Cal Qb call Mack Brown "classless"

[pr11fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1939401

BERKELEY, Calif. -- California refused to run up the score or beg for poll votes.

Maybe the Bears should have.

Cal (10-1) was left out of the Bowl Championship Series, denied one of the eight spots in college football's big-money games despite a season of statistical superlatives and dominating victories.

The fourth-ranked Golden Bears will be stuck at the Holiday Bowl while Texas plays in the Rose Bowl.

Cal's Rose Bowl drought reached 46 years despite one of the best regular seasons in school history.

The Bears felt beaten as they left their team meeting. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers saw confusion and disappointment in his teammates when they found out their Rose Bowl dreams were replaced with a trip to San Diego to face Texas Tech.

"It just shows it's a faulty system, and we've got to do something to change it up," Rodgers said. "I bet Auburn is pretty ticked, too. ... Nobody cares about West Coast football, I don't think. I just hope Southern Cal represents us well."

Texas (10-1) surged past the Bears in the final BCS standings despite Cal's 26-16 road victory over Southern Mississippi on Saturday night. The Longhorns gained points in both polls, and the computer rankings kept Texas well in front of Cal. The Longhorns will face Michigan (9-2) on Jan. 1.

There were dozens of factors in the decision, but the Bears felt they were superior in almost every venue -- except the political arena. Rodgers figured Texas coach Mack Brown's pleading for poll support made a difference, and he was glad Cal coach Jeff Tedford never did likewise.

"I thought it was a little classless how Coach Brown was begging for votes after the [Texas A&M] game," Rodgers said. "I think a team's record and the way you play should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to complain about the BCS system. Coach Tedford isn't going to, although he's frustrated just like we are. I think we're a bigger team, classier than that."

Tedford was less emotional than Rodgers, but no less disappointed as he evaluated the Bears' long list of accomplishments.

The only blemish on their record was a six-point loss at top-ranked USC. They beat 10 teams by an average of 23.9 points per game. They were the only school in the nation's top six both in scoring offense and scoring defense.

The Rose Bowl has matched a Big 10 team against a Pac-10 school for decades, and with the Pac-10 champion Trojans headed to the Orange Bowl, Cal hoped to end the conference's longest Rose Bowl drought. Instead, there will be burnt orange in the Pasadena stands.

"I just feel terrible for the alumni and the fans who have waited so long for this," Tedford said. "As a program, we were set on the Rose Bowl. I felt like we did enough to earn that."

Most of the Bears still were jet-lagged and exhausted after grinding out a victory in Hattiesburg just 18 hours earlier in a game postponed from Sept. 16 by Hurricane Ivan. The late-season road trip provided a national television audience -- but when the Golden Eagles were difficult to put away, it might have swayed some voters away.

And that was baffling to Tedford, who refused to try to score one last touchdown in the waning seconds to pad the score. The Bears also were hurt by a questionable clipping call in the closing minutes, which negated a touchdown run by J.J. Arrington.

Normally, Tedford wouldn't spare a second's thought on such issues -- but in the BCS world, it might have made a difference.

"If yesterday's game was the game that turned anybody's head, then that's sad, because it's about a season," Tedford said. "We're going to keep our same philosophy. It's hard enough just to win games."

[Joe Sick]

The ONLY team that has any reason to b!tch about the bowls is Auburn.

If Cal could actually beat USC once, they'd go to a top-tier bowl.

Otherwise, their best victory is over the #21 team. Not impressive at all. They should have taken USM behind the woodshed, but they couldn't.

I don't like Texas either, but the system is the system. And, other than the National Championship game, bowls don't really matter that much. Biggest advantage is you get an extra month of practice.

[Rypien11]

Texas did not beat anyone either.

If they could find a way to beat OU then the Cal game would have been a non-issue.

Living in Austin i know how much pressure Mack is under to win.

He could have been pleading for more than just a bowl birth.

Could have been his job.

I do not care for either team but I do not buy that CAl had an easier schedule than Texas.

[pr11fan]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

The ONLY team that has any reason to b!tch about the bowls is Auburn.

If Cal could actually beat USC once, they'd go to a top-tier bowl.

Otherwise, their best victory is over the #21 team. Not impressive at all. They should have taken USM behind the woodshed, but they couldn't.

I don't like Texas either, but the system is the system. And, other than the National Championship game, bowls don't really matter that much. Biggest advantage is you get an extra month of practice.

