Texas is going to the Rose Bowl

[ChicanoPwr]

The BCS finally got something right.

HOCK'EM HORNS!!!!

:headbang:

[Bleacher Creature]

1. The BCS still has a hell of a way to go.

How many more years can an undefeated team in a major conference get left out of the title game?

[RoyGBiv]

4. Playoff System

Without a real playoff system, the potential for this will always exist, which is why we should have one.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Hock 'em?

Rather than goring your opponents, you're encouraging cutting their hamstrings? ;-)

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

Glad to hear it.

[ChicanoPwr]

8. LOL

[Scooter24]

3. still a messed up system

Auburn, not OK, should be going to the championship game.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Based on what?

The scenario I'd like to see in the current year is this:

USC - Texas
Auburn - Oklahoma

Winner of each game plays for the national title.

[Scooter24]

6. strength of schedule

Auburn beat Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, then beat Tennessee again to win the SEC championship.

But I bet that big OU win against Colorado to win the Big 12 pushed them over the top, huh?

The only two teams that OU played that are worth mentioning is Texas and OK State.

[RoyGBiv]

9. SoS...

First, SoS isn't officially a part of the calculation. Seems to me less than a year ago people were clamouring all over the place that this needed to be removed because it allowed major conference teams to receive more of a boost in their BCS rankings than they should. But, whatever ...

Strength of schedule is affected by more than just which power teams you've beaten. Since a team's record is a function of all the teams they've played, in any SoS calculation, some of the victories against inferior teams will count for less.

By this total measure, OU's strength of schedule is stronger than Auburn's and has been all year.

OU's major wins were against, in this order of importance per current rankings, Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, and OSU.

OU's inferior opponent schedule included Baylor and Houston. Kansas might be included, but then Kansas has had the misfortunate of being beaten up pretty badly by Big-12 South opponents. They did defeat a team pretty badly that had beaten one of Auburn's opponents.

Meanwhile, Auburn has played Louisiana-Monroe, Mississippi State, the Citadel, Louisiana Tech, and Kentucky, all of which are horrible teams. Some of these only played one major conference team, and they still have losing records.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. Strength schedule, polls, margin of victory

It's all ridiculous. If you put Auburn in over Oklahoma, then the Sooners have a legitimate beef. If you put them back in for USC, then the Trojans have a legitimate beef. There is NO other way to satisfy everyone without letting them play for it.

It's truly amazing how one organization (the NCAA) get it so right in one sport (basketball) and so wrong in another (football).

[RoyGBiv]

11. I Agree ...

There is a legitimate concern in a playoff system regarding the number of games the teams have to play. If this could be worked out -- and I think it could -- then we might have something.

Of course, the controversy would still flourish. Its focus would simply shift. If the playoff field is 8 teams, then we'd talk about that race between 8 and 9, similar to the current controversy between Texas and California. The only way to minimize this is to have an extremely large playoff field that includes the winner of every conference by default and a significant number of "at large" bids to include all those teams, like Texas, that don't win their conference but nonetheless deserve to be in any potential playoff system. This is, in turn, a problem with the conference system where so much talent is localized to specific conferences. The Big-12 South, for example, has beaten itself up this year. OU, OSU, Tech, Texas, and A&M are all contenders, but they've also played each other and thus forced at least one loss for all the teams except OU, which no doubt will not have the same luxury next year.

Anyway ... just rambling. I'll give the NCAA the benefit of admitting the problem is more difficult than it seems on the surface. My real gripe is that they really haven't done a lot even to try to fix it, except for creating a disastrously inefficient "extra" poll.

[Bill McBlueState]

20. even football does it right in most divisions

It's truly amazing how one organization (the NCAA) get it so right in one sport (basketball) and so wrong in another (football).

What makes this even worse is that, in football's other divisions, I-AA, II, and III, there are working 16-team playoff systems in place. Sure, there are gripes about the seedings and selections. But after the tournament is over, there is a legitimate national champion in each division.

I don't know what's keeping division I-A from doing the same thing.

[Bleacher Creature]

25. That's actually a REALLY good point.

I don't follow college football much beyond Division I-A, but I do know despite any inevitable griping about invitations and seedings (since you are never going to get a perfecr system) that these are pretty exciting tournaments. Youngstown State, Georgia Southern -- we wouldn't ever hear of these schools (at least for football) without these systems.

And it certainly undercuts the phony argument that you cannot have a playoff system because of "academic concerns" -- as if that was ever an issue.

