'Next Year' is coming...but it better get here before 2010

Nashville — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:37:42 -0000

For Cal fans, the 2004 season was particularly bittersweet. Having arguably - or inarguably - outplayed the eventual National Champions en route to a 23-17 loss in the Coliseum and a 10-1 overall record, the Golden Bears appeared at the very least to be on their way to their first Rose Bowl since 1959. Enter Mack Brown, whose nancy-boy whining helped ensure that a generation of Californians will never be named 'Mack.' But Cal fans could at least console themselves with the upward trend of their program and a 'Wait Till Next Year..."

Several times since 2004 'Next Year' seemed to have arrived. 2006, when a longer than regulation blade of grass in the Arizona desert thwarted a Pac-10 championship caliber season. 2007, which will not be mentioned again. Alas, it was not to be.

Whether 2009 follows a similar trajectory remains to be seen, however, new obstacles to the promised land loom on the horizon. Namely, ESPN.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog (HT: Dr. Saturday):

But in the new contract, I'm told, there is an interesting clause: The first time in the deal that the Rose loses one of its champions to the BCS title game, that opening will be automatically filled by a Coalition (non-BCS conference) team if one has qualified.

For example: Let's say Southern Cal wins the Pac-10 and qualifies for the BCS championship game in 2010. And let's say Utah or Boise State goes undefeated again the wins the Mountain West or WAC. That team, if it doesn't get into the big game, would automatically go to the Rose, where no Coalition team has played before.

In practice what this means is that if Cal does not make the Rose Bowl in 2009 either as an at-large or Pac-10 champion, it will not make it the first year eligible beginning in 2010 if it cannot win the conference - assuming there is a non-Big Six team who qualifies. This seems a safe bet given that Utah earned one last year (and TCU was eligible), Hawaii qualified in 2007, Boise St. in 2006, and Utah in 2004.

Now, factor in the fact that the Pac-10 is seriously weighing returning to unbalanced schedules and a far-fetched but awful possibility emerges.

Say that USC - to pick a team at random - wins the Pac-10 in 2010 but isn't invited to the MNC, thereby assuring it yet another Rose Bowl. Cal, due to its propensity be sick wit it in odd numbered years, blows the doors off the Pac-10 in 2011 and finishes with an undefeated league record, but stumbles in non-conference play. Meanwhile, as unbalanced scheduling has returned, Cal happens to miss another team that also finishes with an undefeated league record, say Oregon. Now it's a coin flip to determine who is the Rose Bowl representative and Oregon wins (this is Cal we're talking about), but due to some odd events in the SEC and Big XII championship games, Oregon is suddenly eligible for the MNC. Based on the information given thusfar, it seems possible that Cal would then be excluded from the Rose Bowl - assuming Utah/TCU/Boise St has qualified - because the Pac-10 champion would be in the BCS Championship game.

What do you think? Does this change your opinion of whether or not we should return to unbalanced scheduling? Institute a playoff? Take our ball and go home? What other implications does this new wrinkle have that I missed?

Poll

If Cal is excluded from the Rose Bowl when they're eligible due to ESPN's renegotiated television contract, what should the fans do?

Send a Terminator back through time to "influence" the course of ESPN's television contract negotiations.

19 votes

March on Bristol, CT.

7 votes

Disable the non-BCS team bus and have the entire team plus equipment conveniently nearby and ready to fill-in.

10 votes

36 votes | Poll has closed

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Nashville — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:25:54 -0000

In the wake of the Pac-10’s horrible, terrible, no good, very bad day only one thing is certain: Pac-10 teams should never schedule a road game again. Ever. Some (probably after taking out their ‘Jump to Conclusions’ mat) have taken this opportunity to declare their certainty the Pac-10 is actually the ‘Pac-1.’

Ladies and gentleman of the Sports Blog Nation, these are lies – nay – damn lies! And The National Championship Issue has the statistics to prove it...

...In table 1, we see the Pac-10's record against all the other conferences from 1998 through the end of the 2007 season. (All credit must go to The National Championship Issue for compiling this data.)

