Comments on: Corrections to Jon Wilner and all the Cal bloggers out there

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:02:02 +0000

Okay, my thoughts are that the longer I sit here, dwell on this and feel sorry for myself, the longer it will take the team to get over it. So I am officially done with what took place in the desert on Saturday and all about how we can come back north with a victory and a Rose Bowl birth for the first time in what, 48 years? Go BEARS!!

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:21:32 +0000

Yeah, the “back door” way into the Rose Bowl was closed by the Arizona loss. That’s why the Arizona game wasn’t meaningless. But as you said, no one wants to back in.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:47:57 +0000

Also, it’s just hitting me now — Cal losing to Arizona might have lost the Rose Bowl after all. Because if USC wins out, and Cal had beaten Arizona, Cal would’ve almost certainly been in the Rose Bowl. Now it’ll take a Cal win at USC.

Oh well. Better to get to the Rose Bowl by winning rather than backing in, anyway.

By: dave

dave — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:02:07 +0000

i just remembered that terrible evening a couple years back… when i found out texas “somehow” jumped into the rosebowl.

By: Ken Crawford

Ken Crawford — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:35:18 +0000

Yeah, that crossed my mind when I wrote this post. My understanding is that it’s all based on the contract between the Pac-10 and each particular bowl so it’s more complicated than any of us want to know.

I’m sure what sparked your thought was the same thing that did mine which was last year’s Sun Bowl which had the choice between Cal and ASU because we were both 4-4 and the news said that in the case of a tie, they got to pick (and they chose ASU).

What I never got a sufficient answer to was whether that had anything to do with the fact that ASU and Cal never played last year so the tie-breaker was going to be way down the list of tie breakers. Did they have to respect head-to-head tie-breakers?

Also, the way some of the articles read, there was the indication that the Sun Bowl “got this exemption” or something like that. It seemed to indicate that each bowl had their own contract to follow and they didn’t all necessarily get to chose.

Time for me to do some digging…

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:00:59 +0000

I believe the bowl ties don’t honor Pac-10 tiebreaking systems beyond the actual champion, e.g., Rose Bowl. So if Cal or USC was tied with another team, it would be up to the bowl in question to choose which team it wanted. So there is one scenario where a double-loss by Cal could lead to a view that, say, the Holiday Bowl doesn’t want to take a team that’s lost three in a row.

Not likely, but might be possible.