[Bill McBlueState]

26. thanks!

I follow the teams of the schools I've attended: Toledo, which is a MAC school (I-A), and UMass, part of the Atlantic 10, which is Division I-AA. Paying attention to some teams that aren't big-money powerhouses helps me to see some other angles on the postseason debate. And I can still have a major conference favorite.

The lower-division playoffs do work well. They start after Thanksgiving, and they're all wrapped up before the start of spring semester, just like I-A. The difference is, there's no multi-week gap between the regular season and the post-season. It strikes me as odd that Michigan (for example) will go from mid-November to January 1 without playing a single game.

[tx_dem41]

28. I don't know about you.....

but I took finals during that "gap".

[Bill McBlueState]

30. the gap

I mentioned Michigan in my post. Michigan's players don't have any games in December, but they're not exactly in the library studying for finals the whole time. There's a bowl game to prepare for! Just like practicing all month, having a game each Saturday in December doesn't prohibit them from taking their finals. And with a December playoff, only a tiny handful of teams would have their seasons extend past mid-month anyway. Now, the season lasts beyond Christmas for 30 or 40 teams.

Isn't one of the benefits of being a student athlete supposed to be learning how to balance your priorities, i.e., taking finals and preparing for your games?

[tx_dem41]

31. I would say the benefit of being a student athlete is getting a FULL paid

scholarship and then taking advantage office. It is why these athletes are there, not to see who can be #1. That's only a fringe benefit. If they can't do the first, they shouldn't be allowed to try the second.

Having a game on Saturday doesn't prohibit them from taking their finals??? Well, I guess they could flunk and still take the final. I had 5 finals to take over a 10 day period. I guess things are different at Michigan.

[Bill McBlueState]

32. please do what you can to convince the NCAA of that!

I would say the benefit of being a student athlete is getting a FULL paid scholarship and then taking advantage office. It is why these athletes are there, not to see who can be #1.

I agree, that's how it should be. In the ideal situation, football would be like baseball or hockey, where the college game is competitive and important in its own way, but the real preparation for the pros takes place in an independent minor league system. Then we avoid the contradictions inherent in the modern "student-athlete" who is part of a multi-million dollar enterprise but is still expected to pass his finals.

But I think, as we see in the lower divisions of play, that you can have a fair, competitive way to determine the national champion without sacrificing scholarship. These guys balance school and football in September, October, and November. I bet they can handle December.

[tx_dem41]

37. We agree on the minor-league aspect.

And I will concede that IF a playoff system COULD be set up that didn't sacrifice scholarship, then lets go for it. Just don't discount the importance of December.

[tx_dem41]

27. How does the fact that the lower divisions have playoffs undercut ...

the "academic concerns" argument? I didn't realize a study had been done looking at student-athletes transcripts.

Why do you think that's a phony argement BTW? If I were still in college, I would be having finals for the next 10 days (and been studying my ass off for the last 7 days). How would playing two-three football games during that period help me do well in my finals? Or do you care? I pay taxes to give these student-athletes a FULL paid scholarship. Believe me, I care about their education. In the long run, I could care less who is #1.

[Bleacher Creature]

34. I'm more just reflecting on reality.

Of course these guys should be expected to use their time to prepare for finals. What I'm actually trying to say is that every time the NCAA is confronted about why they don't have a playoff system, one of their main arguments is that they just can't work it out and still give players time to pay attention to finals. And yet: (1) lower divisions seem to have figured it out; and (2) do you really think they give a damn about player's grades beyond what they need to stay on the team??

[tx_dem41]

38. Then WE need to change reality.

I appreciate that you consider scholarship more important than sports. I would hope everyone on DU would. I'm just scared that sports (which I really do love) has co-opted everyone into caring about who's #1 on the field, instead of who's #1 in the classroom (and in our future production as a country).

[Bleacher Creature]

40. Absolutely -- No arguments here.

I just get annoyed when people use the right arguments for the wrong reasons. For the NCAA to trot out their concern about academics when it helps the make money (by resisting a playoff system) and then to ignore it the other 99% of the time is just messed up.

[tx_dem41]

41. Here's an interesting link that shows how screwed up our priorities are.

And I do mean "our" priorities, since we feed the beast.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2004-02-18-athletic-spending-cover_x.htm

[Bleacher Creature]

44. There really isn't anything that I can say about this.

It pretty much speaks for itself -- very sad. But I know what you mean. I'm a big of fan as anyone, so I fully admit to being part of the problem. Trust me, if I could figure out a way to be a fan without feeding the beast, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

[ChicanoPwr]

10. Yes, the BCS still needs work

Considering we could have been left out, this one little sec. the BCS did something right.

