NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:35 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:16 pm 
Agree Lash!

I do not have a problem with Pittsburgh playing in the BCS because that was done by pre-existing rules and the BE was in a transitional situation this year. What does bother me is the gross subjectivity whereby muti-millions are at stake and someone deserving gets left out.
Auburn did what they needed to do. One cannot ask for more than being undefeated. Cal is certainly deserving to be in the BCS as an at-large entry.
If Cal loses in the Holiday Bowl, disappointment and having their motivation crushed could be factors. Kansas State, a few years back, lost to Purdue in a minor bowl when the just missed the BCS.
A coach lobbying for his team, as Mack Brown did, is somewhat expected. But for coaches to change their votes or minds, when Texas was done playing, and Cal won appropriately their last game, comes across as pure hanky-panky. Had Cal went into overtime at home against Southern Miss, in order to secure their victory, then second thoughts may have been in order. But that did not happen. Cal simply notched up another regular season road victory during regulation time.
This BCS system is controversial more years than the years it resolves the mythical championship issue. In actuality, a team with one or two loses may indeed be the one most capable of winning it all.
If ever a playoff is enacted, it is hoped the politics of it gets minimumized as to who participates. Unlikely!Several factors are at work:
(a) There are obviously certain non-BCS conference schools that are BCS quality or capable, such as Louisville, Utah (got a bid), and Boise State. The BCS did revise its criteria to allow improved access, but the system is not perfect.
(b) Reliance on politically driven polls and questionable and inconsistent computer rankings have flaws that the BCS structure cannot or does not want to remedy.
(c) The system is structured wherby every game is critical in getting into the BCS. Accountability for late season vast improvements and schedule inconsistencies exist, but the methodology for factoring in these variables is way off from being perfect. A team can be punished for playing tough OCC opponents and rewarded for racking up easy and expected wins.
(d) Unique criteria is given to Notre Dame. They have failed to meet it during recent years. However, if there was a 9-2 Notre Dame hanging among Texas and Cal, guess who certain bowls and pollsters may have smiled upon?
(e) Name recognition and a greater power base do have influences beyond what happens on the field. Texas is in a larger conference, by 2, compared to the PAC10's Cal, plus they have a perceived greater tradition, influence, and following. That should not be a factor in examining year to year choices.
(f) Schools in the eastern and central time zones have a huge advantage in afternoon TV exposure. In the eastern half of the country, watching PAC 10 and MWC teams play is often late night and are still competing with certain eastern night games often on ESPN and ESPN2.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:43 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Agree Lash (except about the SEC-Big 12 and Pac 10 were both better this year).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:12 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<Yes, but the REASON Texas caught up t Cal was a change in votes from coaches (the AP votes remained the same). When 6 coaches vote Cal #7 or below, it's a bit shady. >>

How many had Texas #7 or below? Quite a few AP voters prior to the last week had Texas #7-#9. I haven't been able to track down the final poll (although I know it is public).

Cal was pretty unimpressive vs. USM. You can't base the ranking only on the fact that they were impressive vs. USC. So was UCLA and Stanford and Oregon St.. Notre Dame wasn't, but they still beat Michigan and Tennessee. ASU hurt Cal's case by losing to UA. Arizona St. was the only ranked team Cal beat while Texas had a top 10 schedule. Cal played a lot of 5-6, 6-5 teams. I wouldn't put Cal that low, but I could see an argument for putting them #8 (the 5 unbeatens, Texas and Louisville). Boise would certainly be a stretch, but Louisville is pretty good. Anything lower than that would be unsupportable, but some people had Texas as low as 9th.

I would like to see Louisville vs. a school like Iowa or LSU. I would be curious to see Boise play one of those, but I would expect Boise to get killed. I think Louisville would win. Its a shame the BCS conferences try to avoid playing the non-BCS schools in bowls.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:29 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<How many had Texas #7 or below? Quite a few AP voters prior to the last week had Texas #7-#9. I haven't been able to track down the final poll (although I know it is public). >>

I found the answer to my own question. EIGHT! coaches had Texas #7 or below. MORE than had Cal that low.

And from Syntex on Hornfans.com that states the case you don't hear in the media:

<<The Pac 10 commish, the Cal coach, and many others are harping on some of the voting patterns that may have tainted the BCS. Let's talk about it. Let me take item by item some of the problems that have been discussed (and I will make adjustments accordingly).

-- You complain about the 3 Texas based AP voters who switched and put Texas ahead of Cal. I'm gonna switch it back for ya. (typing). There you go!

-- You complain about the Alabama jerk who suddenly realized Texas is not the #9 team, but he suddenly moved us up to #5. Bear in mind, he still had Texas behind you guys, but what the hay? Let's take away those four points from Texas, shall we?

-- You are offended (and you have a case) that some coaches put Texas #2 or #3. You are right. That is wrong. I'm taking it all away. I will take away those points from Texas, and because y'all are so d**n confident that you unequivocally outrank Texas, I will reassign all these #2/#3 Texas coach votes to Texas as a #5 vote. (More typing). There we go! And I'm being so nice today, I'm gonna go ahead and leave the pro-Cal #3 vote that mysteriously appeared in the final coaches poll.

-- You are offended that 6 coaches put you #7 or #8. Yes, that's wrong, too. Forget the fact that 8 coaches had Texas #7 or #8, the media is not mentioning that fact at all, but whatever. What I will do for y'all... I will take all 6 Cal #7/#8 votes, and because y'all are so convinced you are the better team, I will magically turn those into #4 votes, ahead of Texas.

So where do we stand after all these very generous changes?

#4 Texas 0.8442
#5 Cal 0.8391
0.0051

That's right. We eliminated a little more than half of the difference. So much for the razor thin margin. So much for the conspiracy taking away your Rose Bowl bid. Y'all need to get together, figure out another injustice, and let me know, so we can try to plug a way for you guys to win.

OK. Now that I have mathematically shown (and given you all are very smart students at Berkeley, and you know based on what I said above, I'm right), let me give you all the reasons why you need to shut up already and just accept your d**n Holiday Bowl bid.

1. The "Conspiracy Effect" Doesn't Add Up
This is what was just proven above. In the end, it makes for a neat Trev Alberts, PTI, New York Times, Seattle Times story, but it didn't really matter.

2. You Outranked Us in Both Human Polls
Al Gore wanted a recount, investigations, because he had LOST the human vote. You guys won it, d**n it! Not only do you outrank us #4/#5 in the coach's poll, but you have the added benefit of a wedge (Utah) to outrank us #4/#6 in the AP poll. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?? How can you allege fraud in the human polls, when in the end, they WENT IN YOUR FAVOR?

Forget the fact that both teams have identical records, and a good case to make as both teams lost to undefeated national title contenders. It's understandable that some voters will vote Cal #4/Texas #5, and vice versa. If you refuse to accept that premise, you are being naive. It is not a slam dunk case, that in every voter's mind, that you are better than Texas. You know it and we know it. I will never argue that every voter should have Texas higher than Cal, and you should never argue the opposite. It's a grey area.

And in the end, the grey area was in your favor. You are unhappy, because it wasn't overwhelmingly ENOUGH in your favor. Oh well.

3. There's a reason the computers liked Texas
Cal's cumulative opponents win/loss was 61-61, a perfect breakeven.
Texas' cumulative opponents win/loss was 67-56, 11 games over 0.500

That's right. The best way we can try to demote our schedule to your level, is to pull out the undefeated 12-0 record of our best opponent, Oklahoma. But given that you guys pregnant dog and pregnant dog and pregnant dog how close you came to beating your undefeated opponent, I don't think we can accomodate you there.

We beat 5 teams that had 7 or more victories. You defeated one. One. One team that won 7 or more games.

