Good thing they're not playing the University of California Golden Bears from Merced

Texas A&M Athletic Director, Bill Byrne made the announcement in his weekly column: “I'm glad to tell you where we're going bowling: we'll be in 'America's Most Beautiful City,' San Diego, California. We're playing the University of California Golden Bears from Berkeley.”

The real reason there will never be a playoff in college football

This year, college bowl games will pay out more than $187 million to NCAA schools throughout the United States. More than $820 million has been paid out in just the past five years and the bowls will conservatively payout more than $2.1 billion over the next ten years.

That's a pretty compelling argument against a playoff, don't you think?

What I want out of a computer ranking system

I might someday actually devise a program to rank teams in some way that I find favorable, but until them, I'm going to lay out the premises behind what I consider the most useful determinants for ranking.

1. Record. Clearly, winners should be ranked above losers.

2. However, winners who beat other winners should be ranked above winners who beat losers, and losers who closely lose to winners should be ranked about the same as winners who closely beat losers. And this should go at least three-deep into the schedule: opponents record, opponents' opponents record, and opponents' opponents' opponents record. This should also, in theory, give enough closure to the system to take into account approximately 150 teams but only 12 games.

3. Division I Playoff Subdivision games should be counted differently than Division I Bowl Subdivision games. Whether that means they only count as .75% of a win (and 1.33% of a loss), or a team is penalized for playing a Division I Playoff Subdivision team matters less than taking this into account.

3A. Similarly, playing within your conference allocation should count differently than playing outside of it. This would be better served by including both information on the conference—playing and closely losing a BCS conference game counts more than playing and handily winning a non-BCS conference game—and by accounting for Athletic Department budget—schools with budgets of over $75 million (Texas) who play schools with budgets of $13 million (North Texas) are clearly not operating on a level playing field.

4. Home field advantage counts. Home wins should count less than road wins; perhaps 8 home wins is equal to 6 road wins. Neutral wins aren't as good as road wins, but are better than home wins.

5. Score counts, but not raw score. We'll do it logarithmically. That is, if a one-point win results in the winner being considered as being one point better than the loser, a 10-point win makes the winner only two points better than the loser, while a 100-point win makes the winner three points better than the loser. (Clearly, there are some bugs to be worked out).

6. Because football is a game played by very young men, the emotional aspects of the game should count, too. Therefor, both the rankings at the time of play are taken into account—beating the AP #2 team in the country in the second week of the season takes effort, even if that team ends up losing five or six games afterward—and the rankings at the end of the season—beating the team that eventually becomes #2 at the end of the season in the first game of the year still counts, even if they weren't ranked there then—are important to acknowledge.

7. The rankings shall not be released until there is sufficient data to make the rankings comprehensible. At the bare minimum, this would require four or five games.

I have no idea how to compile these general guidelines into a comprehensive system, however. But it's a start.

Pac-10 All-Academic Teams

First Team:
RB Byron Storer, California Sr. 3.44 Mass Communications
DB Randolph Bundy, California Sr. 3.10 American Studies

Second Team:
C Alex Mack, California So. 3.47 Legal Studies
DL John Allen, California Jr. 3.24 Political Science
LB Gregory Van Hoesen, California Jr. 3.17 Art Practice

Honorable Mention:
OG Noris Malele, So.; OG Erik Robertson, Sr.; OT Scott Smith, Sr.

Lynch and Hughes Pac-10 Players of the Year

If there was ever any doubt about how far Cal has come in the last five years, this should dispel it: Marshawn Lynch, Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year and Daymeion Hughes, Pat Tillman Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year.

According to the Pac-10 press release,

Lynch is just the third California player to be selected Pac-10 offensive player of the year and the first since quarterback Mike Pawlawski in 1991

and

Hughes becomes just the second California player to be selected Pac-10 defensive player of the year, following cornerback Deltha O'Neal in 1998.

Cal had seven first-team All-Pac-10 selections (including DeSean Jackson at two positions, PR and WR), and Hughes, Lynch, and Brandon Mebane were consensus first team choices. Overall, 19 Cal players were honored.

Byron Storer was a first-team All-Academic and second-team All-Pac-10 selection, Alex Mack was a first-team All-Pac-10 and a second-team All-Academic selection, and Erik Robertson was a honorable mention for both All-Academic and All-Pac-10 honors.

Holiday Bowl

The 2004 Holiday Bowl was the first bowl game I'd been to, and one of the most depressing games I've ever seen.

Let's hope the 2006 version is a little better: Holiday Bowl Bid Gives Cal Unprecedented Four Straight Bowl Trips

2nd place in the Pac-10 again... by PhantomBear

After the USC game, there was a bit of blame tossed around about Cal's poor execution.

PhantomBear responded with an impassioned rant:

Does anyone think that is REALLY a problem after 5 years? Tedford has "lost" something he had his first two years?

I have done my share of pretending like we somehow are doing worse every year, BUT, here are some of my little "facts"

FIRST and foremost, Tedford has improved by about a game a year (2004 was a fluke IMHO based on what has happened before and after). That means that this year is the first year we REALLY BELONG in the Holiday Bowl, so this is not "here we go again," it is, "how far we have come!" We can almost count on a better next year every year.

SECOND, PC at SC is a dynasty. They win and win a lot. It takes a fluke to beat them, or if you are lucky, your best day and their worst. thats the way it is. Thing is Dynasty's only last about 5 or 6 years before they burn out or the rest of the league advances to the new level (changing from old offense to new offense etc). In that time, teams like Texas, maybe Ohio St and maybe Cal one day, will their way to the top over unbeatable teams.

THIRD, It took Bowden 17 years to build a national championship team. he was second place a LOT in that time. Texas was KNOWN to choke against Oklahoma and come in second every year, and then one year they took that step. Most teams stay in second a while and then take the step. Tedford will naturally take the step one day.

FOURTH, Tedford changed from his misdirection/aggressive play calling, to a "we have to players to beat any team" mentality. Instead of out tricking the other guy with play calling, he has changed to out playing. THAT IS GOOD in the long run. Against PC he might need to change that for now, and maybe he has swung to far to fast, but coaches that have to trick their way through a season dont win many games (Dorrell tricked and lucked their way to 10 wins, fake punts and garbage...I don't want to be like that).

LAST, Tedford is a Cal Coach, not a coach. It seems like the 2 million is less important to him than the fans and players and the school. The man threw up after the Tennessee game. In Heaters blog or article he noted that Tedford came to make a mark and leave, and now he bleeds blue and gold. The way he gave the students a thumbs up after the game, and changed our team from a loser on the field and in the classroom(comparatively) to a winner in both places...That is amazing, and is what Tradition and legacy's are built with.

Basically I dont think Tedford has lost anything. The 10-2 season was out of the linier progress Tedford has brought, and spoiled us into thinking Championships are won in 5 years...

The biggest thing we forget is that national championship seasons take 2 seasons to build, Tedford needs back to back GREAT seasons for a true NC hunt. Going undefeated does not even guarantee a championship. League Championships are hard, even harder when your program is building at the same time that a dynasty is emerging, and we still don't have a good locker room! Yet Tedford STILL would have gone to the rose bowl any year between maybe 1993 and before 2004 with 2004's team, he just was unlucky to have that team in 04.

Bottom line is every year we can honestly look to the next year to be better. VERY few people are alive that can say that about Cal football at any other time.

Being a Cal fan has become very very very good.

Information! Data! Make arguments based on fact!

PhantomBear just found this: a frighteningly comprehensive record of college football's history, including complete conference standings, game results, and draft picks.

It's a little overwhelming, but for people who like facts in addition to explosive expository and opinion, it's a great place to lose a few days.

People unclear on the concept

Brad Edwards (ESPN Insider), says that regardless of what happens this year, someone is going to be upset:

Either way, a team with a lot of clout would feel jilted by the system, inciting another major BCS controversy and even more cries for a playoff.

Although it's certainly not what the fans are looking for, the final three weeks of the season are really starting to take the shape of a playoff bracket. Saturday's Michigan-Ohio State game is essentially a national semifinal, with the winner earning a spot in the championship game. If USC beats Cal on Saturday, the following week's game between Notre Dame and USC could almost be like the other national semi. But if Cal beats USC, and the Trojans then beat the Irish, it's possible that the SEC Championship Game could serve as that other semifinal … if Florida and Arkansas are both there with 11-1 records.

Not only do I agree that what we have looks a lot like playoffs already but is a lot more fun, but I have to wonder whether the people who are going to be crying for a playoff actually watch college football. I know it's a cliché, but the whole "season a playoff" thing is true if the best teams agree to play each other, and never more so than this year.

Script it out: of twenty teams that have been considered very good this year (Arkansas, Auburn, Boise State, Boston College, Clemson, Cal, Florida, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Rutgers, Texas, USC, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Wisconsin), all of them but Boise State and Cal play at least two others on the list, and all except Boise State, Cal, Oklahoma, Texas, and the three Big East teams play at least three.

With a little judicious scheduling (I'm looking at you, Big East, Big XII, and Cal), we have a playoff system already. And this doesn't even include the conference championship games.

We've had two #1 vs. #2 match-ups through scheduling alone already, which was exactly what the BCS was designed to create.

We don't need a playoff, and we don't need the BCS. What we do need is more flexible scheduling, faster, and with an eye to creating the best match-ups. Next year, put Ohio State on USC's schedule, make Notre Dame play Florida, send Texas to Arkansas.

What I said

A couple of weeks ago, I proposed something unorthodox in this age of BCS insanity: if the #1 and #2 teams play each other in the last game of the season, we know the national champion.

Stewart Mandel agrees:

[T]here are only two national-title caliber teams this season … and they're playing this Saturday. After watching Michigan in person Saturday for the first time since the Notre Dame game, I fully believe that The Game is a toss-up. This is not a slight against Ohio State, which is still quite clearly the team to beat. But the Wolverines are that good -- particularly their defense. Neither teams' Big Ten schedule has been particularly daunting this season, but they've both gone out and won convincingly every week. So when I see Florida barely surviving South Carolina (Big Ten equivalent: Penn State) or Texas losing to Kansas State (Big Ten equivalent: Purdue), it only reinforces that OSU and Michigan are in their own stratosphere this year.

More perception than reality

"Rutgers would be left out of the final game in Glendale, Ariz., because it's Rutgers, and because the system is based more on perception than reality, and because the past is every bit as important as the present."

There's a reason only a few teams have ever won a national championship.

According the College Football Data Warehouse, this list is comprised of 44 teams total and those numbers include the championships allocated by about three dozen or so "selectors" over the years; the problem is that exalted list includes five Ivy League teams and the University of Chicago. Only 23 current NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision teams have ever won more than 1, and that list includes Army (1914 and 1944-1946) Cal (1920-1922 and 1937), Maryland (1951, 1953).

Rutgers is, not surprisingly, not on the list.

Princeton, on the other hand, has won 24 national championships, the first in 1869 (although Rutgers beat Princeton 6-4 that year) and the last in 1935.

Stanford's last win?

Stanford was winless from 12 November 2005, 364 days ago (20-17 against Oregon State) to 11 November 2006 (20-3 against Washington).

That's a long time.

The Cal board is blaming the players, but...

Tedford said, "As coaches, I'll take the blame for the loss. Our offense didn't do enough, and that directly falls on my shoulders."

45-42/44-34

It seems Louisville's defense, however pathetic, is a lot stronger than Texas' defense.

But is the Big East better defensively than the Big XII?

Let's give Wisconsin a shot!

One of the one-loss teams never mentioned in the national championship conversation is Wisconsin, and because of the Big Ten rotation, they don't play Ohio St. this year. If Ohio State beats Michigan, I say give Wisconsin a shot at Ohio State; the worst the happens is we have a triple-one-loss scenario like people are predicting for the Big East (because everyone thinks WVU is going to beat Rutgers).

Well, that was depressing

20-24 against a team that was 4-5. And I hate Mike Stoops. On the plus side, Stanford finally won.

On the even more plus side, go Terps! (And here's hoping Woods is okay.)

[And! Not that I'm superstitious or anything, except that I totally am, they wore their road whites for the first time since Tennessee, and as soon as they ran out on the field, I said, "Oh, shit." Let's hope Tedford dresses them accordingly next week against USC.]

Either the Big East is a BCS conference, or it isn't

Everyone is wondering, in the unlikely event that there are two and only two undefeated teams from BCS conferences in the country come Dec. 3rd, if those two teams should meet for the national championship.

Now, Mike Tranghese will undoubtably not get too upset if Rutgers is kept out in favor of, say, Florida but instead goes to the Orange Bowl. That's still an amazing story.

