For Cal fans, the 2004 season was particularly bittersweet. Having arguably - or inarguably - outplayed the eventual National Champions en route to a 23-17 loss in the Coliseum and a 10-1 overall record, the Golden Bears appeared at the very least to be on their way to their first Rose Bowl since 1959. Enter Mack Brown, whose nancy-boy whining helped ensure that a generation of Californians will never be named 'Mack.' But Cal fans could at least console themselves with the upward trend of their program and a 'Wait Till Next Year..."

Several times since 2004 'Next Year' seemed to have arrived. 2006, when a longer than regulation blade of grass in the Arizona desert thwarted a Pac-10 championship caliber season. 2007, which will not be mentioned again. Alas, it was not to be.

Whether 2009 follows a similar trajectory remains to be seen, however, new obstacles to the promised land loom on the horizon. Namely, ESPN.

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blog (HT: Dr. Saturday):

But in the new contract, I'm told, there is an interesting clause: The first time in the deal that the Rose loses one of its champions to the BCS title game, that opening will be automatically filled by a Coalition (non-BCS conference) team if one has qualified.

For example: Let's say Southern Cal wins the Pac-10 and qualifies for the BCS championship game in 2010. And let's say Utah or Boise State goes undefeated again the wins the Mountain West or WAC. That team, if it doesn't get into the big game, would automatically go to the Rose, where no Coalition team has played before.

In practice what this means is that if Cal does not make the Rose Bowl in 2009 either as an at-large or Pac-10 champion, it will not make it the first year eligible beginning in 2010 if it cannot win the conference - assuming there is a non-Big Six team who qualifies. This seems a safe bet given that Utah earned one last year (and TCU was eligible), Hawaii qualified in 2007, Boise St. in 2006, and Utah in 2004.

Now, factor in the fact that the Pac-10 is seriously weighing returning to unbalanced schedules and a far-fetched but awful possibility emerges.

Say that USC - to pick a team at random - wins the Pac-10 in 2010 but isn't invited to the MNC, thereby assuring it yet another Rose Bowl. Cal, due to its propensity be sick wit it in odd numbered years, blows the doors off the Pac-10 in 2011 and finishes with an undefeated league record, but stumbles in non-conference play. Meanwhile, as unbalanced scheduling has returned, Cal happens to miss another team that also finishes with an undefeated league record, say Oregon. Now it's a coin flip to determine who is the Rose Bowl representative and Oregon wins (this is Cal we're talking about), but due to some odd events in the SEC and Big XII championship games, Oregon is suddenly eligible for the MNC. Based on the information given thusfar, it seems possible that Cal would then be excluded from the Rose Bowl - assuming Utah/TCU/Boise St has qualified - because the Pac-10 champion would be in the BCS Championship game.

What do you think? Does this change your opinion of whether or not we should return to unbalanced scheduling? Institute a playoff? Take our ball and go home? What other implications does this new wrinkle have that I missed?