10/29 Sucks so bad that USC lost. It was Cal's best chance for a BCS
bid. -- USC student, Cal fan.
\_ Fuck all of you assholes. -Berkeley alum, who couldn't give two
shits about "Cal".
\_ Fuck you, too.
\_ I don't see how it makes a difference. If USC won, Cal would still
need to beat USC to go to the Rose Bowl. Now, Cal needs to beat
USC to go to the Rose Bowl. If Cal loses against USC, they wouldn't
be going to a BCS bowl whether USC beat OrSt or not.
\_ The argument is that if USC went to the Championship game,
then Cal could finish 2nd and still go to the Rose Bowl.
I don't like that argument. If Cal goes to the Rose Bowl it
should not be because USC is playing for a MNC. The loss
helped Cal, because now Cal has a game "to give" if they
beat USC and a chance to finish 1st even if they lose to USC
(if someone else can beat USC, too).
\_ My argument was that if USC stayed #3 and Cal beat them (handing
USC their only loss), Cal would have a good chance of finishing
Top 6 and getting a BCS bid. I didn't consider Cal losing to USC.
\_ If Cal beats USC, Cal wins the Pac-10 and goes to the Rose Bowl.
This was the case last week, and it's the case now.
\_ Cal doesn't need to finish top 6 to get a BCS bid. If Cal
beats USC and has no more than one other Pac-10 loss, we are
guaranteed to go to the Rose Bowl. If we lose to USC but
finish in the top 14 BCS rankings, we can still go to a BCS
bowl--there's one more BCS bowl this year than there has been
in the past, so the chances are much less that we'll be screwed
like we were in 2004 (and Oregon in 2005).
In any case, the focus should be on beating USC, which would
make polls and tiebreakers unimportant. -tom
\_ The focus should be beating the next opponent, as UDub
showed. If we lose to Arizona and UCLA then who cares
about USC?
\_ Yeah, but now we can lose to one of them and still go. |
http://csua.com/feed/