Prepare Yourself For Potential Lameness
by Kevin HD on May 30, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
in Football
39 comments
The BCS and member schools are in the process of renewing their contract as the current one expires after the 2010 season. The AJC is reporting a slight change to the Rose Bowl selection process:
In past contracts if the Rose Bowl lost one of its traditional partners, the Big Ten or Pac-10 champ, to the BCS championship game, it could simply fill with another Big Ten or Pac-10 team that qualified. That's how a 9-3 Illinois team got to Pasadena two years ago.
Short break here to beat a tired drum. Teams that had a realistic shot at that spot, all records and rankings as of the time bowl selections were being made:
| Team | AP Rank | Record | Best Win |
| Arizona St. | #12 | 10-2 | vs NR Oregon St. (9-4) |
| Illinois | #13 | 9-3 | @ #1 Ohio State (11-1) |
| Boston College | #14 | 9-3 | @ #5 Virginia Tech (11-2 |
| Clemson | #15 | 9-3 | vs NR Wake Forest (8-4) |
And 'realistic' is a stretch here. They aren't going to pick Arizona St. to play another Pac-10 team in the Rose Bowl, obviously, and Clemson is DQ'd on account of losing to both BC and VT. So that really leaves just Illinois and BC, both with the same record. Illinois had a better 'best win' and is a Big Ten member; why does their inclusion is this game routinely get treated like some type of scam?
Anyway...
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.
So it would be just once, not perpetually, and is triggered only if the two conditions are met in the same year, which might not actually happen.
He goes on...
What's the significance of this, you ask? It is another way that the BCS is increasing access of the five Coalition conferences to all of the games in system. Should the BCS get sued and hauled back before Congress, it is another way it can counter the claim that the Coalition schools don't have enough access.
This doesn't make any sense.
What the Bloc has been bitching about, and having their congressmen bitch about, is not a lack of inclusion into the BCS games, but into the BCS Championship Game. This does nothing to address that.
All this does, really, is water down the Rose Bowl for the benefit of the other BCS games who, without the Coliseum's help, have been saddled with non-BCS schools since the Series expanded to five games in 2007.
Applied to Rose Bowl games since that happened:
2007: Rose Bowl matches USC vs. Boise State. Michigan is likely shipped to the Fiesta to play Oklahoma.
2008: Rose Bowl matches USC vs. Hawaii. Illinois is likely shipped to the Sugar to play Georgia.
2009: No change.
It has no impact on a Bloc team getting into the MNC, it has no impact on getting more than one Bloc team into a BCS game, and it has almost no impact on the other bowl teams selected with the potential exception being a Pac-10 or Big Ten team could get screwed for local reasons by a non-Rose Bowl selection committee.
So this isn't a concession on the behalf of the BCS, but a concession on behalf of the Rose Bowl. They were given a sweetheart deal to get them on board with the BCS idea in 1998, and it's only 12 years later than they are being forced, for one year anyway, to be a team player.
0 recs |
39 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
That pic freaked me out
I couldn’t remember Akron ever playing USC. Then I saw the winged helmet scribbled out in the background and figured out what was going on.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on May 30, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tired to make it legit but it wouldn’t fit, so I went with the MS Paint approach.
by Kevin HD on May 30, 2009 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Post-2007 season Rose Bowl options
Your list isn’t quite accurate.
The BCS bowl agreements required
BCS Title: Ohio State v. LSU
Rose: USC v. at-large (was Illinois)
Fiesta: Oklahoma v. at-large (was WVU)
Orange: VT v. at-large (was Kansas)
Sugar: at-large v. at-large (was Georgia v. Hawaii)
WVU (as the Big East champ) and Hawaii (as the highest rated non-BCS champ, and in the BCS top 12) were guaranteed spots
The Sugar had the right to keep another BCS bowl from taking an SEC team
The Rose had the right to keep another BCS bowl from taking a Big Ten team
Since Ohio State was ranked #1, the Rose Bowl had the first choice of eligible teams when filling its opening when they lost the Buckeyes to the BCS title game. So they were free to choose any team in the BCS top 14 that wasn’t already asigned to a game. The Sugar Bowl had the ability to prevent them from selecting #5 Georgia or #12 Florida, and probably would have exercised that right.
However, in addition to ASU, Illinois, BC, and Clemson, there were three really good options (#9 West Virginia, #8 Kansas, and #6 Missouri) as well as the bad option of taking Hawaii. If the Rose had taken WVU (which, being a Big East guy, I think would have been the best choice), Arizona State probably would have gone to the Fiesta (since it’s a virtual home game, and selling tickets does matter).
by drothgery on May 30, 2009 12:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You do have a point about the Rose Bowl picking first and thus having more options – but all of the other good options you mentioned made it anyway (with the exception of Missouri, who was booted by the two-teams-per-conference limit). So whether the Rose Bowl takes someone else or not, at some point the choice is among ASU, Illinois, and BC (Clemson didn’t make the top 14, so they’re out) for the last at-large. There’s a reasonable case for any of them, but the choice of Illinois is certainly not indefensible. Had ASU or BC been in the #6 spot instead of Missouri (and Missouri down around #12 or #14), then I could see why people would be upset about Illinois being picked over them.
by SpartanDan on May 30, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the order matters
It’s one thing if the Rose Bowl picked last or next to last and saw an opportunity to keep the Big Ten tie-in. I really think people get that. But they sacrificed a clearly better match-up-WVU, Kansas, or Mizzou for that tie-in which is why people weren’t exactly happy about the situation.
