Editorial: Bowl Hopes Dashed

By all accounts, Cal got screwed on Sunday. It seemed like we had the Rose Bowl in the bag for the last four weeks, only to be cheated out of our deserved Pasadena berth at the last second.

Texas inched ahead in computer polls after our lukewarm performance against Southern Mississippi Saturday, and Cal was beaten out of the No. 4 BCS spot by .0129 out of a possible 1. No. 1 USC ended up with a final BCS average of .9770, Texas with .8476 and Cal with .8347.

Whatever happened to the traditional Pac-10/Big Ten Rose Bowl matchup? Cal should have been the ones proving their superiority over Michigan, not Texas. But for the third time in four years, the Rose Bowl will not be a match between Pac-10 and Big Ten.

Not making it to a BCS bowl has deeper implications than just our team's, students' and fans' disappointment. Cal lost out on a windfall it would have received for playing in the Rose Bowl, money sorely needed if we ever plan on renovating Memorial Stadium or updating our football team's facilities. While a smaller sum will come our way as a result of the Holiday Bowl, it will not cover much stadium expenses.

Most will admit that the BCS is a flawed system of ranking college football teams, and for the past few years, several teams have found themselves in situations similar to ours-it even happened to Texas last year. But the BCS is a better system than nearly any other, barring an extensive playoff series that would take up much of our student athletes' time and make regular season games less important.

The BCS is a complicated ranking system that few but the experts really understand-some journalists make their living strategizing and analyzing the thousands of possible BCS outcomes every week. But when football teams find themselves unfairly snubbedby the BCS year after year, it is clear that the system is not working. The question is how it can be improved upon.

Tags: