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.

Jason cited sources.

Clearly, I am the Ayoobing idiot here, anyway. My apologies.

What gives!?!

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.

* 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.

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!

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.