I will give Mich the benefit of the doubt, they are a good team. And yes Ohio St is a rival, so anything can happen just like with USC - UCLA. But lets be honest, Mich is #13, how is it they move ahead of the pack.

Just word is needed to fix the BCS: PLAYOFF.

[1gobluedem]

29. The Big 10 and Pac 10 still own part of the Rose Bowl

Which is why Michigan is going this year; the conference champ automatically goes to the Rose Bowl if they don't go to the BCS championship game; same with the Pac 10. But since Cal wasn't the Pac 10 champ, they don't get the automatic bid just because USC is going to the BCS game. I'm not sure why that is (read it this morning but can't remember) but that's why Michigan is going.

Which makes this UM alumna happy -- go blue!

[realFedUp]

12. Champion BS again

Nothing wrong with Texas, but Cal was
rated higher as a team, more people on
the area wanted Cal to come...
Michigan and Texas fans better show up,
because this won't be as popular a
game with locals.

[ChicanoPwr]

13. We will show up

I agree with you. I feel TX should play Cal since Cal is above us. My beef, would have been with Mich since Mich is ranked a lot lower. Trust me, us TX Exes have already bought up our share and CA can expect a Texas invasion.

[realFedUp]

14. don't know whether a Texas invasion will be a good thing...

:-)

[ChicanoPwr]

15. True

considering TX already invaded the White House and we are not doing a good job.

Quoting the Dixie Chicks " ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." :)

[Longhorn]

17. He's not from Texas

and he sure as hell isn't a Longhorn! He didn't even show up for his daughter's graduation from UT because he knew he'd be booed.

[ChicanoPwr]

21. We just gotta love UT for that.

I could not believe stupid excuse, they did not want to distract other students and parents with the presence of the Secret Service. If Jenna is already assigned with Secret Service, I am pretty sure they secured the grad location and still caused an inconvenience to the students and their parents.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Wondered about that myself ...

But, I can assure you, based on my experience with Texas fans, they will indeed show up. Texas has some of the best fans in the country, and I say that as a hated Sooner. :-)

[Longhorn]

18. I'm showing up!

I just spent the evening buying tickets, making plane, hotel, and car reservations, and putting a bid in on ebay on parade tickets and parking.

The only trouble is, my game tickets aren't guaranteed. I guess I'll find out later in the week if we got them. If not, it's back to ebay. Wish me luck!

[ChicanoPwr]

22. Will do fellow TX EX

HOOK' EM HORNS

[tx_dem41]

19. Yep, all of Mack Brown's embarrassing, incessant whining paid off....

Too bad he had to lose what pride he had left in the process.

[ChicanoPwr]

23. His whinning is no different than Coach Stoops

If it takes whinning to fix the BCS, then I hope every NCAA coach will continue to get it done.

[tx_dem41]

24. Why are you bringing Stoops into it?

Just because two people whine, doesn't mean that either one is right....sheez.

As for fixing the BCS, who the heck cares when it comes right down to it? What I care about is that my taxes that support the state university system are used to educate students effectively, and that my private alma mater does the same.

Oh, and I like watching football games on Saturdays and even am proud when "my team" wins. Do I live or die with that? Heck no! Do I live or die with how my universities educate? Well, as a future employer of those graduates, you bet I do!

[mchill]

33. Berkeley is my alma mater and

I could barely care about football, but I had this sense that Texas would come out on top of Cal, no matter what, ever since Enron, Kenny boy and FERC (Bush) bilked California out of billions of dollars and we Californian insist on voting blue.

[RoyGBiv]

35. Yeah, that was it ...

:eyes:

[LDS Jock]

36. Texas shouldn't have made it and here is why

California was ranked and still is ranked above them in the regular polls. http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/polls California was ahead in the BCS poll last week, played at Southern Mississippi (not an easy game there mind you) while Texas sat at home. California won, and could have won by more possibly but chose to not try to run up the score. So, higher ranked Cal wins a tough road game, and gets knocked out of the picture by Texas which sat at home.

During the regular season, neither the Big 12 or Pac-10 were up to normal standards. However, Cal did play AT USC and barely lost the game. UT played Oklahoma on neutral ground and was shut out. Advantage California. Texas also during the regular season was barely able to pull out a win at Arkansas, a team which finished 5-6 and that was considered a major over acheivement for a team returning only 4 starters from last year. For comparison, Auburn won at Arkansas too, but by 18 in a game which didn't seem even that close.

