Cal still in top 10… #12 in BCS
(Written by kencraw)
OK, let me make one thing clear. I’m not going to get into a ranking debate with anyone:
- I’m not going to discuss whether our loss is higher quality than other top 10 teams.
- I’m not going to discuss whether our wins are higher quality than other top 10 teams.
- I’m not goint to discuss why Cal is #14 in the computers.
- I’m not going to mention how Cal should be in front of Oregon since we BEAT them and are both 5-1. (OK, maybe that one I’ll make my point just once, but that’s it)
Nope, consider this a ranking debate free zone. All I want to discuss is whether the Bears have what it takes to beat ASU and USC as well as take care of business versus UCLA, Washington, WSU and Stanford… because that’s all that matters for going to the Rose Bowl.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hey Ken have you heard any of these reports that the tree sitters were partying over our loss?!? No kidding, I didn’t see it but I heard about it. No class in that entire bunch…
October 14th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Hey, can we discuss whether or not our loss is high kwality than Bottom 10 teams?
Because I think it is! I mean some of those Bottom 10 teams have some pretty embarassing losses.
But I understand this is your blog and will refrain if you desire me too.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I agree–still too early to discuss polls and BCS standings. But in this topsy-turvy year, here’s something to watch: is a good win worth more than a bad loss? Note that LSU is ranked ahead of Kentucky and Oregon is ranked ahead of Cal, despite identical records and the head-to-head tiebreaker leaning in the other direction. It’s probably safe to assume that South Florida likewise will drop below West Virginia when the Bulls inevitably lose–assuming, of course, that WV doesn’t lose for a second time in the interim.
Also, looking just at the Pac-10, while Cal and Oregon are ranked more-or-less correctly in my opinion (although I’d put the Bears a spot ahead of the Ducks), it’s clear that USC is overrated and ASU is underrated–at least if one is going by this year’s actual performances to date.
Most of this will all sort out in the wash by the time Thanksgiving rolls around. I just hope a one-loss Bears team–should they manage to remain just a one-loss team through the end of the season–would get serious consideration for the BCS title game. I’m an old Blue who used to believe in “Rose Bowl or Bust”, but let’s face it: the old “Granddaddy” isn’t what it used to be, and like it or not, it’s now just another consolation game. Granted, it’s a far better consolation than the Holiday Bowl, especially if the Bears were to be invited as Pac-10 champs. But unlike the pre-BCS days when the Rose Bowl was THE goal, that’s just not the way it works anymore. My diminished hopes are still set on New Orleans.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Sorry Twist, I shouldn’t have said “consider this a debate free zone”. Everyone is welcome to debate whatever ratings they want here. I should have said something like “consider this me putting in my ear-plugs” or something.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:58 am
From Cal fan in Colorado
Yikes, what a emontional roller coaster for a football fan. Your team is struggling, your team is creating a great comeback, your team is beat! As a long distance fan, I was hoping to vent. All in the last 5 minutes.
1. Why did Cal onside instead of kick away? Can someone tell me the last time Cal did recover an onside kick? I think the coaching staff gave away 35-40 yards with that decision.
2. I think Cal needs to start going to the tight end. Like all football teams, this seems to be a forgotten weapon. One on one, the tight end will be open all day.
3. If you are going to win in the Pac-10, you need to play both sides of the ball. Offense is fun to watch, but if you get in shootouts, you may run out of ammuniton from time to time. Defense needs to prove itself.
I hope the loss lights the fire under the Bears. Their BCS future is ahead of them. They need to run the table or lose only 1 more. If they lose, I think they will need some help to get in the BCS. The SEC is going to be a mess and the Big 12 is down. Teams like BC and USF will need to help out by losing somewhere. However, if you start relying on other teams……
Does anyone know how the tiebreaker works in the Pac-10. Could be very complicated this year.
DH
October 15th, 2007 at 9:53 am
The “why did they onside?” question makes no sense to me. You onside kick it to give yourself two chances: stop them 3-and-out OR recover the onside. If OSU makes a first down, it doesn’t matter if they kick a FG or anything else, the game’s over. You should ALWAYS choose two throws of the dice over one in that situation.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hey California Pete–
I really don’t want to think that Arizona State is UNDERrated. They haven’t played true competition and, in the end, will have played EIGHT of those games at home. Washington State, which is at the absolute bottom of the conference, came within a field goal taking them to overtime in Pullman a couple of weeks ago.
That’s not to say, necessarily, that their 7-0 start isn’t impressive, especially considering where they were under Koetter. And I will also say that the scheduling is otherwise pretty genius: put all the easy guys up front and use the first two months to build up confidence and swagger.
It just seems to me that if it were anyone other than the Grand Poo-Bah of all Coachdom leading that team, they would be regared more like UConn (before last weekend), or Kansas (recognized for its pristine record, yet expected to fall hard at any moment). The BCS ranking is a bit generous (no debate here, just an observation), but that will change soon enough.
Until we head to Tempe in two weeks, I will hang on to my distaste and mistrust of the Sun Devils and consider them to be riding on the momentum of a downhill schedule. Oh, how I can’t wait to throw up that big, blue and gold brick wall!!