maybe Texas shouldnt whine because no matter how bad Mack Brown says the Pac 10 is - his record of 2-4 vs them speaks for itself. ( NO games vs USC or Cal either).

Was Texas dropped in 2003 AFTER it won its last game away vs a bowl bound opponent?

Did all the voters in one conference put Texas way down in order to elevate some other team?

Which makes college football look better -not running up the score and not begging for votes or .. Mack Brown?

I already said this on New BCS, but it bears repeating here.

The system begs for whining, because the system sucks. Mack Brown did what he had to do. Jeff Tedford didn't. Tom Hanson forgot to threaten to pull the Pac-10 out of the BCS... which may well happen in de facto fashion if the Rose Bowl pulls out.

We get the system we pay for, folks! Maybe boycotting the viewing, attending, and sponsors of bowl games is in order here.

Wonder if Mack's brother, Watson, UAB's coach had a vote, and proves blood is thicker than water? Only speculating here. Also, while other Big12 schools want the share of Rose Bowl money Texas will pull in, there has to be a few Big12 coaches that personally detest Mack. As we know, the coaches poll votes are secret. Ole Grant Teaff says they will chat about it again, but gave a public statement suggesting all is above board; yeah, right, and bull-----, as in Longhorns!

Like Mack Brown said on the BCS's own show, "The system doesn't work."

Weren't they in the Big XII Championship Game?

Moved to BCS Banter Forum: 1/4/2004

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

UT won
Cal lost

end of discussion ::)

You mean the BCS degraded college football.

The NCAA has degraded the terms "college" and "football" for years...

Naive...
Cal was definitely not as good at the end as they were at the beginning of the season.
The Rose Bowl wanted them and was forced to take Texas predominantly as a result of the outcome of Mack Browns shameless lobby job.
Texas winning and Cal losing doesn't "make it correct."
The outcomes don't necessarily make one team better than the other. They didn't play each other.
8-)

Also, why did you feel the need to mention that "Cal was definitely not as good at the end as they were at the beginning of the season?"

First point...
So what's your point?
Cal lost to T.Tech...Texas beat T. Tech...and this proves what now?

Texas also squeaked by Michigan, which lost to Notre Dame, who lost to Oregon State, who was BLOWN out by Cal....

Or...
Cal was barely beaten by USC, who BLEW OUT Oklahoma, who beat Texas...

Which proves...Nothing.

Second point...
The Cal not being as good was basically the assessment that Cal was not the same team that lost to USC early in the year. However, they had EARNED a position to go the Rose Bowl, who wanted to take them, but was forced to take Texas due predominantly to politicking, and not play on the field.

And please, please, please, don't give me the Cal didn't get an auto bid cr@p. I don't dispute that. I do believe that Cal could have also beaten Michigan as Texas did, even though they weren't as good as they were at the start of the year. We'll never know. Cal lost in a "let down game" to a Texas Tech team that played VERY well. This does NOT alter the other facts that have transpired to put the teams in the bowls they ended up in. Texas lost last year in much the same position. It's not that uncommon. It doesn't automatically imply that "somebody didn't belong."

And if anybody didn't belong...it looks like perhaps it was Oklahoma who just got THRASHED by the "weak" Pac-10 school. I've got to hear what that Big 12 sleeper Craig James has to say about that.!
8-)

That's the reason Cal didn't "earn" a Rose Bowl berth...

Also, Texas Tech is the only common opponent between Cal and Texas...