Pac10 vs
	ACC	Big10	Big12	Big East	SEC	CUSA	MAC	Mtn West	Sun Belt	WAC	Big West	BCS	non	I-AA	Total
1998	1-1	4-1	4-3	0-1	0-0	2-0	0-0			6-4	6-0	9-6	14-4	0-0	23-10
1999	0-1	1-4	2-3	1-0	0-0	0-0	0-0	1-4		7-2	3-2	4-8	11-8	1-0	16-16
2000	0-0	3-4	4-0	1-1	1-0	0-0	0-0	8-0		3-2	4-1	9-5	15-3	1-0	25-8
2001	0-1	4-1	2-2	2-1	1-0	0-0	0-0	4-2	5-0	4-1		9-5	13-3	2-0	24-8
2002	0-2	2-4	3-5	1-2	2-0	0-0	1-0	7-1	5-0	5-0		8-13	18-1	5-0	31-14
2003	1-0	5-4	2-3	1-0	2-1	1-1	0-0	5-3	4-0	5-3		11-8	15-7	2-0	28-15
2004	1-0	4-2	1-4	0-0	0-1	1-0	0-0	7-2	3-0	3-2		6-7	14-4	1-0	21-11
2005	0-0	3-1	1-2	1-1	1-1	2-0	0-0	2-2	0-0	8-0		6-5	12-2	5-1	23-8
2006	0-1	2-0	6-1	0-0	1-3	1-0	0-0	2-1	0-0	7-3		9-5	10-4	5-0	24-9
2007	1-0	2-2	2-1	2-1	1-0	1-0	0-0	6-5	0-0	7-1		8-4	14-6	2-0	24-10
Totals	4-6	30-23	27-24	9-7	9-6	8-1	1-0	42-20	17-0	55-18	13-3	79-66	136-42	24-1	239-109

Damn it feels good to be a gangster. Note that the only other conferences to hold a .500 or better record against other BCS schools are the SEC, and the Big Ten. (The ACC is even and the Big XII is 4 games under .500. The Big East on the other hand, is getting lapped.) Their conference records are as follows:

SEC vs
	ACC	Big10	Big12	Big East	Pac10	CUSA	MAC	Mtn West	Sun Belt	WAC	Big West	BCS	non	I-AA	Total
1998	3-4	1-2	1-2	2-1	0-0	7-0	2-2			4-1	1-0	7-9	14-3	3-0	24-12
1999	2-4	2-2	3-1	0-1	0-0	6-3	2-0	1-0		2-0	4-0	7-8	15-3	3-0	25-11
2000	4-3	2-1	1-1	0-2	0-1	5-3	3-1	3-1		0-0	4-0	7-8	15-5	4-0	26-13
2001	5-1	3-1	1-1	1-2	0-1	5-1	3-0	1-1	5-1	3-0		10-6	17-3	4-0	31-9
2002	3-5	2-2	1-3	3-3	0-2	5-0	2-0	1-0	11-1	3-0		9-15	22-1	5-0	36-16
2003	4-5	3-1	4-2	1-1	1-2	5-5	2-1	0-0	8-0	4-1		13-11	19-7	5-0	37-18
2004	3-2	2-2	1-1	0-1	1-0	3-3	2-1	1-1	9-0	2-0		7-6	17-5	4-1	28-12
2005	4-2	1-2	1-1	0-2	1-1	6-1	1-0	1-1	5-1	3-0		7-8	16-3	7-0	30-11
2006	7-1	1-3	2-2	0-2	3-1	10-1	2-0	1-0	8-0	3-0		13-9	24-1	8-0	45-10
2007	6-3	2-1	3-2	1-2	0-1	7-0	3-0	0-0	11-1	4-0		12-9	25-1	10-0	47-10
Totals	41-30	19-17	18-16	8-17	6-9	59-17	22-5	9-4	57-4	28-2	9-0	92-89	184-32	53-1	329-122

Big10 vs
	ACC	Big12	Big East	Pac10	SEC	CUSA	MAC	Mtn West	Sun Belt	WAC	Big West	BCS	non	I-AA	Total
1998	0-1	3-1	2-1	1-4	2-1	4-1	7-0			7-1	0-0	8-8	18-2	1-0	27-10
1999	2-1	1-2	3-1	4-1	2-2	2-1	8-1	1-0		2-0	1-0	12-7	14-2	2-0	28-9
2000	1-2	2-4	0-1	4-3	1-2	2-0	7-3	1-0		3-1	0-0	8-12	13-4	0-0	21-16
2001	2-2	2-1	0-1	1-4	1-3	3-0	8-2	2-1	1-0	1-1		6-11	15-4	2-0	23-15
2002	2-1	3-2	2-0	4-2	2-2	1-2	11-0	2-2	2-0	4-1		13-7	20-5	3-0	36-12
2003	4-0	3-3	3-1	4-5	1-3	1-0	8-3	1-2	1-0	1-1		15-12	12-6	2-0	29-18
2004	1-0	3-1	1-2	2-4	2-2	1-1	11-0	3-0	0-0	0-2		9-9	15-3	2-0	26-12
2005	2-1	0-3	3-0	1-3	2-1	1-0	11-0	2-0	1-0	3-0		8-8	18-0	2-0	28-8
2006	0-1	2-2	3-3	0-2	3-1	0-0	16-1	1-0	0-0	1-2		8-9	18-3	6-2	32-14
2007	0-2	1-3	3-0	2-2	1-2	1-0	17-2	1-0	1-1	1-0		7-9	21-3	6-2	34-14
Totals	14-11	20-22	20-10	23-30	17-19	16-5	104-12	14-5	6-1	23-9	1-0	94-92	164-32	26-4	284-128

ACC vs
	Big10	Big12	Big East	Pac10	SEC	CUSA	MAC	Mtn West	Sun Belt	WAC	Big West	BCS	non	I-AA	Totals
1998	1-0	1-1	5-4	1-1	4-3	0-0	1-1			2-1	1-0	12-9	4-2	3-1	19-12
1999	1-2	1-0	5-3	1-0	4-2	2-3	1-1	1-0		0-0	0-0	12-7	4-4	2-1	18-12
2000	2-1	1-1	2-4	0-0	3-4	1-1	1-0	1-1		2-0	1-0	8-10	6-2	2-1	16-13
2001	2-2	0-2	3-3	1-0	1-5	3-0	3-0	0-0	0-0	3-1		7-12	9-1	4-0	20-13
2002	1-2	2-2	3-2	2-0	5-3	2-2	4-2	2-1	0-0	1-1		13-9	9-6	3-0	25-15
2003	0-4	3-0	5-3	0-1	5-4	2-0	2-1	0-1	1-0	2-0		13-12	7-2	4-0	24-14
2004	0-1	0-1	9-3	0-1	2-3	5-1	3-0	0-1	1-0	1-1		11-9	10-3	6-0	27-12
2005	1-2	3-1	7-2	0-0	2-4	3-1	3-0	2-1	1-0	1-0		13-9	10-2	3-0	26-11
2006	1-0	0-0	3-7	1-0	1-7	3-3	4-2	2-0	6-0	2-0		6-14	17-5	8-1	31-20
2007	2-0	2-4	4-4	0-1	3-6	4-2	3-0	0-1	4-0	0-1		11-15	11-4	7-0	29-19
Totals	11-14	13-12	46-35	6-4	30-41	25-13	25-7	8-6	13-0	14-5	2-0	106-106	87-31	42-4	235-141

