We play at the Rose Bowl every other year. I say we just celebrate that and forget the... other thing. Make as big a production of it as possible, put a rose on the uniform that day, have a Cal flavored doodah parade down Colorado Blvd. and leave it at that. Just eliminate pining for that one big game that arguably no longer exists from Cal fandom once and for all.
Feel free to ignore me - I'm the one comment every two years guy. In my mind this article could just as well be called "It's (past) time to give up on college football: And why we should all be OK with that."
It's pretty clear that the Tedford Era from 2004-06 was our best shot to reach the actual Rose Bowl, and once we missed that (got screwed out of it in at least one way) it was probably gone for good. The playoff was on the way.
CAL got screwed by a crying Mack Brown and his brother who was part of the coaches poll that was used to determine who went to the Rose Bowl that year. We were there before the last week of the season. When Tedford wouldn't pile on the points against our last opponent Mack Brown used is as an excuse that Texas was a better team. His brother cast the deciding vote for Texas in the Coaches Poll and the rest is history. I believe that was during Aaron Rodgers run in 2004. And yes, that was the year the Rose Bowl died...
Could we have blown out Southern Miss, that day, though? I remember thinking that game was a little too close for comfort because we simply weren't playing well, not because we were being ultra conservative. It was a tough situation from the hurricane reschedule and playing in humidity (forget what the game time was and if that was a factor too).. one of those "trap" games that can easily become an upset loss, that I was glad we pushed through, and yeah it's total crap that in reality that hurt us. Chances are even a blow out wouldnt have changed things if it was an inside job at the coaches poll regardless.
I think we also had a late TD called back on a bogus holding call. Maybe wouldn't have made a difference (really it was the computer rankings that screwed us more than the human polls), but a better-looking final score might have done something.
Also, if you play that Southern Miss game when it was supposed to be played (in September) and the result is exactly the same then no one remembers or cares about it. Our big blowout wins to close the Pac-10 season would then be all anyone was thinking about going into the bowls.
however, also classic Tedford was blowing the doors off less talented teams in the first half, which I think we could have reasonably expected that game
At least our fate was in our own hands during the season. 1st and goal against U$C with Rogers at the helm. The missed opportunity for that one felt devastating, and that feeling was retroactively validated with what transpired. I might be in the minority, and only became a Cal a couple years before that, but I've never cried much over that snub since we didn't outright win our conference. Also, the subsequent loss to Texas Tech -- and dont really care what the excuses are for that one.
The other underrated screw job was in 2006, when we should have beaten Arizona but for some flukey things and also a really horrible PI call that erased a Hughes interception on a late Arizona TD drive. Just getting that call right probably means we win the game, and then when USC unexpectedly lost to UCLA on the final week, we win the Pac-12 outright.
Yes no more Rose Bowl Before I Die sentiments. It's unlikely that Cal will ever reach the iconic venue other than our bi-annual games with UCLA. Sad, but true.
If adopted, college football's new playoff system will have three effects: 1) Destroy the traditional bowl system 2) Force some teams to play as many as 17 games and many others 15 and 16 thus exposing more young men to serious injury and concussions 3) Really tick off the teams that finish 13th, 14th 15th thus forcing them to expand to 16 teams.
One thing that won't change is that the same teams (see Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson) will win the damn thing. If you'll excuse my language, it's all a bunch of bullshit designed to line the pockets of NCAA officials, TV execs and whoever else can profit off the labors of young unpaid men.
The only change I want to see is the option for working aged people to sign professional contracts and sponsorships and play in a viable professional league somewhere. Let all the best players go there, and let losers like me revel in the amateur game, steeped in tradition.
1) the traditional bowl system is bloated and could use an overhaul. No one wants to see a 6-6 Kansas St play a 7-5 Memphis on a Wednesday night in Boca Raton, except a fraction of those fan bases. And most of these bowls are owned and operated by ESPN with a lot of these bowls serving as nothing more than participation trophy bowls. Congrats! You finished with a winning record (barely). Here's your reward, a gift bag and a crappy bowl (that your best players may opt out of) against an equally crappy team. Or that one team who got screwed and is going to take it out on you on national TV.
2) FCS already does this. So does DII and DIII. FBS schools account for less than 20% of all NCAA football teams. The other three divisions play 16 team playoffs.
It will change the bowl system and some teams will play more. As a former player I would have been happy with this if it meant the Natty was legit. Also, there will be some Cinderalla stories AND other than the four who seem to be perennial playoff attendees, expanding the field will change the recruiting dynamic. Bama, OSU, Georgia and Clemson probably won't get two 5 stars at the same position anymore as more teams will be in the mix or on the edge of the mix. I think its good for the game, although I would have liked to see a legit 16 team playoff with no byes.
As to point one, I was referring only to the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton bowls. I miss the old days of traditional tie-ins as with the Pac -8/10/12 winner versus the Big Ten.But I'm a dinosaur. As to point two, good point, hadn't thought of that. As to point three I think I nailed that one.
if you're afraid of finishing 13, 14, or 15, do better during the season. but sometimes it all depends on where you start the season. If one of those teams starts the season unranked then they'll have a tougher road than say team #12 who started the season ranked 23. It's easier to slip out of the rankings with one loss when you're ranked near the bottom than a top tern team.
It's (like all things) subjective where you draw the line. Someone can validly say "do better" than #3 if you want to play for the title. At a certain point, in this sport in its current incarnation, you realistically don't have a chance of winning outside of the top x, but fairness of inclusion becomes a legit gripe because of the financial impact of getting left out, and left out behind teams that didnt "do better" than you by any objective measures.
Eh, I don't think a system that gives all Power 5 conferences and one mid-major conference an automatic spot is an "illusion" of inclusion. That's legitimately more inclusive.
I just mean if you are #4 and get in, you literally make more money than #5 who got left out, and there might be no objective measures to say you did "better" than #5.
I try to think of this like the basketball tournament. There are always debates about the last at-large teams being selected, but it's pretty rare that this actually makes a difference as to who is the champion. All of the top teams get in, and of course everyone always has a chance to just win their conference and guarantee a berth.
I suspect the expanded FBS field would probably be seen the same way. Guaranteeing spots to all the top ranked conference champions means a lot, and the extra spot for a mid-major champion means that an undefeated Coastal Carolina or Boise State or whatever would also get their shot.
Definitely has no bearing on the actual champion. I dont think expansion past 4, or hell even 2 teams, really does now. It's just about what extra dollars you'd make and exposure for your program. Just think, one day we can get stomped by Bama on national tv! In basketball it's a big deal for recruiting for those small teams to make the tournament, and with such a big field of teams there is bound to be some entertaining magic. But the physical reality of football also doesn't allow for a dark horse the same way that basketball does.
I think this tends to wash out over the course of a season. For Power 5 teams if you've only got 1 loss you'll definitely be in the top 12, and will likely make it if you've only got 2 losses too.
Yes, point #2 never made much sense to me, given that other divisions already have a schedule of the same length. I don't think it's a big deal, and only two teams will actually reach the 17 game threshold anyway. I think they'll be okay with that, given that they're playing for the national championship.
Actually, it's not that brutal, especially these days where practices are tailored to team health. In the old days we hit more in practice (and sometimes on a Thursday) if we lost a game, even late in the season. Coaches don't do that anymore. They got smart.
Nick, you are right. No more RBBID. Just give us a spot in the PAC 12 title game. Or, give us a win over U$C and $tanfurd in the same season (without losing to Oregon State). Or a bowl of some kind each year.
With the Rose Bowl pretty much out of the mix in anything but the unlikeliest scenario, I will now devote 100% of my football energies to the Tony the Tiger Sun Bowl....
New Year's Eve Day in El Paso, people....get excited.
Actually, there are two freeways, the 210 and the 134, that pass quite close to the Rose Bowl, and the Pasadena Freeway is only about two or three miles away. As the crowds were around 100,000 for all three Rose Bowl games I attended, I ended up walking from at least a mile away so as not to have to deal with the traffic. I do the same for every game at Memorial.
Yeah, the only real weirdness here is if Notre Dame is a Top 4 ranked team but can't be a Top 4 seed (because they're not in a conference). I suspect this will be worked out, or maybe ND eventually relents and joins a conference.
I'm not ok, playoffs have killed college football.
We play at the Rose Bowl every other year. I say we just celebrate that and forget the... other thing. Make as big a production of it as possible, put a rose on the uniform that day, have a Cal flavored doodah parade down Colorado Blvd. and leave it at that. Just eliminate pining for that one big game that arguably no longer exists from Cal fandom once and for all.
Feel free to ignore me - I'm the one comment every two years guy. In my mind this article could just as well be called "It's (past) time to give up on college football: And why we should all be OK with that."
I've given up on all college football aside from Cal games. The Bears are the only games I attend or watch on TV.
