Idiots Write About Sports

USC loses to Oregon State.

Other than suggesting that USC is more beatable than I previously hoped, I’m not sure it matters much. Barring anything too insane, Cal still needs to beat USC to play in the Rose Bowl. The old hope of Cal backing into the Rose Bowl via USC’s berth in the National Champonship Game is gone, but was there anyone out there who seriously thought USC was going to go undefeated? No, I didn’t expect OSU to beat them, but between Oregon, Cal, UCLA, and Notre Dame, I figured someone would give them a loss.

That's about right, Cal still needs to beat USC to control its own destiny. However, it also means that if Oregon or UCLA can beat USC, Cal doesn't need to beat USC to win the conference.

I worry that this a bad thing:

http://mercextra.com/blogs/collegesports/2006/10/28/down-goes-usc-and-thats-bad-news-for-cal/

I think Wilner's being a little bit overdramatic. This is bad for Cal because Cal prefers the role of underdog? Hmmm?

Posted by Jason at October 29, 2006 07:18 AM

I agree with Ken's comment. Cal still has to beat USC but now has other ways to win the conference, securing a Rose Bowl berth.
Also, even if USC had stayed undefeated it was unlikely that Cal backs into the Rose Bowl. A 10-2 Cal team probably does not stay in the top 14 of the BCS rankings. Especially after the way voters dropped us after the Tennessee loss.

Post a comment