BigEast vs
	ACC	Big10	Big12	Pac10	SEC	CUSA	MAC	Mtn West	Sun Belt	WAC	Big West	BCS	non	I-AA	Total
1998	4-5	1-2	0-1	1-0	1-2	4-2	1-2			1-0	0-0	7-10	6-4	3-1	16-15
1999	3-5	1-3	1-3	0-1	1-0	2-2	5-2	0-0		0-0	0-0	6-12	7-4	3-0	16-16
2000	4-2	1-0	0-1	1-1	2-0	3-2	7-0	1-0		0-0	1-0	8-4	12-2	2-0	22-6
2001	3-3	1-0	2-0	1-2	2-1	3-0	4-2	0-0	0-0	0-0		9-6	7-2	1-0	17-8
2002	2-3	0-2	1-1	2-1	3-3	4-1	7-1	1-1	1-0	0-0		8-10	13-3	4-1	25-14
2003	3-5	1-3	2-0	0-1	1-1	3-4	8-1	1-0	1-0	1-0		7-10	14-5	1-1	22-16
2004	3-9	2-1	0-1	0-0	1-0	4-0	7-2	0-1	0-0	0-0		6-11	11-3	5-1	22-15
2005	2-7	0-3	0-1	1-1	2-0	2-0	4-2	0-0	1-0	0-0		5-12	7-2	6-0	18-14
2006	7-3	3-3	2-1	0-0	2-0	5-0	6-0	1-0	2-0	0-0		14-7	14-0	6-0	34-7
2007	4-4	0-3	1-0	1-2	2-1	5-0	8-1	1-1	2-0	0-0		8-10	16-2	6-0	30-12
Totals	35-46	10-20	9-9	7-9	17-8	35-11	57-13	5-3	7-0	2-0	1-0	78-92	107-27	37-4	222-123

Big12 vs
	ACC	Big10	Big East	Pac10	SEC	CUSA	MAC	Mtn West	Sun Belt	WAC	Big West	BCS	non	I-AA	Total
1998	1-1	1-3	1-0	3-4	2-1	1-0	3-0			6-2	6-0	8-9	16-2	3-0	27-11
1999	0-1	2-1	3-1	3-2	1-3	5-0	1-0	1-3		6-0	2-1	9-8	15-4	3-0	27-12
2000	1-1	4-2	1-0	0-4	1-1	2-2	2-0	3-1		5-1	5-0	7-8	17-4	4-0	28-12
2001	2-0	1-2	0-2	2-2	1-1	3-1	1-1	6-0	5-0	5-1		6-7	20-3	7-0	33-10
2002	2-2	2-3	1-1	5-3	3-1	3-0	1-2	2-3	3-0	7-2		13-10	16-7	7-0	36-17
2003	0-3	3-3	0-2	3-2	2-4	2-1	2-2	6-0	6-1	5-0		8-14	21-4	7-0	36-18
2004	1-0	1-3	1-0	4-1	1-1	2-2	5-0	2-2	5-1	6-1		8-5	20-6	4-0	32-11
2005	1-3	3-0	1-0	2-1	1-1	6-0	0-0	1-3	9-0	2-0		8-5	18-3	8-0	34-8
2006	0-0	2-2	1-2	1-6	2-2	5-1	2-1	2-3	8-0	2-1		6-12	19-6	10-1	35-19
2007	4-2	3-1	0-1	1-2	2-3	7-0	6-2	2-1	5-1	4-1		10-9	24-5	7-1	41-15
Totals	12-13	22-20	9-9	24-27	16-18	36-7	23-8	25-16	41-3	48-9	13-1	83-87	186-44	60-2	329-133

Even taking into account USC's phenomenal 16-4 record since 1998 (Notre Dame not included), the '9 Dwarfs' have a record 1 game over .500, almost indistinguishable from the Big 10 or SEC.

Equally worthy of comment are the number of games that the Big XII and the SEC have played against I-AA competition. More than double the number of games the Pac-10 has played. To be sure, with two more teams, you'd expect a marginally higher number of games, but taken as a percentage of total wins, a significant gap exists. There's nothing like playing I-AA foes to get that win total up and move ahead in the polls!

The numbers don't lie. Last weekend the Pac-10 stumbled embarrassingly, but over the past 10 years, it's not that the Pac-10 has been particularly bad, it's that USC has been preposterously good.

Poll

What's up with the media's judgments about the Pac-10's conference strength?

Unitentional Prevarications

4 votes

Lies!

1 votes

Damn Lies!

22 votes

Hurricane Ike cut the power so I have no idea what you're talking about