To: pete anderson
They didn't win the PAC-10. It's that simple.
They didn't win the PAC-10. It's that simple. Texas didn't win the Big 12 either - So that means very little - And the fact is, Cal lost to the higer rated opponent (USC #1) than Texas (OK #2) -
Same thing happened to Texas Last year.
The system is bad and a few teams get screwed every year.
That sounds like a typically idiotic statement from some biased college football fan from east of the Divide. So what if Cal didn't win the Pac-10? Texas didn't win the Big-12 either! Put your unbiased goggles on and look at both teams...Aaron Rodgers is a 1st round pick and the Cal offense is a 2-dimensional wonder. Texas couldn't pass gas, much less a football. Who's whining? It certainly isn't Cal...Mack Brown has been whining for the past 2 weeks and evidently it paid off. Maybe after this season, the Pac-10 will tell the BCS and everybody else to go screw themselves. The Pac-10 should tell everybody that if their league champion goes to the BCS championship, then their league runnerup will go to the Rose Bowl. Cal got screwed worse than USC did last year. Yet, in both years, both Pac-10 schools reacted with complete class. Unlike, Texas and Auburn...neither team could hold USC's, Oklahoma's or Cal's jock strap.
No, it's not that simple.
Cal lost to USC, the number 1 team in the country. Traditionally, the Pac 10 and Big 10 play in the Rose, before the BCS got to it and loused it up.
Stated simply, Texas cried on the kneecaps of the sports writers, and the press being mostly liberal, refused to acknowledge that Cal was a stronger team this year.
By your logic, Texas shouldn't have lost to whoever they lost to this year either.
posted on 12/06/2004 6:45:25 AM PST
(The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson