NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 7:08 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Is anyone else troubled by reports that Texas coach, Mack Brown, lobbied reporters of some Texas newspapers to change their votes so that Texas would move up in th polls & make the cut for the BCS bowls? Now there are reports that Brown also talked to some Big XII coaches, asking them to drop Cal in their coaches' poll ballots to enhance fellow Big XII member Texas' chances for the BCS bowl spot. His appeal reportedly was based on the fact that all Big XII schools would make more money if the Big XII was the only conference to get a second team into the BCS bowls.

The manipulation of coaches' votes is especially interesting because these votes are never made public. A coach can vote however he wants & no one can challenge him because it's a secret ballot. Maybe this explains why some coaches submitted ballots with Cal ranked as low as 8th in the final poll.

If enough reasons didn't already exist to scrap the BCS - & enough reasons certainly do exist - this kind of corruption should be the last straw. In a just world, it would also be the last nail in the BCS coffin. The system can only be viable if the voters are impartial. Once this integrity is lost & there is suspicion that votes are being manipulated for financial gain or conference bias, the votes become meaningless. This is especially relevant this year as the polls have been elevated to a greater percent of the BCS rankng formula. At least in the past, the computer systems - for better or worse - had more say & gave some sense of objectivity.


Last edited by friarfan on Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:14 am 
What was "impartial" about Cal being ranked above Texas in the first place?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 12:19 am 
Because Kansas State played in the 1998 Alamo Bowl...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:46 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
What was "impartial" about Cal being ranked above Texas in the first place?


Exactly my point, Mr Ouija. I'm not expressing a vote fo Cal to be ranked above Texas. My point is that the system is rancid regardless of who benefits at any given point in time. In this case news coverage has shone its light on the machinations of Texas to manipulate the syste. I'm sure it's been done by others & will be done again unless it is changed.

Personally, I would prefer Cal to be in the Rose Bowl because of Rose Bowl traditions, given 2 equally deserving teams. But that's another discussion & it is not the current system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:56 am 
This wasn't the first time, and surely it won't be the last...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:00 am 
Also note that the off-season changes to the BCS rankings (more input from the human polls) were made because of a previous "slight" made towards conference rival USC...wasn't Texas ahead in all or at least most of the computer polls anyway?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:10 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Agree with both of your points, Mr Ouija. They system is a mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:51 am 
The reason is that Cal played crappy against a mid major South Miss. team.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:37 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
The reason is that Cal played crappy against a mid major South Miss. team.


Bisonfan, did you type that with a straight face? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:43 am 
It's true, right?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:21 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Sorry, Bisonfan, I thought your comment was tongue-in-cheek.

As I said above, I am not lobbying for Cal to be ranked ahead of Texas. The point of this thread is the allegations that both sports writers & coaches changed their votes under pressure from Texas coach Mack Brown. The allegations against the coaches are disturbing for two reasons. First is that not only did they rank Cal below Texas, but that they ranked them even lower than any reasonable person would have in order to boost Texas even further. Second, the coaches are not accountable for their votes since it is a secret ballot.

In regard to your comment that Cal didn't make the Rose Bowl because they played crappy against USM, I have no idea if that is why - & neither does anyone else. If it is a fact that pollsters dropped Cal because they perceived a 10-point win over USM to be an inferior performance, then that highlights another problem with the system, i.e. a late season loss or poor performance takes on disproportionate weight.

Let's compare the records of Cal & Texas:

Cal won 8 of its 11 games by 17 points or more. They had a poor performance against a mediocre Oregon team (5-6), winning 28-27. They lost to #1 USC 17-23 in the closing minutes. Everyone agrees that they played a great game. So, Cal had 2 sub-par games all season - USM & Oregon.

Texas had a margin of less than 17 points in 5 of its games. Like Cal, they lost to their undefeated, Orange Bowl-bound opponent. But against Oklahoma, the Texas offense was shut out. The loss was by 12 only because the Texas defense played great. But Texas squeaked by 3 other teams on their schedule with losing records! Arkansas (5-6), 22-20; Missouri (5-6), 28-20; & Kansas (4-7), 27-23. They also allowed a good-but-not-great Texas A&M team to hang around until the Long Horns won 26-13.

Both teams won a squeaker agains a conference also-ran (Oregon & Arkansas). But after that, there's no comparison. Cal almost beat USC, while Texas couldn't mount an offense in their high profile game. Cal blew out every other good team on their schedule; they never were challenged the way Texas was by A&M. Now if after that, you're telling me that a 10-point win by Cal over USM drops them below Texas after Texas struggled even worse against 2 similarly bad opponents (Kansas & Missouri), then I'm missing something.

My beef is with the system that allows these kinds of things to happen. They should be resolved on the field in a play-off - not by a disputed vote subject to politicking. Why should Texas care about going to the Rose Bowl, a game traditionally reserved for a Pac Ten team. shouldn't they want to go to the Cotton Bowl? Ah, but it's all about money.


Last edited by friarfan on Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:37 pm 
Name the other "good teams" on Cal's schedule (I just mentioned Arizona State)...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:39 pm 

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: 12.216.234.87

FriarFan
All-Star
*****
member is offline




billgem@hotmail.com [send pm]

Joined: Jun 2003
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,366
Re: RE:
« Reply #13 on 12/19/2004 at 3:37pm »
[Quote] [Modify] [Delete]




Quote:
Name the other "good teams" on Cal's schedule (I just mentioned Arizona State)...


Here we go with the old "strength of schedule" argument, a completely unprovable system, based on arcane analyses of play against statistically interpolated, virtual reality common opponents. The fact is that both Cal & Texas played major conference schedules. They had no common oponents. Cal blew out their opposition the vast majority of the time. Texas struggled against their opposition more often that Cal did, but also blew out their opponents more often than not. Chalk it up to a tougher schedule if you want, but that's just opinion, speculation, & guess work. Neither team went out & challenged itself with its non-conference opponents - unless you consider North Texas, Arkansas, & Rice on the Texas schedule to be challenging opposition.

The fact is that Cal was ranked ahead of Texas until the last week of the season when they went out & beat USM by 10, while Texas was idle & a week after Texas had beaten A&M by 13. If you don't think there was corruption, do you want to explain the change in votes after that one to me? It's not like Texas went out & overwhemed a tough opponent while Cal survived a squeaker. The fact is that Cal did nothing in that last week that Texas hadn't already done earlier in the season - several times over.

Again, I am not defending Cal over Texas. The point is bowls & polls, a system rife with corruption & dedicated to profits. All of this could be resolved with a play-off system.

Last edited by Mr Ouija on Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:00 pm 
Yes, but the implicit "rules" of the system are dictated by the maxim of "what have you done for me lately?" That's why USC was ranked 1st in both polls last year...because fellow one-loss teams LSU and Oklahoma lost later...

"What have you done for me lately, Cal?" If we really want to pick hairs, compare Texas-North Texas, Cal-Southern Mississippi, and the New Orleans Bowl (North Texas-Southern Mississippi)...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
Rather than "implicit rules," I'd see such voter proclivities as vain attempts at groping in the dark when there is no actual reality to grasp. Totally meaningless to seize on the most recent loss.

Actually in this case it wasn't even the most recent loss. Cal WON the game against USM - just not by as much as some people would like. But in its last game Texas wasn't all that impressive either - 13 points over A&M. Doesn't knock my socks off.

Okay, I'll bite what is the significance of the North Texas-USM comparison? Texas blows out NTSU 65-0. Cal struggles to beat USM by 10. USM beats NTSU by 3 TDs. So, Texas blew out a relatively bad team & Cal struggled but beat a much better team. Sounds to me like we're back where we started. It's still just one game by each team.

Bottom line is that none of this speculation would be necessary with a play-off.


Last edited by friarfan on Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group