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.

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

Because Kansas State played in the 1998 Alamo Bowl...

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.

This wasn't the first time, and surely it won't be the last...

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?

Agree with both of your points, Mr Ouija. They system is a mess.

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

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

It's true, right?

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.

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