It's pretty clear that the Tedford Era from 2004-06 was our best shot to reach the actual Rose Bowl, and once we missed that (got screwed out of it in at least one way) it was probably gone for good. The playoff was on the way.
CAL got screwed by a crying Mack Brown and his brother who was part of the coaches poll that was used to determine who went to the Rose Bowl that year. We were there before the last week of the season. When Tedford wouldn't pile on the points against our last opponent Mack Brown used is as an excuse that Texas was a better team. His brother cast the deciding vote for Texas in the Coaches Poll and the rest is history. I believe that was during Aaron Rodgers run in 2004. And yes, that was the year the Rose Bowl died...
maybe Cal should have blown out Southern Miss and not leave any room open for crying coaches and voters
Could we have blown out Southern Miss, that day, though? I remember thinking that game was a little too close for comfort because we simply weren't playing well, not because we were being ultra conservative. It was a tough situation from the hurricane reschedule and playing in humidity (forget what the game time was and if that was a factor too).. one of those "trap" games that can easily become an upset loss, that I was glad we pushed through, and yeah it's total crap that in reality that hurt us. Chances are even a blow out wouldnt have changed things if it was an inside job at the coaches poll regardless.
I think we also had a late TD called back on a bogus holding call. Maybe wouldn't have made a difference (really it was the computer rankings that screwed us more than the human polls), but a better-looking final score might have done something.
Also, if you play that Southern Miss game when it was supposed to be played (in September) and the result is exactly the same then no one remembers or cares about it. Our big blowout wins to close the Pac-10 season would then be all anyone was thinking about going into the bowls.
ultra conservative to ensure a win rather than taking a chance and losing
classic tedford
however, also classic Tedford was blowing the doors off less talented teams in the first half, which I think we could have reasonably expected that game
I didnt know about Mack Browns brother though, that's extra shitty!
Nepotistically shitty!!!!!
Mack's house burning down was kharma....
At least our fate was in our own hands during the season. 1st and goal against U$C with Rogers at the helm. The missed opportunity for that one felt devastating, and that feeling was retroactively validated with what transpired. I might be in the minority, and only became a Cal a couple years before that, but I've never cried much over that snub since we didn't outright win our conference. Also, the subsequent loss to Texas Tech -- and dont really care what the excuses are for that one.
The other underrated screw job was in 2006, when we should have beaten Arizona but for some flukey things and also a really horrible PI call that erased a Hughes interception on a late Arizona TD drive. Just getting that call right probably means we win the game, and then when USC unexpectedly lost to UCLA on the final week, we win the Pac-12 outright.
Maybe we would have won, but I think there was still something like 1:30 left in the game, so it wouldn't have been over even with a TD there.
The rose bowl died in 2004.
I'll drink one for me, and one for my homies....
Yes no more Rose Bowl Before I Die sentiments. It's unlikely that Cal will ever reach the iconic venue other than our bi-annual games with UCLA. Sad, but true.
Let's go Bears! Win the Pac!
If adopted, college football's new playoff system will have three effects: 1) Destroy the traditional bowl system 2) Force some teams to play as many as 17 games and many others 15 and 16 thus exposing more young men to serious injury and concussions 3) Really tick off the teams that finish 13th, 14th 15th thus forcing them to expand to 16 teams.
One thing that won't change is that the same teams (see Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson) will win the damn thing. If you'll excuse my language, it's all a bunch of bullshit designed to line the pockets of NCAA officials, TV execs and whoever else can profit off the labors of young unpaid men.
The only change I want to see is the option for working aged people to sign professional contracts and sponsorships and play in a viable professional league somewhere. Let all the best players go there, and let losers like me revel in the amateur game, steeped in tradition.
1) the traditional bowl system is bloated and could use an overhaul. No one wants to see a 6-6 Kansas St play a 7-5 Memphis on a Wednesday night in Boca Raton, except a fraction of those fan bases. And most of these bowls are owned and operated by ESPN with a lot of these bowls serving as nothing more than participation trophy bowls. Congrats! You finished with a winning record (barely). Here's your reward, a gift bag and a crappy bowl (that your best players may opt out of) against an equally crappy team. Or that one team who got screwed and is going to take it out on you on national TV.
2) FCS already does this. So does DII and DIII. FBS schools account for less than 20% of all NCAA football teams. The other three divisions play 16 team playoffs.
3) Do better
28 teams for division 2 now
It will change the bowl system and some teams will play more. As a former player I would have been happy with this if it meant the Natty was legit. Also, there will be some Cinderalla stories AND other than the four who seem to be perennial playoff attendees, expanding the field will change the recruiting dynamic. Bama, OSU, Georgia and Clemson probably won't get two 5 stars at the same position anymore as more teams will be in the mix or on the edge of the mix. I think its good for the game, although I would have liked to see a legit 16 team playoff with no byes.
As to point one, I was referring only to the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton bowls. I miss the old days of traditional tie-ins as with the Pac -8/10/12 winner versus the Big Ten.But I'm a dinosaur. As to point two, good point, hadn't thought of that. As to point three I think I nailed that one.
Re: point 3
if you're afraid of finishing 13, 14, or 15, do better during the season. but sometimes it all depends on where you start the season. If one of those teams starts the season unranked then they'll have a tougher road than say team #12 who started the season ranked 23. It's easier to slip out of the rankings with one loss when you're ranked near the bottom than a top tern team.
It's (like all things) subjective where you draw the line. Someone can validly say "do better" than #3 if you want to play for the title. At a certain point, in this sport in its current incarnation, you realistically don't have a chance of winning outside of the top x, but fairness of inclusion becomes a legit gripe because of the financial impact of getting left out, and left out behind teams that didnt "do better" than you by any objective measures.
Expansion is the illusion of inclusion.
Eh, I don't think a system that gives all Power 5 conferences and one mid-major conference an automatic spot is an "illusion" of inclusion. That's legitimately more inclusive.
I just mean if you are #4 and get in, you literally make more money than #5 who got left out, and there might be no objective measures to say you did "better" than #5.
I try to think of this like the basketball tournament. There are always debates about the last at-large teams being selected, but it's pretty rare that this actually makes a difference as to who is the champion. All of the top teams get in, and of course everyone always has a chance to just win their conference and guarantee a berth.
I suspect the expanded FBS field would probably be seen the same way. Guaranteeing spots to all the top ranked conference champions means a lot, and the extra spot for a mid-major champion means that an undefeated Coastal Carolina or Boise State or whatever would also get their shot.
Whoa,
A game you play at most once a week is entirely different that one you can play every other day.
Definitely has no bearing on the actual champion. I dont think expansion past 4, or hell even 2 teams, really does now. It's just about what extra dollars you'd make and exposure for your program. Just think, one day we can get stomped by Bama on national tv! In basketball it's a big deal for recruiting for those small teams to make the tournament, and with such a big field of teams there is bound to be some entertaining magic. But the physical reality of football also doesn't allow for a dark horse the same way that basketball does.
I think this tends to wash out over the course of a season. For Power 5 teams if you've only got 1 loss you'll definitely be in the top 12, and will likely make it if you've only got 2 losses too.
Yes, point #2 never made much sense to me, given that other divisions already have a schedule of the same length. I don't think it's a big deal, and only two teams will actually reach the 17 game threshold anyway. I think they'll be okay with that, given that they're playing for the national championship.
Actually, it's not that brutal, especially these days where practices are tailored to team health. In the old days we hit more in practice (and sometimes on a Thursday) if we lost a game, even late in the season. Coaches don't do that anymore. They got smart.
Nick, you are right. No more RBBID. Just give us a spot in the PAC 12 title game. Or, give us a win over U$C and $tanfurd in the same season (without losing to Oregon State). Or a bowl of some kind each year.
GO BEARS!
With the Rose Bowl pretty much out of the mix in anything but the unlikeliest scenario, I will now devote 100% of my football energies to the Tony the Tiger Sun Bowl....
New Year's Eve Day in El Paso, people....get excited.
Yes, I’m changing to “ ‘Rose Bowl*’ before I die!”
*a spot in a New Year’s Day bowl as the Pac-12 champ, preferably against the Big 10 champ but at my age I can’t get picky NOW……
I'd modify that to wins over Furd, U$C and UC Los Angeles in the same season, something we haven't done since the 1958 season.
Actually, there are two freeways, the 210 and the 134, that pass quite close to the Rose Bowl, and the Pasadena Freeway is only about two or three miles away. As the crowds were around 100,000 for all three Rose Bowl games I attended, I ended up walking from at least a mile away so as not to have to deal with the traffic. I do the same for every game at Memorial.
Top 4 get byes, bottom 8 have a play in game, all based on seeding.
Also, it looks like the Top 4 have to be conference champions.
Significant detail to help each conference have a better shot.
Yeah, the only real weirdness here is if Notre Dame is a Top 4 ranked team but can't be a Top 4 seed (because they're not in a conference). I suspect this will be worked out, or maybe ND eventually relents and joins a conference.