Does Cal Still Get To A Bowl Game?
Well, it’s Monday morning, as good a time as any to get the bad news out of the way, I suppose. Let’s start with the current Pac-10 standings:
Pac-10 Standings
| Team | Wins | Losses |
| Arizona State | 6 | 1 |
| Oregon | 5 | 2 |
| USC | 5 | 2 |
| Oregon State | 5 | 3 |
| UCLA | 4 | 3 |
| Arizona | 4 | 4 |
| California | 3 | 5 |
| Stanford | 2 | 6 |
| Washington | 2 | 6 |
| Washington State | 2 | 6 |
Yep, that’s Cal all the way down there, firmly in 7th place, ahead of only Stanford and the Washington schools. Ugh. Now, because the Apple Cup is the only Pac-10 game left for UW and WSU, Cal cannot finish last in the Pac-10, but a loss to Stanford in the Big Game would mean a 3-way tie for 7th place, a finish so disappointing I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around it.
In fact, even should Cal win the Big Game, the best they could finish would be in a 3-way tie for 5th place, which would happen if Arizona and UCLA both lost out (a distinct possibility, as neither should be favored in any of their remaining games). Honestly, even this result is depressingly mediocre. I suppose I should stop showing the standings, as at this point, they’re basically irrelevant. All that matters is retaining the Axe. We CANNOT lose the Axe. Heads might roll if we do.
So you think this team deserves a bowl game as a reward? I don’t, at least not at this point. Still, the Pac-10 has contractual obligations to fill, so odds are, Cal will still get an invitation to a bowl game. However, those odds are no longer as overwhelming as they once were. The Holiday and Sun Bowls are now both mathematically out of reach, and while the lesser bowls are looking more and more likely, so too is the dreaded ‘no bowl’ result. Here’s your updated bowl odds for this week:
Armed Forces - 39.37% - Yes, the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl in Ft. Worth, Texas is now the most likely destination for our Bears. If either UCLA or Arizona manage to become eligible for a bowl, this is probably where Cal falls to. Thud.
No Bowl - 33.58% - That’s right, there’s now a 1 in 3 chance that Cal will miss bowl season entirely. If both UCLA and Arizona become bowl eligible, they will both finish ahead of Cal in the Pac-10 standings, and their wins will means bad losses for ASU and either Oregon or USC, which probably keeps the Pac-10 from sending two teams to the BCS. Worse still, Cal no longer controls its destiny here; the results are the same whether Cal manages to bounce back and beat Stanford or not.
Of course, as long as Cal beats Stanford, they’ll finish the season 7-5, which makes them a viable free agent for any bowls looking for at-large candidates, of which there will probably be a couple. There’s still a lot of football left to play, but if UCLA manages to knock off a Dixon-less Oregon this weekend, we’ll look at the doomsday scenarios next week.
Emerald - 15.00% - At this point, Cal has disappointed us all so much that I can no longer assume that the Emerald would reach down and take Cal instead of a team that finished ahead of them in the standings. The 15% represents the probability that the Pac-10 gets two teams in the BCS and both UCLA and Arizona lose out, thus leaving the Emerald no choice but to take Cal.
Las Vegas - 12.05% - This number assumes that either a) the Pac-10 fails to get two teams in the BCS, or b) UCLA or Arizona manage to get eligible, but not both. If you think that the Emerald will still take Cal over a team that finished above them in the standings (and if the Nut Bowl has a choice between Cal and a UCLA team that crapped out against a middling Florida State team in the Emerald last year, I’d have to think they’d want Cal), add this number to the one above. Notice that 27.05% is still less than either of the other two possibilities.
To get Cal into the best bowl game possible, here’s your rooting guide for the rest of the season:
Nov. 24
Oregon over UCLA
Dec. 1
USC over UCLA
Oregon over Oregon State
Arizona State over Arizona
Although I think USC would travel well anywhere as a BCS at-large, it would also help if the Fiesta Bowl had an at-large slot or two. Thus, Kansas winning out and getting to the BCS title game would be a good result, as would the winner of the WAC (Hawai’i or Boise State) failing to get a BCS bid. Arizona State reaching the BCS title game would also help, but I think that would mean not only them winning out, but Kansas losing to Missouri, and then Missouri losing to Oklahoma in the Big XII title game. West Virginia losing to Connecticut would also help, or at least not winning impressively. Lots of intricate possibilities here; we’ll discuss next week.
I’m not sure how this plays out in reality but am I right in remembering that a bowl can not take a 6-6 team when a 7-5 team is available? Does that apply to within the conference contracts as well? If it does, then the Big Game is still very important as it means that an ax-holding Cal will go to a higher bowl than Arizona no matter what and to a higher bowl than UCLA if they go either 1-1 or 0-2 against Oregon and USC.
Assuming that my above understanding of 6-6 vs. 7-5 is all wrong, I’m not sure how your game winner odds math works out but it feels wrong that there is a 33% chance that ALL of the above happens:
-Arizona beats ASU
-UCLA beats either Oregon and/or USC
-The Pac-10 only gets one BCS berth
All those things falling into place only feels like a 10% chance to me particularly since I think any 10-2 Pac-10 team, whether that be Oregon, ASU or USC will get an at-large berth if they’re not in the Rose Bowl.
Comment by Ken Crawford — November 19, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Ken,
The 6-6 vs. 7-5 rule only applies to at-large bowl berths. Within the context of Pac-10 bowl contracts, bowls must go in the order of standings, regardless of overall record, unless there is a tie or one of the teams has an overall losing record. There may be other provisions (I think the Emerald and Vegas bowls can do some switching to create desireable matchups), but if Arizona and UCLA are both ahead of us, I think we lose out.
Admittedly, these percentages are coming from a fairly simplistic model, so my listing of them to hundredths of a percent is definitely overkill; they’re not that accurate at all, and only meant to give an idea of magnitude. I agree with you that the 33% feels too large, but I do think it’s probably larger than 10%.
I think if both of the first two things you listed happen, that would cause the third thing (Pac-10 not getting two in the BCS) to happen as well. And while UCLA won’t be favored in either of its last two game, it won’t be a huge underdog either, so the odds that it wins one of its final two are pretty good. Arizona is more of a longshot, but computers (such as Sagarin’s, whose numbers I borrowed for this experiment) like them a lot more after they beat Oregon, who just beat Arizona State a couple weeks before.
I agree, a 10-2 Pac-10 team will get a BCS at-large, but remember, USC plays at ASU on Thursday night as well, a guaranteed loss for someone, and Oregon already has two losses, and they have two tough games left without Dennis Dixon. This doomsday scenario is not likely, but it is very, very possible.
Comment by ragnarok — November 19, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
The more I think about it, the more I think I’m giving too much credit to underdogs. Perhaps 20% is closer to the actual odds of Cal missing out on Pac-10 bowl games.
Comment by ragnarok — November 19, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Off topic
I for one find one positive in the Bears sucking this year: That JT is NOT a front running candidate for the Michigan job. And yes it does suck that Cal sucks this year, but at least Tedford stays for at least one more year and more (assuming Cal gets a good ruling on the “stadium” suit). Thin about it. Say Cal is undefeated or a one loss team, wouldn’t JT be as equally viable a candidate as Less Miles for the Michigan job?
Comment by oaktownmario — November 19, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Also, you could root for USC to beat Arizona State, and for Arizona State to win the Territorial Cup. That will eliminate Arizona, and either USC or Oregon and ASU will have BCS bids. That’ll be two Pac-10 reps.
The 33% logic is a little faulty. Arizona would have to beat ASU, and they’d still only be 6-6–bowl-eligible, but not necessary bowl-invite. Cal’s collapse has been painful, but they still control their own fate–win the Big Game and they go to a bowl, lose it and they still go to a bowl.
Then again, I’ve been wrong about all my projections the last month and a half. So why listen to me?
Comment by Avinash — November 19, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
We don’t deserve to go to any bowl this year and should decline any invitations that might reluctantly arrive on our doorstep.
