The *official* Auburn got screwed by the BCS thread

[munch]

Anyone else agree? Of course i am biased, but I believe a system that can leave out the undefeated champion of the SEC, yes a weak but still better than any other conference SEC, and claim that a true national champion is crowned needs to be reworked.

I think all 3 undefeateds played well this year, but it is a shame that AU is getting left out and will have to play Virginia Tech. Oh well, i guess that is life, but i still have a bitter taste in my mouth.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Oh yeah. The BCS system sucks. It's all about the benjamins.

If the University of Delaware can partake of a playoff system and be a clear champion, why can't I-A?

[TheRaven]

Any of the 3 teams that would have been left out would have been screwed. The BCS sucks.

[karsh]

I think that while last year was more of a team getting screwed (USC) than Auburn, it still is screwed up. They seriously need to change the system to a playoff system. Like Ackbar said, if the other divisions of college football can have playoffs, why not I-A?

[munch]

I think Ackbar was more right when he said it was all about money. That is the biggest factor of there not being a playoff system.

Did anyone see the game last night? Jason Campbell was on fire. Besides his two mistakes he played a perfect game. He looked the best QB in the nation IMO.

and WAR EAGLE!!!

[bmulligan]

Now, after the BCS was to end all the controversy, there's more thatn there ever was. I used to care a lot more about a true national champion, but in all honesty, it's just college, and why should every other team go down as losers in a given year and only have one team shine in the spotlight? The BCS doesn't really care about an undisputed title because the controversy creates emotion which in turn creates more ratings, which in turn creates more dollars.

I thought the old system worked just fine before the BCS with conference champions going to their respective bowl games, and at large teams going to theirs, and that was that. The kids got their regional titles, some money, and rings and eveybody was essentially happy.

But I agree with you, AU got screwed this year. USC is not the greatest team everybody claims them to be. We'll all realize this as they're being pounded by a plains state powerhouse next month.

[anonymouswhoami]

Anyone else agree? Of course i am biased, but I believe a system that can leave out the undefeated champion of the SEC, yes a weak but still better than any other conference SEC, and claim that a true national champion is crowned needs to be reworked.

I think all 3 undefeateds played well this year, but it is a shame that AU is getting left out and will have to play Virginia Tech. Oh well, i guess that is life, but i still have a bitter taste in my mouth.

USC has to be in - they are the defending national champions and have won 20 straight games. I agree that Auburn should be in over Oklahoma, but it's partly Auburn's fault. If you are going to schedule creampuffs in your nonconference schedule, like a Division IAA school, you can't complain when voters aren't impressed with your wins. USC played Virginia Tech, Colorado State, BYU and Notre Dame. Oklahoma played Oregon, Bowling Green, and Houston. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech - not exactly stellar competition.

[munch]

Anyone else agree? Of course i am biased, but I believe a system that can leave out the undefeated champion of the SEC, yes a weak but still better than any other conference SEC, and claim that a true national champion is crowned needs to be reworked.

I think all 3 undefeateds played well this year, but it is a shame that AU is getting left out and will have to play Virginia Tech. Oh well, i guess that is life, but i still have a bitter taste in my mouth.

USC has to be in - they are the defending national champions and have won 20 straight games. I agree that Auburn should be in over Oklahoma, but it's partly Auburn's fault. If you are going to schedule creampuffs in your nonconference schedule, like a Division IAA school, you can't complain when voters aren't impressed with your wins.

the three teams in controversy are Lousiana Tech, Lousiana-Monroe, and the Citadel. LT is actually a pretty good team and had/has one of the best RBs in the nation so i don't qualify them as "bad" LM and citadel, i agree. But, it's not totally Auburn's fault because those games were last minute adds-ons because Bowling-Green and Georgia Tech pulled out at the last minute.

I agree they are weak, but they are no weaker than some of the regular teams Oklahoma and USC play in the regular season. Last night they showed Strength of Schedule and AU was at 9 while USC and OU were in the 20s. Auburn beat 4 teams with 9 wins, and they are all in the top 25. that is damn good football.

[beerguy961]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

[greendj27]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

Cal lost a game. They screwed themselves. If they hadn't lost you might have an arguement, but they did.

[johnnyoski]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

Cal lost a game. They screwed themselves. If they hadn't lost you might have an arguement, but they did.

Cal deserves a BCS game, but unless they take away the automatic bid from the Big East something like this will happen every year.

[sying]

Playoffs!!!! bring the playoffs!!!

[JSweeney]

You mean that there is actually college football besides the teams in the Big 10? :)

[Skylander7]

Anyone else agree? Of course i am biased, but I believe a system that can leave out the undefeated champion of the SEC, yes a weak but still better than any other conference SEC, and claim that a true national champion is crowned needs to be reworked.

I think all 3 undefeateds played well this year, but it is a shame that AU is getting left out and will have to play Virginia Tech. Oh well, i guess that is life, but i still have a bitter taste in my mouth.

USC has to be in - they are the defending national champions and have won 20 straight games. I agree that Auburn should be in over Oklahoma, but it's partly Auburn's fault. If you are going to schedule creampuffs in your nonconference schedule, like a Division IAA school, you can't complain when voters aren't impressed with your wins. USC played Virginia Tech, Colorado State, BYU and Notre Dame. Oklahoma played Oregon, Bowling Green, and Houston. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, and Louisiana Tech - not exactly stellar competition.

Yeah, but come on man. The SEC is the toughest conference, and their schedule was no freaking cakewalk. Look at how many top 25 ranked teams that Auburn played in comparison to Oklahoma or USC. Auburn DID get screwed out of this, and this system is extremely flawed. There should be some definitive way to establish a national champion. Let the top 10 play it out, and see who's left standing

[jimbodan]

BCS is a joke. They'll never adopt a play off system though, these schools get too much money for playing in lame meaningless bowl games. One of the many reasons I choose not to watch college football.

[Zoltek99]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

Cal lost a game. They screwed themselves. If they hadn't lost you might have an arguement, but they did.

Yeah, Cal lost a game, but it was to USC, and it was a game they should have won. They won in almost every statistical category, except for the one that counts....the score. Even then, they were 10 yards out from the winning TD.

Texas also lost a game, to Oklahoma, a team ranked lower than USC.

I don't know. I guess I can say I've finally experienced the crap that is the BCS system.

I say have Cal play Texas in the Rose Bowl and throw the 9-2 Wolverines out of it. They deserve to be there less than either Cal or Texas.

[JSweeney]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

Cal lost a game. They screwed themselves. If they hadn't lost you might have an arguement, but they did.

Yeah, Cal lost a game, but it was to USC, and it was a game they should have won. They won in almost every statistical category, except for the one that counts....the score. Even then, they were 10 yards out from the winning TD.

Texas also lost a game, to Oklahoma, a team ranked lower than USC.

I don't know. I guess I can say I've finally experienced the crap that is the BCS system.

I say have Cal play Texas in the Rose Bowl and throw the 9-2 Wolverines out of it. They deserve to be there less than either Cal or Texas.

When a game with those two will pull in higher rating and more money than a game with the Wolverines, they'll be happy to.

[greendj27]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

Cal lost a game. They screwed themselves. If they hadn't lost you might have an arguement, but they did.

Yeah, Cal lost a game, but it was to USC, and it was a game they should have won. They won in almost every statistical category, except for the one that counts....the score. Even then, they were 10 yards out from the winning TD.

Texas also lost a game, to Oklahoma, a team ranked lower than USC.

I don't know. I guess I can say I've finally experienced the crap that is the BCS system.

I say have Cal play Texas in the Rose Bowl and throw the 9-2 Wolverines out of it. They deserve to be there less than either Cal or Texas.

I definitely wasn't saying the BCS is correct in the rankings, but my point was that Cal could have ensured their place in the BCS by taking care of their own business. They lost a game, so some of it is their fault.

Auburn has every right to be upset with this though. I wouldn't be surprised top see another split championship happen this year. They should have a playoffs for the top 16 teams, but that will never happen. I see no reason why they can't do the "plus one" scenario that everyonee keeps talking about though.

[asaraa]

You mean that there is actually college football besides the teams in the Big 10? :)

LOL!

:D

Go Bucks!

[Duo_Maxwell]

I gotta say Cal got screwed over way more... Ranked 4th in both polls yet number 5? Didn't we go through this crap last year?

Cal lost a game. They screwed themselves. If they hadn't lost you might have an arguement, but they did.

Yeah, Cal lost a game, but it was to USC, and it was a game they should have won. They won in almost every statistical category, except for the one that counts....the score. Even then, they were 10 yards out from the winning TD.

Texas also lost a game, to Oklahoma, a team ranked lower than USC.

I don't know. I guess I can say I've finally experienced the crap that is the BCS system.

I say have Cal play Texas in the Rose Bowl and throw the 9-2 Wolverines out of it. They deserve to be there less than either Cal or Texas.

The Rose Bowl has almost always had the Big 10 champ (except when it isn't the BCS National title game) and has been for decades upon decades now. Plus when Cal plays Michigna's schedule you may have an argument but when you play Air Force and New Mexico State as non-cons and then enter into one of the weakest confrences in the nation for the rest of the season, Michigan deserves it more.

[Zoltek99]

Michigan's opponents' record is 64-60.Cal's opponents' record is 61-61.

Michigan outscored their opponents 333-241. Cal outscored their opponents 410-147.

Cal lost 1 game, to USC, in a game that they should have won. They also kept the #1 ranked team to its lowest offensive output for the season (in terms of points). They also shutout #21 Arizona State.

Michigan lost 2 games, to Ohio State (#25), and to unranked Notre Dame, who had a record of 6-5! Granted, Michigan beat #11 Iowa but that doesn't make up for losing to ND (a team that USC killed, the same USC team that should have lost to Cal).

So I know that it's been tradition for the Big 10 champ to go to the Rose Bowl and I can accept that, but if it was on merit, Cal deserves it more. Texas, as well, deserves it more.

Either way, Auburn was the team that got screwed most of all.

[johnnyoski]

Michigan's opponents' record is 64-60.Cal's opponents' record is 61-61.

Michigan outscored their opponents 333-241. Cal outscored their opponents 410-147.

Cal lost 1 game, to USC, in a game that they should have won. They also kept the #1 ranked team to its lowest offensive output for the season (in terms of points). They also shutout #21 Arizona State.

Michigan lost 2 games, to Ohio State (#25), and to unranked Notre Dame, who had a record of 6-5! Granted, Michigan beat #11 Iowa but that doesn't make up for losing to ND (a team that USC killed, the same USC team that should have lost to Cal).

So I know that it's been tradition for the Big 10 champ to go to the Rose Bowl and I can accept that, but if it was on merit, Cal deserves it more. Texas, as well, deserves it more.

And what conference title did Cal win????
I think if you want to complain about any BCS team it should be Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl. Come on...how can they give an automatic BCS bid to this conference now that Miami, Va Tech and next year BC is gone?

[btw1217]

Undefeated and still not eligible for a National Championship...the BCS is gay. It sucks. I'm an Auburn fan too. I'm from Anniston.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Cal should be going to the Rose Bowl. They got screwed more badly than Auburn.

[Zoltek99]

Michigan's opponents' record is 64-60.Cal's opponents' record is 61-61.

Michigan outscored their opponents 333-241. Cal outscored their opponents 410-147.

Cal lost 1 game, to USC, in a game that they should have won. They also kept the #1 ranked team to its lowest offensive output for the season (in terms of points). They also shutout #21 Arizona State.

Michigan lost 2 games, to Ohio State (#25), and to unranked Notre Dame, who had a record of 6-5! Granted, Michigan beat #11 Iowa but that doesn't make up for losing to ND (a team that USC killed, the same USC team that should have lost to Cal).

So I know that it's been tradition for the Big 10 champ to go to the Rose Bowl and I can accept that, but if it was on merit, Cal deserves it more. Texas, as well, deserves it more.

And what conference title did Cal win????

What does that matter? They placed 2nd in the conference thats holds the #1 ranked team in the country. Just look at some of the stats I posted above. Cal should be in the Rose Bowl, instead of Texas. Both Cal and Texas should be in the Rose Bowl, instead of Michigan.

But what can you do..

