NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:12 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:34 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Texas picked up a bunch of points because the teams close behind them lost. Wisconsin, Miami, Tennessee, Michigan all lost in that time frame.

Why did Cal pick up more than Texas the week they were idle and Texas beat a ranked A&M team solidly? Why did Cal pick up 15 while Utah lose 24 that week when both were idle? Why did more people rate Texas 7th or lower than rated Cal 7th or lower?

Look at the facts and quit listening to ESPN. If there was a "fix," it was for Cal who DID finish ahead in the polls and gained points from Utah Thanksgiving week.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:00 am 
Why is the credibility of the voters perceived to have been "objective" prior to their having been "swayed by politics" in the final few weeks of the regular season? If they were indeed able to be "swayed by politics," why is it assumed that the polls conducted prior to said "swaying" were legitimate in the first place?

If anything, Cal unduly benefited from having a victory over the 2003 USC team that was not included in the BCS championship game and subsequently became the media darlings claiming the AP title...obviously, if the 2003 USC team was the "hero," than the 2003 Oklahoma team was the "villan"...Texas lost to the "villan," Cal lost to the "hero" and milked the USC bandwagon for as long as it possibly could...perhaps the Cal-Texas matter will be "settled" in the Orange Bowl rather than the Holiday or Rose Bowls...




Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:53 am 

Quote:
Why is the credibility of the voters perceived to have been "objective" prior to their having been "swayed by politics" in the final few weeks of the regular season?


I wasn't aware that it was. Can you post a link to that?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:54 am 

Quote:
Texas picked up a bunch of points because the teams close behind them lost. Wisconsin, Miami, Tennessee, Michigan all lost in that time frame.


And that would explain why Cal lost points in the coaches' poll?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:56 pm 

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: 12.216.234.87

Mr Ouija
RE:
« Reply #37 on 12/29/2004 at 11:04am »
[Quote] [Modify] [Delete]



Again, if "the fix was in," and the voters were indeed able to be so conspicuously manipulated, then why are we supposed to believe that their initial ranking(s) of Cal were worth the paper they were printed on...have fun interpreting the abstract science that is "pollster logic" and thinking that you can actually use it to formulate a cogent argument...remove the AP from the equation and tell everyone how much closer Cal finishes to Texas...

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:09 pm 

Quote:
Again, if "the fix was in," and the voters were indeed able to be so conspicuously manipulated, then why are we supposed to believe that their initial ranking(s) of Cal were worth the paper they were printed on...


We don't. You really seem to be missing the point. Texas MAY HAVE been more worthy than Cal, but how it happened was beyond suspicious, there was clearly some hanky-panky going on. The coaches' polls has always had a conflict of interest, and have some notable times where it's voting was really bad but what happened here is that the voting was manipulated and a valuable bowl went to the Big 12. That's clearly worth raising an eyebrow over.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:54 pm 
If you've actually followed college football for any significant length of time, then why are you raising an eyebrow? Happened before, will happen again...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:28 pm 

Quote:
If you've actually followed college football for any significant length of time, then why are you raising an eyebrow? Happened before, will happen again...


While voting patterns have been suspicious in the past, this time the voting was manipulated in order to put a team into a big money bowl. That's borderline corruption there.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:55 pm 
If you really think about it, college football already was the manifestation of corruption, but where to begin...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:34 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Texas gained 50 on Cal that week and only 12 was due to Cal losing points, the week after Cal gained 108 while Texas only gained 53 for a net 55 Cal gain. Those 12 were less than they gained from Utah the week both were idle. Its not that big a deal.

Who is complaining about Auburn gaining 34 on OU the previous week on a straight swap of 17 votes from OU to Auburn?

The whole Cal belly-aching is just ridiculous. I understand Cal and their fans being disappointed, but the media people are just idiots. They are supposed to be experts but don't pay attention to the facts. And the computer experts were expecting Texas to pass Cal several weeks before the end of the season. It shouldn't have been a surprise to the media. It was widely discussed on the Texas boards. And remember-Cal won in the polls!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 1:59 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Is this thread dead now?

The real surprise was that Cal led in the first quarter. I figured they would come out flat. It was the 2nd and 3rd quarter when they got outscored 31-3.

The BCS is a lousy system. But Cal doesn't have any more gripes than a lot of teams over the years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2004 2:52 am 

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: 12.216.234.87

dogsncocks
Re: Why is Cal not in the Rose Bowl?
« Reply #45 on 12/31/2004 at 6:53pm »
[Quote] [Modify] [Delete]



Right! Call it the Kansas State Syndrone. Teams that feel they deserved something higher, then get regulated to a lesser bowl are primed to get upset.

However, attitude plays into the mix, and it is up to the coaching to get the max out of them if they can.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:51 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Mack Brown had a few flashbacks too. He made the comment that the same thing had happened to him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:23 pm 

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: 12.216.234.87

bullet
All-Star
*****
member is offline




bullet2622@aol.com [send pm]

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 987
Re: Why is Cal not in the Rose Bowl?
« Reply #48 on 1/2/2005 at 9:06pm »
[Quote] [Modify] [Delete]



<<Mack Brown had a few flashbacks too. He made the comment that the same thing had happened to him.>>

Texas was rather dissappointed to be in the Cotton Bowl and few years back against Arkansas and got badly outplayed. Also, when they lost to CU in the Big 12 championship game (a win probably would have landed them in the Rose Bowl vs. Miami instead of Nebraska), they played poorly in the Holiday Bowl against Oregon St. (?-maybe Oregon). In another Holiday Bowl they fell badly behind vs. Washington before Major Applewhite helped pull it out at the end. They were hardly inspired last year in the Holiday vs. Washington St. as the offense looked very rusty and the receivers kept on dropping passes.

Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:42 am 
I guess I just never viewed a Mack Brown Texas team having as precipitous of a collapse as that 1998 Kansas State team...they still finished #3 in the BCS even after the double-OT loss to A&M...higher than an Ohio State team that had well-publicized "co-championship" aspirations going into the Sugar Bowl...Kansas State was passed over by two three-loss teams, with Texas and Nebraska going to the Cotton and Holiday, respectively, and then lost to a four-loss Purdue team (did not play Michigan or Ohio State) in the Alamo (granted, the score was 37-34)...

I guess Mack Brown's closest brush would have been in 2001...but even then, the Big XII championship game was played in the immediate aftermath of a Tennessee victory at Florida...the 2001 Holiday Bowl was the one they actually won, with a Applewhite-led comeback against 8-3 Washington...the 1999 team had a victory over Nebraska, but also had four losses entering the Cotton Bowl...the 2000 team was 9-2 and the Cotton Bowl chose a 10-3 Kansas State team (two losses to Oklahoma) and avoided the "three-peat"...

Perhaps the most "slighted" Mack Brown team was North Carolina 1997, which finished 10-1 and was coached in the Gator Bowl (42-3 win over 7-4 Virginia Tech) by Carl Torbrush...even if Tennessee had lost to Auburn in that abysmal SEC championship game, it was widely speculated that Auburn would have faced 9-2 UCLA (undue beneficiary of a 66-3 win over Texas?) in the Sugar Bowl...


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  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