In reply to Oaktownmario, I don’t think this one season rule Tedford out for the Michigan job. It certainly puts him behind Les Miles (former Michigan player and assistant coach)). But if the job were offered, this season certainly makes it MORE likely that he would jump.
Comment by nonplussed — November 19, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
I guess that kind of depends on what type of person Tedford is, nonplussed. Is the type of person who would jump ship when the going gets tough? Or is he the type of person who would want to “conquer” a situation before moving on?
I’d like to think he is more the latter than the former. Although that could lead to the unfortunate situation of Tedford winning the Rose Bowl and bolting for greener pastures. But perhaps the disaster of this season only makes Tedford’s resolve to stay at Cal that much stronger.
I know it seems counter intuitive, but that is the way I hope it is. For all of our sakes!
Comment by TwistNHook — November 19, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
We may not “deserve” a bowl but should take an invitation nonetheless just for the money and publicity. Big picture. Big picture.
Comment by HydroTech — November 19, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Love the post, but I think you’re wrong.
* 7-5 teams must be taken over 6-6 teams as long as there are slots available. 6-6 teams are only bowl eligible if there is no 7-5 team free to take conference-contracted slots. Quoting bowl guru Jerry Palm of collegebcs.com here: “A team that finishes 6-6 is eligible to fill a bowl contract for its own conference, but only if no team from its conference with a better record is available.” As a result, a 7-5 Cal team is ahead of any 6-6 team in the pecking order.
* Bowls do not have to make picks entirely based on record. My understanding is that the Emerald Bowl would likely take Cal if it’s available an eligible solely based on selling tickets for a local team. To quote Palm again, “Except for the champion, [bowl orders] do not necessarily relate directly to conference standings. For example, in the Big Ten, the Capital One bowl gets the second choice of teams from the Big Ten. They are not required to take the second place team. Conference tiebreakers are meaningless. Other things like TV appeal, fan interest, how recently a team has appeared in a bowl have more bearing than conference standings, within some reasonable parameters that vary from bowl to bowl.”
So I think “no bowl” is not nearly as likely as you think it is.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Jason,
How can you love my post if you think I’m so off base?
Your first point is absolutely correct, and I’ll have to redo my projections to account for it. Thanks for letting me know!
Your second point, well, I’m not so sure about. I haven’t been able to find confirmation or refutation of it anywhere, but my understanding is that the Pac-10, unlike many other conferences, forces its bowl partners to pick in the order of standing, with the bowl getting the choice in the case of a tie. Many other conferences, such as the Big 10 and the ACC, do not require this. Of course, what I’ve heard is that because the Emerald and Las Vegas Bowls have a rotating pick agreement, the Emerald could select Cal even if they finished 5th (or 6th, and two Pac-10 teams got in the BCS). In general, however, Pac-10 bowls are not allowed such freedom.
Comment by ragnarok — November 19, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
I don’t know the answer to that one, but we certainly know from experience that the Pac-10 doesn’t require strict adherence to conference standing in bowl selection order. In 1996, we went to the Aloha Bowl (painful memories of Mooch in flowered shirt) despite having the same record (6-6) as WSU, and despite having lost to them head-2-head. Yes, the records were the same. But if the Aloha was required to strictly follow conference standing, they would have been stuck with WSU and their measely TV market.
Comment by Tony — November 19, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
WHAT!?! So when I brings up the 7-5 rule Ragnarok is all “you’re a ayoobing idiot”. But when Jason brings it up, he’s all “I bow at the feet of your fact finding genius”.
What gives!?!
Comment by Ken Crawford — November 19, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
Ken,
Jason cited sources.
Clearly, I am the Ayoobing idiot here, anyway. My apologies.
Comment by ragnarok — November 19, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
It’s because he’s impressed with the size of my zoom lens, Ken.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Tony,
In the case of teams with the same record, there is no tiebreaker involved. Both are considered to have finished in the same place, and the head-to-head result doesn’t matter at all. Bowls are free to choose from any tied teams.
Comment by ragnarok — November 20, 2007 @ 12:48 am