I just hope Tedford doesn't leave for a more lucrative position...:(

[uuaww]

Ok, i have to add my two cents... you guys who want a playoff system are wrong, the bowl system is the lifeblood of college football. Maybe if 1 and 4 met and 2 and 3 met and the winners of those went to a NC they would be alright with that. but ZERO coaches would want anything more than that on there players. 8 or 16 team playoff? are you fucking joking me? why not just kill the players. the BCS isn't perfect but adding a 5th bcs bowl helps a lot. Now about the Auburn-Okla-USC thing... Three BCS teams go rarely go undefeated, your playoff theory wouldn't work b.c then you still have to get a 4th team in there. and then theyd end up winning iand thered be some bullshit contrivorsy. so just deal with it. You will never get a playoff system, EVER. best you can hope for is another game after the regular bowl games..

[Death2Sanity]

We need playoffs. The reason why college basketball is far and away my favorite sport to watch is due in LARGE part to March Madness. To have a similar setup in college football...

ah, we all have our dreams which will never come true.

[Zoltek99]

Here is what they can do...

10 teams. Top 2 get a bye. That's only 2 extra games (because they would have already been in a bowl game if the old system was used) for 8 teams and only 1 extra game for the Top 2 teams in the country.

The NFL has potentially 4 (?) playoff games. Why would it be so hard for the college teams to play 2 extra games?

[Death2Sanity]

Every division besides I-A has playoffs. Are you going to get me to believe that the top NCAA athletes are unable to do that which their lower-division brethren are able to accomplish?

[munch]

Here is what they can do...

10 teams. Top 2 get a bye. That's only 2 extra games (because they would have already been in a bowl game if the old system was used) for 8 teams and only 1 extra game for the Top 2 teams in the country.

The NFL has potentially 4 (?) playoff games. Why would it be so hard for the college teams to play 2 extra games?

that is entirely too much work. will never happen. look at it this way, i'm an auburn fan, and of course i'm going to watch them play in a bowl game. it cost a lot of money for a ticket, hotel, airfare/gas money, food, etc. with ticket sales in decline for bowl games, the NCAA knows that it's best to get all of *your teams here* fans in one game.

the only way to alleviate it would be to have home field advantage and then neutral sites for the final four. the money situation makes it so the bowls can get as much money in one shot as possible. i think a top 4 showdown would be better, but even then someone might get screwed, but at least the system will be even more inclusive.

[munch]

Cal should be going to the Rose Bowl. They got screwed more badly than Auburn.

I can agree with that, especially with the money and exposure BCS would have brought to their school. Texas is by far the MOST overrated team in the country. i have seen a few Texas games, and they never impressed me. they have no right to be in the BCS, while Cal should certainly be there.

But still, AU got shafted. WAR EAGLE!

[Morrigan Lover]

USC has to be in - they are the defending national champions and have won 20 straight games.

No, LSU is the one and only national champ from last year. You dont qualify as NC just because of some opinion poll.

[Javery]

Playoffs wouldn't work either. Instead of bitching every year about how the #3 team got screwed we would be bitching about how the #9 team got screwed and left out of the playoffs.

[munch]

here is a link (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1790325) to all of the bowl games this year.

And an article on Cal (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1939401)

And an article on Auburn (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/bowls04/news/story?id=1939408)

[ElwoodCuse]

Screw Auburn, this is what you get karma-wise for deciding to kick a field goal and tie the Sugar Bowl in 1988.

But yeah, the BCS sucks, and it can never be fixed unless there is a playoff or at the very least a single game after the four big bowls.

[The Shiznit]

USC, Oklahoma and Auburn deserve to be there. But USC and Oklahoma finished 1 and 2. Somebody would have been screwed regardless. Cal did get ripped off. They should be in the Rose Bowl.

GO USC!

[karsh]

I really have to agree with Cal being in the Rose Bowl. Pac-10 vs Big 10 is a tradition in the Rose Bowl. It was one of the few reasons I was okay with USC getting screwed last season and being put in the Rose Bowl. Screw Mack Brown and Texas. Cal vs Michigan I'd definitely watch...Texas vs Michigan I'm not too sure I'd watch.

[nevposey]

What needs to happen is an 8 team playoff. Use the BCS ranking system to determine which eight teams qualify. This is the only thing that makes sense. I hope for the sake hitting the point home again, there are dual national champions. This is definitely a possibility if Oklahoma wins the BCS game and Auburn is first in the coaches poll.

[munch]

What needs to happen is an 8 team playoff. Use the BCS ranking system to determine which eight teams qualify. This is the only thing that makes sense. I hope for the sake hitting the point home again, there are dual national champions. This is definitely a possibility if Oklahoma wins the BCS game and Auburn is first in the coaches poll.

Coaches are obligated to vote #1 for whoever wins the Orange Bowl. It is the press who could make a change, but they would not vote for AU unless they completely dominate Vtech.

What I think is a real shame is that because of this coaches are dogging other coaches and teams are dogging other teams. it leads to a lot of unclassy moments in college football. I know this may sound hypocritical coming from someone who supports Tommy Tubberville, but hey, he has gotten better!

[Duo_Maxwell]

Michigan's opponents' record is 64-60.Cal's opponents' record is 61-61.

Michigan outscored their opponents 333-241. Cal outscored their opponents 410-147.

Cal lost 1 game, to USC, in a game that they should have won. They also kept the #1 ranked team to its lowest offensive output for the season (in terms of points). They also shutout #21 Arizona State.

Michigan lost 2 games, to Ohio State (#25), and to unranked Notre Dame, who had a record of 6-5! Granted, Michigan beat #11 Iowa but that doesn't make up for losing to ND (a team that USC killed, the same USC team that should have lost to Cal).

So I know that it's been tradition for the Big 10 champ to go to the Rose Bowl and I can accept that, but if it was on merit, Cal deserves it more. Texas, as well, deserves it more.


You rely way too much on paper stats man, you sound like Aaron Rodgers who says Cal's resume is more impressive than Michigan's. But I'll give you some more honest stats.

Michigan beat 4 ranked oppoents this season, Cal beat 1.

I don't know why you even both to list the number they outscored their oppoents by, it's obvious that if you play weaker oppoents you beat them by more.

You make such a big deal out of the Notre Dame, but ND had a record of 6-5, two of Cal's non-con oppenents didn't even have winning record. At least Michigan played teams that had winning records.

Michigan played 5 teams currently slated for bowl games, and beat 4 of them. Cal only played 3 teams in a bowl (Southern Miss ironcially got an invite where Miami (OH) didn't...they only beat 2 of those opponents.

Aaron Rodgers can argue til he's blue (haha the irony) in the face, but it's clear Michigan had the harder march to the Rose Bowl and are just as qualified IMO and the evidence shows that. Now should Cal be in the Rose Bowl. I say, yes, it should be Pac-10 vs. Big 10 of old (Yet in the days of old Cal still wouldn't be in the Rose Bowl), and Texas should play in the Fiesta Bowl instead of Pitt. People seem to be like "well they only had one loss), but Utah went undefeated so does that mean they get in on the National title? It's an obvious no because they played easier opponents just like Cal played easier oppoents than alot of one or two loss teams.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Leets be honest about CAL. The votes were rigged to keep CAL out of the Rose Bowl. Everyone who covers College Foootball has pretty much said so.

It's tradition for Cal to be in the Rose Bowl. They were only beaten by USC, and they had to play their last game while the coach of Texas riggged the Coaches poll.

To quote Stewart Mandel...

"The integrity of the polls comes into question. That Texas is playing in the Rose Bowl instead of Cal is not by itself an injustice. You can make plenty of arguments in favor of either 10-1 team. What is ridiculous is the way the Longhorns got in, sitting on their couch while Cal traveled across the country and won at Southern Miss -- but apparently not by enough for the tens of voters who moved Texas up and the Bears down in their final poll, knowing exactly what the ramifications were when they did it. "If you have to go in and blow people out," said Cal coach Jeff Tedford, "that doesn't serve the integrity of the game."

Among those who made the last-minute switch: writers in Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. Many will wonder whether they and their counterparts in the coaches' poll succumbed to the lobbying efforts of 'Horns coach Mack Brown and/or pressure from their constituencies. "I thought it was a little classless how Coach Brown was begging for votes after the [Texas A&M] game," said Cal QB Aaron Rodgers. "I think a team's record and the way you play should speak for itself."