But this begs a question: if the Big East is a BCS conference, and is treated like all the other BCS conferences, and there are only two teams that are undefeated in those BCS conferences, why wouldn't those two teams play for the national championship?

Either the Big East is a BCS conference, and its undefeated conference champion should be treated like any other undefeated conference champion — and Rutgers get a shot at Ohio St.;
OR
BCS-conference affiliation quantitatively matters less than individual schedule — in which case the strength of schedule should be a factor in these decisions, and a team like USC which schedules three OOC teams that are a combined 23-5 and whose conference slate is 44-39 should get the nod ahead of Ohio St., whose OOC opponents are 24-16 and whose conference opponents are 40-40 — if we exclude Michigan, the Big Ten slate that Ohio St. plays is 30-40).

Things that are cool:

The Empire State Building lit up in red for the Rutgers-Louisville game.

Anyone got a picture?

Joke of the week

Ted Miller's skinny on Saturday's Washington-Stanford matchup in Seattle:

"Stanford finally proving it's worthy of the Ivy League"

(from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

A laugh a minute in Berkeley

"As practice closed (on Wednesday), Tedford attempted some deep passes with his quarterbacks running routes. The coach was just 1-for-4, but it had more to do with the quarterbacks' hands than the former Fresno State QB's arm."

Rutgers: unbeaten at home against ranked opponents...

I thought Cal had a history of futility:

According to Jake Curtis,

"[Monday was] the 137th anniversary of the first college football game ever played: a 6-4 victory by Rutgers over Princeton before a few hundred spectators at Rutgers. On Thursday night, Rutgers again will host a milestone game, because it will be the first time since the Scarlet Knights began playing football on Nov. 6, 1869, that a ranked Rutgers team will face a ranked opponent."

Dave Newhouse interviews Marshawn Lynch

It seems Marshawn really is from Oaktown. He probably voted for Barbara Lee, too.

Newhouse: What's the biggest change in you since coming to Cal?

Lynch: I just look at life more critical. Things I didn't pay much attention to before I got here, I've opened my eyes to, like a whole another side of the world.

Newhouse: Anything specific?

Lynch: Mainly being a young black athlete. A lot of the classes here deal with race and gender. Just knowing where I'm from, there's not a lot of people at Cal that came from the same background.

Newhouse: Have you grown from this disparity?

Lynch: Yeah, just being aware and knowledgeable of those things. When I was taking the SATs, I was sitting next to somebody who had SAT prep courses — one-on-one tutoring to get ready. And all that played a factor into getting (that somebody) into school. So it's just looking at life more critical.

If you get a chance: the "run over by a car" brothers

ESPN has a great article (Insider access only) about sophomores Mike Tepper (OT) and Rulon Davis (DE), who within three weeks of each other in 2005 were both run over — Tepper by a Chrysler, Davis by a semi. A year later, they've both played fairly important roles for the team this year: Tepper has started two games in place of Andrew Cameron, and Davis in providing depth.

Thomas DeCoud!

A friend of my brother's who is a sports writer in the Chicago area, saw Marshawn Lynch's TD reception last night on a ESPN highlight and said, "Man, he's good."

We in Bear Territory agree.

On the other hand, Thomas DeCoud is great.

Watch this highlight at ESPN (first, they show Lynch TD #1, and then...):

UCLA is punting (it's late in the third quarter, and this is only the second punt of the game by either team), and they make the mistake of punting it right to DeSean Jackson, who had already returned two punts for TDs this year (plus a third one last year: his first collegiate touch ever was a 49-yard punt return for a TD). Jackson starts left, but there are a couple of Bruins there. He goes right, and there are three guys bearing down on him: #2 sophomore WR Ryan Graves, and twin linebackers Kyle (#54) and Korey (#55) Bosworth. All three were in great position to tackle Jackson.

Thomas DeCoud had other ideas.

The best part was the crowd noise: the entire stadium gasped at DeCoud's hit, and it took a while for the crowd to realize that Jackson was still running.

DeCoud knocked both himself and Korey Bosworth down, and neither played again. They were both down for a very long time; Bosworth had a concussion and fell a second time walking off the field. He was able to return to LA with the team, but it was pretty scary for a while. Today's papers report that DeCoud didn't even known Jackson had scored until Jackson thanked DeCoud for the block after DeCoud returned to the sidelines.

Jackson said he didn't even see the block, but he heard it.