4. Be fair about each of our losses.
I am more than willing to grant you that you played USC better than we played OU. But don't go saying that you practically beat USC (because you outgained them, and your wideout tripped on his route), while we got blown out by OU. The score of the OU game at halftime was Oklahoma 3, Texas 0. It was Oklahoma 6, Texas 0 up until 8 minutes in the 4th quarter. I realize that given you are Pac 10 fans, you must shiver when you see such a defensive struggle. But this was a very close game.

Again, we did not do as well against our rival as you did against yours. You guys were close. But don't go saying that we were blown out by OU.

5. Be fair about each of our sloppy wins.
Kansas. Boy, the media sure loves that game. We played sloppy in that one no doubt, but you guys know that as time was winding down, the Oregon WR dropped a wideopen, easy pass that puts them well within field goal range. So those are both near misses against sub-0.500 teams.

Arkansas. Well, I was happy with that one, it was an electric environment. It was probably closer than it should have been. Honestly, I do think this is a wash with your Southern Miss game. On the road, close at the end (game was nearly tied 17-16 with a mere 6 minutes left). But in the end, the better team won.

If you try to assert that any of our wins beyond KU and Arkansas were low quality or squeakers in nature, you are wrong (in my opinion). I attended and re-watched each of these games. Kansas and Arkansas made me sweat, but as the games concluded, none of the others were really in question, and they were all by reasonable victory margins. Yes, a comeback was needed against Okla State, but we won that game by 21 points.

6. Quit harping on the Big 10/Pac 10 sanctity crap.
For years, the Rose Bowl has been diligent in preserving tradition by always inviting the champion of the Big 10, to play the champion of the Pac 10.

Three teams: Michigan, Cal, and Texas. Only one of them meets this tradition, and last time I checked, that team is going to the Rose Bowl. Tell me, again, how the tradition is being violated.

7. Quit saying Mack Brown's "whining" did the trick.
While you and Utah were off, and after we defeated a ranked A&M team in a rivalry game, Mack Brown made public statements asking for voters to reconsider their votes. Some have portrayed this as "whining," some may say he was politicking, but whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter. He was certainly making an appeal to voters.

When the polls came out merely 2 days later (again bearing in mind that Texas beat a ranked team, Cal and Utah were off), here's what happened: Cal GAINED 4 points in the human polls. Texas LOST ground after defeating a ranked team by 13pts, while Cal was off. If ANYTHING, the "whining" backfired. It clearly didn't help.

Here's a thought.... maybe Cal lost ground in the human polls in the following week (a full 9 days after Mack's "whining") because of a subpar performance against a mediocre conference USA opponent. Because they were virtually tied with Southern Miss with only 6 minutes remaining in the game. Not because of Mack's "whining." And if you think it is wrong for Cal to be penalized on ballots because they didn't look good against a mediocre opponent -- welcome to college football. Teams have constantly been tweaked because of soft performances. Nebraska, in 1997, lost considerable votes (relative to Michigan) when it needed some luck to squeak by Mizzou. The precedent is ample, and reasonable. In fact, Texas according to many voters was being penalized for its performance against Kansas. What goes around, comes around.>>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1369
Location: Baltimore, MD
Actually, Bullet, the result of this sad affair is that the few people who did not have contempt previously for U. Texas football now do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:57 pm 
I was wondering about the mathematical possibilities in regards to pollsters having switched their votes in contrast to the computer polls, but I never actually did the math myself...seems curious that this angle has not yet been replicated in "mainstream media" (and no I am not limiting that to ESPN, so save it)...

Agreed, that the Rose Bowl had been concerned with pitting the Big Ten/Pac-10 CHAMPIONS...at least in 2002 Iowa was 8-0 in the Big Ten and certifiably a co-champion by virtue of having not played Ohio State (granted, Ohio State held the Rose Bowl tie-breaker under such circumstances by having a better overall record, ala 1996, when 7-1 Northwestern didn't play Ohio State but lost a non-conference game to Wake Forest and finished with a 9-2 overall record in comparison to Ohio State's 10-1)...

To the best of my knowledge the Rose Bowl never hosted a PCC/Pac-10 non-champion except in situations where the "no repeat" rule was invoked (probably hasn't happened since the 1950s)...

Cal was not the Pac-10 champion...it seems as though they are still gravy-training off of the success and "slight" of USC, especially since they were the team that handed USC their last loss/only loss in 2003...



Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:08 pm 
When did I start defending the Big XII and going on the offensive against the Pac-10...well, after they reinstituted conference tournament, I guess it was just a matter of time...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:54 am 
The Pac-10 has held a post-season conference tournament in men's basketball at two separate times, 1987-1990 and 2002-present...I believe that the first Big Ten tournament was played in 1998...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:54 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:21 am
Posts: 748
Location: Midwest

Quote:
Big 12 fans constantly say the Pac10 isnt good however Mack Brown's record vs the pac 10 is lol 2-4 and he never played USC. Texas overall record v pac 10 since 1981 is 3-6.

As the Big 12 isnt quite an academic conference is easy to see why perhaps they think that somehow because Texas scored a lower number than its Pac 10 opponents that perhaps that means they won.
'

Cal really got screwed. Not only does it have class academically but its coach showed real character by letting the clock run out v Southern Miss and by not pandering for votes as Texas' coach did.


Im in Texas too - how embarrassing!


This is a pretty accurate assessment... Twould have been nice to see a traditional Rose Bowl matchup, even tho I'm not too excited to see the "damaged goods" Michigan team there. They really botched two of their most crucial games this year (ND, OSU), and nearly botched the MSU game, only won by a miracle. Coach has problems getting team up for crucial road games, always has....

The matchup with Texas is extremely interesting though. Read somewhere the schools have never actually met ever. Some years ago there were small nibles in the midwest press about Texas becoming the 12th BigTen member--this was prior to Big8/SWC merger. Texas is the most prestigious academic school in the BigXII, with one of the biggest alumni bases, just like Michigan. Alumni are rich and travel well... Rose Bowl will love them economically, even if not traditionally, lol

:D


Last edited by javaman on Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:43 am 
JAVA!

"...and from out of nowhere it came!"

Nice to hear from you, sir. Nice to hear from you.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:09 pm 
JAVA!!! You're back!!!!! :D Long live the University of Northern North Dakota fightin' prairie dogs!!! ;D


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 3:49 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:21 am
Posts: 748
Location: Midwest

Quote:
JAVA!!! You're back!!!!! :D Long live the University of Northern North Dakota fightin' prairie dogs!!! ;D


well, to clarify, its the University of SOUTHERN North Dakota you know, and the men's teams have recently adopted the Jackalope as their mascot by recent plebiscite (environmental consciousness-raising, hoping to help preserve an endangered prairie species). Besides the jackalope presents a more virile image in the team mascot uniform... More horny...

the women's teams have retained the prairie dog mascot however, since they are very fertile little creatures...

8-)



Last edited by javaman on Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:16 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<the women's teams have retained the prairie dog mascot however, since they are very fertile little creatures...>>

That's a good thing considering how they like to run into the highway and play chicken with cars.

Texas and Michigan have never met (nor have Texas and Ohio St.-but they play a 2 game series starting next year). Texas had its 24,000 ticket allotment over-subscribed a couple of days ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:24 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
Of course, Texas has also never been to the Rose Bowl.

The Rose Bowl was going to invite Texas in 1941 if they cancelled a late season game vs. Oregon. Oregon St., Pac 10 champs that year had squeaked by Oregon 12-7 and they were afraid Oregon might upset Texas. Texas refused and the Rose Bowl went another way. Texas beat Oregon 71-7.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:41 pm 
Does that mean that Austin could have possibly hosted that Rose Bowl (ala Durham, NC)?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
 

 




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