[Whambamm]

While I live here in Austin, and have always lived here in Austin, it should be fairly obvious that I am stoked that Texas got a BCS bowl berth. Do I think what Mack Brown did was right? Hell no. The Cal QB got it right by saying that the team's record should speak for itself. I do however think Texas does deserve a BCS berth, but I also think that Cal should have gotten one. There's numerous things that I hate about the BCS, namely the fact that the Big East still gets an automatic berth, that's complete horse shit. Also the fact that Utah got an automatic berth for being in the top 6, while UT and Cal are ahead of them. I'm sure Utah's a decent enough team, but what was the hardest team they played all year? The Aggies? They were overrated all year anyway, and I'm not just saying that as a Longhorn.

[munch]

While I live here in Austin, and have always lived here in Austin, it should be fairly obvious that I am stoked that Texas got a BCS bowl berth. Do I think what Mack Brown did was right? Hell no. The Cal QB got it right by saying that the team's record should speak for itself. I do however think Texas does deserve a BCS berth, but I also think that Cal should have gotten one. There's numerous things that I hate about the BCS, namely the fact that the Big East still gets an automatic berth, that's complete horse shit. Also the fact that Utah got an automatic berth for being in the top 6, while UT and Cal are ahead of them. I'm sure Utah's a decent enough team, but what was the hardest team they played all year? The Aggies? They were overrated all year anyway, and I'm not just saying that as a Longhorn.

Utah deserves a BCS berth over Texas= FACT

[Duo_Maxwell]

What is ridiculous is the way the Longhorns got in, sitting on their couch while Cal traveled across the country and won at Southern Miss

I kind of see where that Mandel is coming from Ackbar, but I don't think this statement holds much water...That game was actually postponed from like the 3rd week of the season, I don't think you can hold that against Texas. In fact, if not for that postponment Cal would've played their final game on Nov. 20th and watching Texas beat Texas A&M from the couch.

[Zoltek99]

You rely way too much on paper stats man, you sound like Aaron Rodgers who says Cal's resume is more impressive than Michigan's. But I'll give you some more honest stats.

Maybe you should give me some stats that are actually true.

Michigan beat 1 ranked team, not 4. They only played one other ranked team, #24 Ohio, and lost. Cal also only beat 1 ranked team. However, they also played the #1 team in the nation, in their stadium, and should have won the game. BTW, Michigan lost to Ohio State by 16.

I don't know why you even both to list the number they outscored their oppoents by, it's obvious that if you play weaker oppoents you beat them by more.

Did you not see the records of the two teams' opponents? It was 64-60 to 61-61. How does that translate to Cal playing weaker opponents.

You make such a big deal out of the Notre Dame, but ND had a record of 6-5, two of Cal's non-con oppenents didn't even have winning record. At least Michigan played teams that had winning records.

Again, look at my above comment to see who played more teams with "winning" records. I make a big deal about ND because, in the end, Michigan lost to an unranked team, regardless of their record. Cal lost to the #1 team in the nation.

Michigan played 5 teams currently slated for bowl games, and beat 4 of them. Cal only played 3 teams in a bowl (Southern Miss ironcially got an invite where Miami (OH) didn't...they only beat 2 of those opponents.

I'm not sure that it's wise to use that example, knowing the politics involved in offerring bowl bids.

Aaron Rodgers can argue til he's blue (haha the irony) in the face, but it's clear Michigan had the harder march to the Rose Bowl and are just as qualified IMO and the evidence shows that.

What IS clear is that Rodgers, among others, are absolutely right. Cal's resume is more impressive than Michigan's. That's what stats are for. You mentioned earlier I rely on stats too much. What else should I rely on, the subjective opinions of a couple of journalists in Texas, or your subjective opinion...? Without stats we've got the mess that the BCS is now.

With that said, I admit I don't know anything about Texas's record and or schedule...so maybe they deserve to be in the Rose Bowl, but it's clear that all tradition aside, Cal deserves it more than Michigan.