Corrections to Jon Wilner and all the Cal bloggers out there
OK, all of the Cal blogs I’ve seen out there that look forward to next week point out that “as long as we beat Stanford”, the USC game will determine the Pac-10 champion.
WRONG!
At this point, the Big Game is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.
We’re tied with USC in the Pac-10 standings with two games to go. Because the winner of next weeks game will be one game up on the other and has the tie-breaker in the event of a tie with one game to go, there is no way the loser can overcome that loss. If USC beats Cal and loses to UCLA they still go to the Rose Bowl. If Cal beats USC and loses to Stanford (God forbid), Cal still goes to the Rose Bowl. It’s as simple as that.
The Big Game is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.
“But wait… what about a three or four way tie? Couldn’t that affect it?”Â
Nope, because both Oregon State and Oregon lost yesterday, all Pac-10 teams outside of Cal and USC now have three or more loses and are at least two games back. No other Pac-10 team can equal the Pac-10 record of both Cal and USC since for Cal and USC to be tied they’d both have to go 1-1 in the remaining games. There will be no three way ties.
As I said, the winner of next weeks USC-Cal game wins the conference.
The Big Game is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.
“OK, OK, for the Rose Bowl it’s meaningless, but what about a free fall for either team? Couldn’t the Bears fall all the way to the Sun bowl by losing both?”
Nope. At this point Cal is guaranteed a post-season trip to Southern California for either the Holiday Bowl or the Rose Bowl. Even if Cal loses both of their remaining games, they’d at worst by tied with teams that they beat, either Oregon or Oregon State. Since Cal’s one loss is to Arizona who already has lost 4 conference games and are therefore 3 games back, they can not tie Cal with 2 games left. USC interestingly enough, could still end up in the Sun Bowl if they lost out because they lost to Oregon State who could have as little as three loses if they win out and would have the tie-breaker.
So I guess the USC-UCLA game could have some meaning. BUT…
The Big Game is meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.
OK, so that’s it. All the marbles are in the basket of next week. Winner take all, loser takes second (with small caveat for USC above).
Any questions?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:00 am
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.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:35 am
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…
November 13th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
i just remembered that terrible evening a couple years back… when i found out texas “somehow” jumped into the rosebowl.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
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.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
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.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
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!!