I disagree, Cal and Utah have serious complaints too, although I'll grant you the biggest gripe is Auburn by far. Utah earns a trip to Bcs and a chance to prove themselves and instead of matching them up against Auburn they give them Pittsburgh, no disrespect to Hokie fans but Tech should be playing Pitt and Utah should be going to the Sugar Bowl. And Cal, you can argue that Texas was a better team, but how the hell do you go out and win a tough road game and Southern Miss only to be leapfrogged by a team who didn't even play this week. It's a sad state for College football when winning isn't good enough anymore. Cal came real close to beating #1 USC and Texas never even sniffed the endzone against #2 OU. Maybe Texas is better than Cal and deserved the Rosebowl bid, but to get it the way they did is completely wrong. If Cal was the team going into Southern Miss and they win by 10 there is no way they should not be the team coming out.

[bofluid]

Aaron Rodgers was hardly the reason Cal lost to USC. If anyone can complain it's him.

[poidog22]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

If Cal could actually beat USC once, they'd go to a top-tier bowl.

I believe that Cal beat USC last season.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

He shouldn't be crying. Everyone should know by now that if it's close between multiple teams, you have to blow your opponents out to get votes. Louisville is better than both Cal and Texas, but there's no way they would let 2 non-BCS teams make it. It doesn't really matter though because those other 3 bowls don't mean anything. Auburn got screwed far more than Utah, Cal, Lousiville, Boise State, or anyone else.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

The ONLY team that has any reason to b!tch about the bowls is Auburn.

If Cal could actually beat USC once, they'd go to a top-tier bowl.

Otherwise, their best victory is over the #21 team. Not impressive at all. They should have taken USM behind the woodshed, but they couldn't.

I don't like Texas either, but the system is the system. And, other than the National Championship game, bowls don't really matter that much. Biggest advantage is you get an extra month of practice.

I think Texas is annually overrated.

I also think that the prestige and the payday matters for getting a BCS bowl as opposed to the other bowls.

[Ghost of]

Cal BARELY lost to USC and they were playing AWAY. And that was it, their only loss.

THat said, the system is stupid. I almost think that they should scrap the BCS and just play bowl games. Whoever wants to go wherever at the invitation of that Bowl.

Of course, a playoff would be best.

[pr11fan]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

Cal BARELY lost to USC and they were playing AWAY. And that was it, their only loss.

THat said, the system is stupid. I almost think that they should scrap the BCS and just play bowl games. Whoever wants to go wherever at the invitation of that Bowl.

Of course, a playoff would be best.

I say an 8 team playoff would work wonders, give 5 bids to the conference winners, "contingent on them finishing in the top 15, and use 3 at large, they could even keep the bcs and combine them with the human polls the way they do now to determine the 3 at large teams. They could use the 4 bcs bowls right now and 3 other bowls to make it work, maybe the cotton, peach, and gator. It would look like this.

1. USC vs. 8. Michigan

2. Oklahoma vs. 7. Virginia Tech

3. Auburn vs. 6. Utah

4. Texas vs. 5. California

And one other thing, they should not have a single poll come out before mid-october so we don't have rankings based on what happened the year before.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by pr11fan

I say an 8 team playoff would work wonders, give 5 bids to the conference winners, "contingent on them finishing in the top 15, and use 3 at large, they could even keep the bcs and combine them with the human polls the way they do now to determine the 3 at large teams. They could use the 4 bcs bowls right now and 3 other bowls to make it work, maybe the cotton, peach, and gator. It would look like this.

1. USC vs. 8. Michigan

2. Oklahoma vs. 7. Virginia Tech

3. Auburn vs. 6. Utah

4. Texas vs. 5. California

And one other thing, they should not have a single poll come out before mid-october so we don't have rankings based on what happened the year before.

It would be hard to throw in the "must finish in the top 15" rule - if the Big East champ were ranked 16th they would be pretty pissed. The only really fair way to do it is to demote the Big East to mid-major status ... otherwise, the Texas/Cal situation is going to be a problem any year we have a Utah around.

A playoff solves the Auburn problem but will not solve the Cal problem.

[pr11fan]

Originally posted by DjTj

It would be hard to throw in the "must finish in the top 15" rule - if the Big East champ were ranked 16th they would be pretty pissed. The only really fair way to do it is to demote the Big East to mid-major status ... otherwise, the Texas/Cal situation is going to be a problem any year we have a Utah around.

A playoff solves the Auburn problem but will not solve the Cal problem.

