there felt the same.
Tedford only "acted with class" because his team was ahead in the polls. If the roles are reversed, he does the exact same thing as Mack. Plus, is everyone forgetting that UT beat a RANKED A&M team with the national spotlight on them? It's not like Cal is the only team to play a game on ESPN this year (and as was stated earlier not many outside Cal and Texas were really watching this game as the BIG XII and SEC championships were on). Cal deserves to be in the BCS this year, but so does Texas. None of these Cal fans were crying foul for UT last year when we were left out. All we got was the 'ol "you win your conference you go to BCS". Which is basically what it boils down to. You win your conference or you put yourself in a lottery for the BCS. UT lost last year and won this year. If we didn't make it, there would be some who cry foul but not many (and there would be no reason to; we win our conference and we're in automatically). But just because it's a Pac-10 team missing the Rose Bowl this happens to be a travesty? Come on...
yeah, but as halfbreed pointed out, it was a&m. a ranked team. and everyone in the country that wanted to watch college football got a good long look at it, and we knew going in we had to be impressive. there's a reason we fretted over the freak vince young fumble that turned into an aggie TD, b/c it turned a 33-6 game into a 26-13 game. we knew we needed style points and we doubled up a&m in yards and on the scoreboard, and since they were ranked that makes it even better. of course, cal was idle that week and actually improved their advantage in the polls over us (which shows the whole Mack Brown got us all those votes thing was BS b/c it sure didn't help us right after he said it, only after Cal laid an egg). so just like cal lost ground after beating stanford, we lost ground after beating a&m. this was a crapshoot. we came out on the good side. cal F'd themselves by not looking good against So. Miss. that's too bad. no one would've felt sorry for us so we're not going to apologize for going to the Rose Bowl since it worked out for us.