Texas didn't deserve the BCS bid.

[RoyGBiv]

46. Neutral Ground

The annual OU-TX game is not well described by referring to its location as a "neutral ground" playing field, for either team. This is one of the most bitterly fought rivalries in college football, one of those games for which the oft-repeated, seldom accurate phrase "the records mean nothing" truly applies. I've seen great teams, on both sides, come out of that game looking like punks. Much is made of "bedlam" for OU and Texas when they play OSU and A&M respectively, but I think everyone knows that the OU-TX game is the more important contest.

The stadium itself is anything but neutral. It's half-and-half, but with the way the stadium is built and with the importance placed on this game, when your opponent does something well, the atmosphere tells you you're in enemy territory. It's a tad bit worse on the 'Horns because the locker room entrance is in the OU endzone.

Not that this means anything in the long run with regard to a rational measure of a team's rankings, but if we're going to compare the locations of where teams lost, let's be accurate.

As for California, yeah, they almost won. The problem is that they should have won. They did everything right except score. When your team dominates the fourth quarter and still looses, it is perceived badly. By contrast, coming from behind or holding on to a small lead despite your deficiencies in the game looks better. Maybe that's not fair, but it's the way it is.

I think the bottom line is that both teams have a case. Without a playoff, one of them isn't going to like the way it turns out. Since the inception of the BCS, I keep hearing things like "but in the polls, <insert team here> is ranked higher, so they really deserve it more." That was the kind of thing people were complaining about before the BCS because it was too subjective.

On "paper" with the computer equations, Texas is better. The press and the coaches see it differently. That averages out to a slight Texas lead. Maybe next year it'll be different, but for now, that's what we've got.

[davidinalameda]

49. you're hot and smart!

you go boy!

[LDS Jock]

52. well thank you n/t

[meow2u3]

39. You mean it's gonna be Michigan vs. Texas?

My mom's alma mater vs. mine? I don't know who the hell to root for, if that's the case. :shrug:
I grew up a Michigan fan (Mom's influence), but graduated from UT.

[jakefrep]

42. A playoff would be nice...

but not at the cost of subverting academics.

A playoff would only be the final capitulation to the jock/fan culture that doesn't know, care, or want to care about the academic pursuits of these universities and their students.

[realisticphish]

43. GO TEXAS

enemies of my enemy are my friends....

SCREW BLUE! :evilgrin:


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Lefty48197]

45. When did Texas join the pac 12?

I think this is a great matchup. Two excellent football programs meeting for the first time in history. I'll bet Texas fans will show up in droves to see the Rose Bowl for the first time. I went there once myself. I'd recommend it to any football fan. Take advantage of it 'horns, you may not ever be back! Michigan fans always travel well.
Go Big Ten!

[KitchenWitch]

47. No disrespect to Texas

But I am kind of a purist when it comes to the Rose Bowl. Hasn't it classically been a game between the Big 10 and Pac 10? I hate how the bullshit BCS has ruined that in 2 out of the last 4 years.

[LDS Jock]

53. I'm with you all the way

The Rose Bowl was always the best bowl game. Two champions from two great conferences. I hate the BCS messing this up.

[davidinalameda]

48. bull

shit

Cal should be going

[ThorsHammer]

50. I would have taken Cal

Texas has definitely been screwed over in the past, as they've often lost to OU and been left out, but I think Cal got the real screwing this year (Auburn getting left out is a thread of its own). The bigger shame is Pitt, and to a lesser extent Michigan getting into BCS games. There were many more worthy teams, but these stupid automatic bids spoil everything. I would love to see a UT-Cal matchup. That said, I do think Cal was more deserving. Neither side had an amazing win, so I'd consider the rest of their schedule. In Cal's loss, they completely outplayed USC and were unfortunate to lose. In UT's loss, they were outplayed the whole game. Cal had a lucky win vs Oregon (UO WR dropped a wide open pass), but dominated everyone else. UT got lucky vs KU and Arkansas, and played pretty well in the other games. The thing that bothered me the most was Mack Brown's whining to the media, and the drastic shift of votes over the last few weeks. UT definitely deserved a spot over teams like Pitt and Michigan, but not over Cal. It's all moot now, and hopefully UT will legitimize Mack's whining by winning in Pasadena.

[ihatethechimp]

51. TX!

Hell yeah!