<p>Byerly, the Rose Bowl is not the championship game this year (like it was last year). We are talking about going to the championship game instead of the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, there is no "mystery" in the computer polls. In fact, it's fairly straightforward. The computers are simple as simple can be: they have no bias, they go by numbers, and they calculate the data and rank teams accordingly. The computers do not operate like human pollsters- for example, the WV vs. Louisville winner will not necessarily get a boost of one or two spots in the computers because of a victory, nor will an undefeated run through the Big East earn that team a #4 spot in the computers. Again, you have to distinguish computers from humans. On the computers, the Pac-10 is more highly rated than the SEC or Big East, that's indisputable. On the computers, the value of quality wins across the Pac-10 week in and week out is more impressive than two BIG victories by an SEC team. As it registers with humans, BIG victories seemingly define teams, define seasons, but we forget that Auburn will not leave the South ONCE this season, or that Texas did not leave the state of Texas for several weeks into the season, or the cupcake games that LSU played in between marquee matchups. Computers don't forget, computers factor all of this into its equations.</p>
<p>Cal fans are saying a lot of "crazy," "unlikely," or "wild" things MUST happen for the Bears to make their way into the NC game. Not so. Fact is, we ALREADY hold the number 3 position in the polls, and that's not likely going to change.* What we need is pollsters to start voting for Cal. Once that happens, then we have, statistically, a legitimate shot at the Fiesta. Note that even if WV were to be ranked #1 in the Harris and Coaches polls, their current #14 ranking in the computers will effectively leave them OUT of the NC game. An undefeated Big East team in the NC game is NOT a given. As for the Michigan-OSU rematch scenario: I think pollsters will understand that nobody in the world wants to see the same teams play each other again; this, along with the fact that the game is late in the season, I can easily see pollsters dropping the loser of the game to #6 or #7 to prevent the BCS average from allowing such a game to be replayed. </p>
<ul>
<li>Probably the biggest obstacle for us is Florida. Their computer average is high and will only get higher through the end of the season. Their rankings in the human polls are also high. We need the Gators to lose to have a shot at the NC game. Also, since Auburn is right on their heels, we need the team that beats Florida to be any other team besides Auburn. Arkansas, as mentioned before in this thread, might be our savior.</li>
</ul>
<p>g1a2b3, I'm pretty sure Byerly mentioned the Rose Bowl because (1) it's more meaningful for a Pac-10 team historically and geographically, in addition to the fact that we haven't won the Rose Bowl in half a century; and (2) the Rose Bowl is arguably the most prestigious of the bowls, "The Grandaddy of 'Em All."</p>
<p>ttgiang15,</p>
<p>When I say we don't understand it, I meant we don't understand how exactly the numbers will change. I didn't mean what computer rank is. Do you know how exactly schedule strength is calculated and how it's accounted by the 6 computers? I don't and I don't think you do given that you said Cal's computer rank would unlikely change. I think it will drop. The schedule strength of Cal's remaining games is much weaker than UWV/Louisville. Of the 4 teams remaining on Cal's schedule, only one has a winning record (playing Stanford/Arizona is gonna hurt probably a lot). On the other hand, the Big East hasn't played many conference games against each other yet. I don't know why you say the computer thinks Pac10 is better (though I wish) when Big East hasn't played majority of their own games yet. All of the 5 teams on UWV's remaining schedule have winning record at this point. UWV has played only 2 conference games against the worst teams in the Big East. It's computer rank is therefore low right now and not a true indication of the strength of BigEast. It's like Cal playing Arizona and Stanford only.</p>
<p>Giang, byerly said "Ideally, it will be Cal vs Ohio State or Michigan." I think he's clearly confusing it with the championship game. Also, you seem to confuse the Fiesta Bowl with the championship game--this year, for the first time, the championship game is a stand-alone game; while it's in Arizona and sponsored by Tostitos, it's not the Fiesta Bowl.</p>
<p>9o0</p>
<p>I'm not confusing anything. I'd prefer to see Cal vs the Ohio State/Michigan loser in the Rose Bowl.</p>
<p>I'm not confusing anything, either. The National Championship is merely "Fiesta Bowl 1a," whether or not you identify it as such.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, and yet the lower-tier Big East teams have benefitted from playing the top-tier Big East teams. A Connecticut and Syracuse's SOS is higher than it should be, and that's reflected in WV or Louisville's computer average as well. So even if WV plays Louisville, Connecticut will play Syracuse and WV's victory over the latter teams will be weakened. Again, it's not an issue of the top teams playing one another, but the overall conference strength through the entire season. So what if we play Arizona and Stanford? If Oregon State and Washington State keeps winning, our computer average goes up as well because we soundly beat these teams.</p>
<p>If you are interested in knowing how the each computer ranking works, feel free to read up on them through the BCS website. I'm fairly confident with my predictions, and I feel comfortable in their coming into fruition.</p>
