Stupid BCS computers

What the . . . ?!?

Going into the last week, Cal is ranked #4 in BCS rankings.  Cal beats Southern Mississippi, a bowl-bound team, on the road, 26-16 (and it could have been 33-16, but Cal took a knee at the end of the game rather than run in another touchdown), and Cal drops to #5?!?  Which is significant, because only a top 4 team from a BCS-conference gets an automatic at-large bid.

I don't begrudge Texas for getting the spot over Cal, although I don't really see why Texas should be ranked higher.  Neither team had a particularly grueling schedule, and when you look at the top match-up each had, Texas lost 12-0 to #2 Oklahoma, while Cal lost 23-17 to #1 USC.  The only difference is, Cal dominated USC statistically and was going for the win at the end of the game.  True, Texas beat three top 25 teams (compared to Cal's one), but Cal also had more convincing victories all season.

Still, as I say, I don't begrudge Texas its BCS bid.  The really outrageous selection is Pittsburgh as the Big East champion.  Back in the days when Miami was good and in the Big East, it made some sense to guarantee the Big East champ a spot in the BCS.  But what's the argument now, with Miami and Virginia Tech gone to the ACC?

Anyway, I would have liked to have seen Cal smash Michigan in the Rose Bowl, but now I suppose I will be forced to root for Michigan to annihilate Texas so that the BCS computers will look stupid for having ranked Texas ahead of Cal.  (I don't begrudge Texas its bid, but that doesn't mean I can't hope for its utter humilation. . . .)

Go Bears.  And go Hawkeyes.  And go Bruins.

Comments

[muteKevin]

This is why I like reading your posts--we cheer for the same sides.

Here's a question for you that I've been arguing with some Cal alums here at UCLA about--should one cheer for USC in the Orange Bowl because they're from the Pac 10?

[G. Michaels]

If anyone bothered to decode the BCS computer software I am sure they would discover the little bit of code that weighs the potential "audience" factor into the equation. Everyone knows that West Coast football is given second rating.

[PBO]

Another way to look at the problem is the agreement ensuring certain conferences a place in one of the major bowls. I would prefer to see Cal squaring off against Texas, and not Michigan, in the Rose Bowl.

[Tung Yin]

muteKevin, I'm not sure I'm able to root for usc even if it helps Cal, so I certainly don't see why I would be rooting for them in the Orange Bowl. I have some warm and fuzzy feelings for the Pac-10, but that only extends beyond Cal and UCLA to include Oregon, Washington, and maybe Arizona.

[tom]

Should Cal boycott the Holiday Bowl to express its disgust with the system? I've seen that suggestion made in several forums.

[Tung Yin]

Should Cal boycott the Holiday Bowl to express its disgust with the system?

I wouldn't think so. The victims of the boycott would be the Cal players, the Holiday Bowl, and the Pac-10. The Holiday Bowl has a longstanding tie-in to the Pac-10, always taking the #2 Pac-10 team. If Cal boycotted, it would hurt the prestige of the Holiday Bowl. The Pac-10 would be hurt because it would lose out on the shared payout from one additional bowl (since not enough Pac-10 teams qualified for bowls to take all the contractually available spots).

I think the best thing for Cal to do is to push for public identification of the coaches' votes. If, as I suspect, it was a bunch of coaches in Texas and/or the Big-12 that dropped Cal to below #6 on several ballots (as well as putting Texas at #3, or in one case, #2), those coaches should be publicly humiliated for their boosterism. Meanwhile, the next best thing for Cal to do is to go beat the hell out of Texas Tech and hope that Michigan humiliates Texas.

[tom]

SI has a story this week that reports only three sportswriters in the AP poll switched their fourth place votes from Cal to Texas last week. Those three happen to write for the Dallas Morning News, Forth Worth Star Telegram and Austin American Statesmen. Hmmmmmm.......