I am counting the big east as a mid major which is why I said 5 conference winners, as I don't believe they have any business being a part of the bcs, at least as a whole conference. And if they were included and their champion didn't finish in the top 15 then I would say who cares. If you can't finish in the top 15 to garner a spot in a playoff then nobody is really going to care what you have to say besides fans of that school. It's not like I'm asking them to finish top 5 or something. 8 teams is perfect imo as much like the top 15, if you're #9 sure you may whine, but it's not like #3 being unbeaten and being left out so not many people would care. And this scenario would solve the Cal and Texas problem as both would be in the playoff under my scenario, the only team with any gripe would be Georgia who would get passed over for Michigan, but to them I would say take care of business aginst Tenessee or Auburn and you're likely in.

The other scenario could be to just take the top 8 regardless of conference, but I could see this encountering alot more resistance due to the financial prospects for certain conferences than the other scenario, and under this it would be.

1 USC vs. 8. Virginia Tech

2. Oklahoma vs. 7. Georgia

and the 3 vs. 6. and 4 vs. 5 games would stay the same.

[jbooma]

sorry cal but Texas has been screwed the last couple of years join the club

i think the team that should be upset is VT they have to go and play a pissed off Auburn :laugh: They should have had Texas vs Auburn so you can then say if Auburn were to lose and then the winner of the usc vs ok game would be a legit champion

[pr11fan]

Originally posted by jbooma

sorry cal but Texas has been screwed the last couple of years join the club

i think the team that should be upset is VT they have to go and play a pissed off Auburn :laugh: They should have had Texas vs Auburn so you can then say if Auburn were to lose and then the winner of the usc vs ok game would be a legit champion

I honestly won't say even if VT wins that Auburn couldn't have beaten USC or OU, It may seem like a copout, but it's hard to predict how a team will react to getting screwed like Auburn did, if they lose to Tech you can't say they wouldn't have beaten the other 2 unbeatens as you don't know how much of a deflater getting screwed was and how much more intense and focused they would've been had they gotten the championship matchup. JMHO.

[Prosperity]

Cal deserves a BCS bid so does Texas. I can't say that about Utah or Pittsburgh who have beaten absolutely no one but have found a way into the BCS.

[pr11fan]

Originally posted by Liberty

Cal deserves a BCS bid so does Texas. I can't say that about Utah or Pittsburgh who have beaten absolutely no one but have found a way into the BCS.

Pitt no, Utah, hard to say, but it's unfortunate the BCS won't give them a chance by matching them up with a team like Auburn.

[TODD]

Originally posted by pr11fan

I say an 8 team playoff would work wonders, give 5 bids to the conference winners, "contingent on them finishing in the top 15, and use 3 at large, they could even keep the bcs and combine them with the human polls the way they do now to determine the 3 at large teams. They could use the 4 bcs bowls right now and 3 other bowls to make it work, maybe the cotton, peach, and gator. It would look like this.

1. USC vs. 8. Michigan

2. Oklahoma vs. 7. Virginia Tech

3. Auburn vs. 6. Utah

4. Texas vs. 5. California

And one other thing, they should not have a single poll come out before mid-october so we don't have rankings based on what happened the year before.

You are right on the money with this one. You could make the opening round games all the BCS games and add that fifth game the BCS was ALREADY going to make to be the championship game. Everyone gets their money. Tradition is upheld. You could even seed the teams by conference/at large to keep the tradition even more. Or not, it really doesn't matter. You're talking about 2 extra games at most for the teams that deserve it.

You can keep the conference championship games, maybe even require each conference to take part. No tradition lost there.

Keep the standings for seeding maybe. The possibilities are endless. There is a PERFECT 3-4 weeks for this tourney to take place and you can finish up on New Years' Day and after. Keep all the rest of the bowls and play them on NYD. It's so easy. But it's all about the $$$$.

[redman]

Screw the whole "mid-major" and "major" conference thing. Conferences going into a season should be rated based upon a rolling 3-year average as to where their teams, top to bottom, finished on average. Then you take the top 4-5 of those conferences as automatic bids in a playoff, and add 3-4 more "at large" teams based upon year end rankings.

A few conferences, like the new ACC and the SEC, will likely finish "in the money" every year, but that's a fairer way to go. Don't simply make it automatic that some conferences always get bids. That totally screws a lot of schools.

[favreisgod]

Heres how the bowl games should have gone: USC-Oklahoma, Cal-Michigan, Tecas-Auburn, and Utah-VT. Forget Pitt and the bigeast all together, the conference doesnt deserve an automatic bid anymore. Conferences like the ACC, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 have multiple teams that deserve bowl games. Teams that finish 4th and lower in those conferences would dominate the big east. If we were talking basketball thats another story........

[redman]

Originally posted by favreisgod

Conferences like the ACC, Big 12, SEC and Big 10 have multiple teams that deserve bowl games.

Trivia time: can you spot the East Coast bias?