<p>It's a good idea you all check out the BCS website. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bcsfootball.org%5B/url%5D">http://www.bcsfootball.org</a></p>
<p>for information on who plays in which bowl game.... The Pac-10 winner usually plays in the Rose Bowl but there are exceptions, too many to list. The rules are listed and very clear.</p>
<p>Hm, I guess I just couldn't understand why one would prefer the Rose Bowl to the National Championship.</p>
<p>ttgiang15,</p>
<p>I have already read some of the technical background of the computer rankings but I don't claim to be an expert. I don't think you are either.<br>
Couple computer ratings I saw put Big East right behind Pac10 in terms of conference ratings. The difference is small; yet you seemed to imply the difference is significant; maybe you can also "feel free to read up on them through the BCS site".</p>
<p>Most of us know what will be "higher" and "weakened" but no one knows exactly how much "higher" or "weakened" they <em>will</em> be. You didn't offer anything new. That was my point. To say Cal's computer rank won't change or remain way ahead of a certain team in the end is simply premature.</p>
<p>Hey everyone, long time no see.</p>
<p>Great season so far, it's going to come down to the USC game for the Roses. Nowadays fans have their focus on the NC game, but for us alums the Rose Bowl is still the holy grail, until we get there at least. </p>
<p>Furthermore, this season is no fluke or cyclical peak, we should be even better next year as the program gets further along into the Tedford era. We are now redshirting top-flight recruits, the talent level is still rising. If we win the Rose Bowl this year, we will get a lot of #1 preseason votes for the next...</p>
<p>CalX, Nice to have you back. Great time to be a Cal student!
Are you coming to the UCLA game?</p>
<p>Thanks '06. Great time indeed. Unfortunately I won't be able to fly in for UCLA, I've already taken a whole month off. I'm shooting for the Big Game though. </p>
<p>Keep Memorial rocking!</p>
<p>ttgiang15,</p>
<p>Cal's computer rank dropped, just as I predicted! Now it should be very clear to you, as I pointed out earlier, that Cal needs Louisville to lose to have a chance for NC game.</p>
<p>Between Louisville and West Virginia, the latter had a stronger computer average. If WV had won, the latest ratings would not be the case. As some analysts have mentioned, if Rutgers- a Big East team- runs the table, it'd be difficult for them to make up the margins in all of the polls. Louisville is not the rule, but an anamoly in the Big East Case. </p>
<p>One last point: it's only been one game. Everything will right itself by season's end.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Louisville's computer ranking was #9 last week. It's a big jump of 6 spots in just one game. I predicted it would go up while you were saying there might be no change. The 6-spot jump is a result of the strength of the Big East, not the lack of it like you were thinking. Contrary to what you said, computer rank can fluctuate more than human poll. After I said computer ranking was like a black box, you said computer rank was "fairly straight forward" and told me to look up the BCS website for better understanding. It's also pretty clear I said UVW OR Louisville. Let's be honest, you didn't think Louisville would jump that high, otherwise you wouldn't said the biggest obstacle was Florida in your grand analysis. As I speculated, Cal's computer ranking did drop (you were overconfident and wrong again); while it has USC on its schedule, it also has the worst two teams in Pac-10 to deal with. We just don't know how exactly this combination would do to its final computer ranking. Rutgers may have too much of the margin to make up for NC game if it runs the table but I suspect those analysts were talking about margin between it and teams like Florida/Auburn/Texas, not Cal. Rutgers computer rank is #9 right now, just like Louisville was just last week. You just don't know what would happen if they did beat Louisville and UWV.</p>
<p>Wow, are you serious? I actually wrote a long-winded post, but deleted it in favor of a shorter one in post 36. My original was something to the effect of: "How immature! Going back to a dead thread to say 'I told you so.'" Funny my comments from this morning are still appropriate. </p>
<p>Read my words again. I simply gave an example that whatever happens in the human polls will not necessarily be mirrored in the computers. Look at your very next response where you stated: "I didn't mean what computer rank is"- you obviously thought- and rightfully so- that I was explaining the nature of computer polls and not describing a specific situation. Even look at the words you so kindly put in quotes, "not necessarily." Taking my comments out of context is not nice.</p>
<p>As you call it, my "grand analysis," that's what it is: the whole scheme of things. As I mentioned in my more civil post in post 36: 'One last point: it's only been one game. Everything will right itself by season's end..' But you choose to ignore, and selected to flame some more.</p>
<p>You're quite a character. I'm sure at the end of your posts, you like to pat yourself on the back and think you've made some wonderful points. I backed off five days ago and refrained from commenting, and I had hoped you would take the high road as well. Little did I know you'd gain a degree of confidence from that lack of a response. Well, here's an invitation for you to feel even better about yourself...</p>
<p>Note how I pointed out the flaws of your analysis instead of making reference to your character and maturity. You, on the other hand, was doing the latter.</p>
<p>Are we still ranked #10? I would figure that with Tenessee losing we would be 9ish now.</p>