It’s not a defensible choice except as a nod to tradition. Just because some marginal teams were going to get into a BCS game doesn’t mean that the Rose Bowl had to pick one of them.
by DoubleB on May 30, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I agree with the premise that Illinois making the BCS really wasn’t absurd or wrong (though Mizzou was kinda screwed by the “only 2 per conference” rule). But the reason why people mock the Rose and their slavish devotion to Pac-10/Big Ten is because they choice an Illinois team over superior options, not that Illinois had no business as an at large at all.
by Laaaaazzz on May 30, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we giving people too much credit?
When I read the Rose Bowl-Illinois bashing, I’m always under the impression that it is because Illinois doesn’t belong in the BCS, not that the Rose Bowl blew it by picking them over a non-BT team. I mean the RB didn’t want to join the BCS because they wanted to stay true to the two conferences, so I don’t quite understand the backlash if it’s really about wanting USC-WVU at the expense of making the Fiesta Bowl suck more.
by Kevin HD on May 31, 2009 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the other thing is...
… that the Big Ten has always put two teams in the BCS as presently configured, and the Pac 10, Big East, and ACC never have. And while the Big Ten hasn’t done badly when playing teams other than USC (with the exception of the Ohio State-Florida BCS title game), there’s this bizarre notion out there that the Big Ten’s losing Rose Bowls because it sucks, rather than because Pete Carroll’s USC teams are just that good.
by drothgery on May 31, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arizona State
was 10-2 (not 9-2 as it states in your post). FWIW, I thought they were more deserving of an-large. In my opinion those were the only two viable choices.
But given the choice between some quality teams to set up against USC and then choosing an eventual 14-point underdog in Illinois when the Rose had clearly better options was a disappointment to say the least. I personally would have loved to see Mizzou in that game.
by DoubleB on May 31, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not really sure if you understand the 2 teams max per conference rule...
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 1, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It didn't affect the Rose Bowl
… since they picked first. It would have kept Kansas out of the Orange Bowl.
If the Rose took Missouri (or Kansas) after the 2007 season, it probably would have played out as …
Rose: USC v. Missouri (or Kansas)
Orange: VT v. WVU
Fiesta: Oklahoma v. Arizona State
Sugar: Georgia v. Hawaii (no change)
If the Rose took WVU, it probably goes like…
Rose: USC v. WVU
Orange: VT v. Kansas (no change)
Fiesta: Oklahoma v. Arizona State
Sugar: Georgia v. Hawaii (no change)
… though I’m largely guessing when I’m predicting the Fiesta would take home-town ASU over BC or Illinois or Hawaii.
by drothgery on Jun 2, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just pointing out that Mizzou was screwed no matter what
or Kansas would have been screwed.
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 2, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Either way
Either Missouri or Kansas was going to the Cotton Bowl. A perfectly acceptable destination.
As it was, the Orange Bowl picked who they wanted out of the two teams. Further, the Orange Bowl would be a much more traditional landing place for either Missouri or Kansas based upon their old Big 8 affiliation.
It makes sense to me that the Rose would stick with the Big Ten team, and allow the Orange to make the controversial call between the Kansas and Missouri, who both probably wanted to go to Miami anyway (as opposed to certain death in Pasadena).
There is a certain fung shue to all of this, that all worked out but for a few people druming up inequity where none existed to stump for a play off.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on Jun 2, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Helps Big Ten in Non BCS match ups
The new Rose Bowl strategy has the potential to help the Big Ten match ups in non BCS bowls. When 2 B10 teams are in BCS bowls then the other B10 teams get bumped up and play higher ranked teams (SEC #2 vs B 10 #3 etc). So the B10 may end up with a better win/loss bowl record but would lose out on a big payday from the Rose Bowl.
by ageing lion on May 30, 2009 1:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
this rule doesn't seem to prevent a Big 10/Pac-10 team from going to a BCS game
just from going to the Rose Bowl the first year that one of the Championship Game teams comes from one of those conferences. One of the other BCS bowls can still pick them, though.
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 1, 2009 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not just dumb, but sinister as well
To do this as a way of showing access for the five coalitions is pretty devious because it counts on one of the Big Ten teams to make it to the MNC game AND a five-Coalition team to make a good showing during the regular season AND have the computer’s/voter’s approval, all of which puts new barriers in a narrow avenue.
I know a lot of sports columnists are yelling for congress to stop these BCS inquires – their point being that they have “better things to do” – but I for one welcome. It’s not about the game, it’s about corruption and greed.
by Mr. Rosewater on May 30, 2009 1:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah, it counts on one of the Pac 10 teams too.
Forgot about them ;-)
by Mr. Rosewater on May 30, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm ok with this
The past two years the SEC has had to face Hawaii and Utah in the BCS in their at large games while we face USC and Texas. By forcing the Rose to take a mid-major team it increases to chances of an at-large B10 team getting a game against the SEC.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on May 30, 2009 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing.
If PSU deserves a BCS bowl, we will get one. We are a school with huge travelling crowds and will always be a big draw. I could give two craps If I fly to Pasadena or Scottsdale or the deep south. As long as it is a big bowl. I think this only really effects the likes of Illinois, because if the Rose skipped them, they would be out altogether, if the Rose has to bypass us, we would be far less likely to be skipped altogether.
Or something like that
Black Shoes.
Basic Blues.
No Name.
All Game.
by Roland86 on May 30, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I actually don’t mind this change at all. It allows potentially more freedom and or variation with the Rose Bowl (both in terms of opponent and or going to different BCS bowls) for either the Pac-10 or Big Ten. That’s a good thing.
by Laaaaazzz on May 30, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you guys are forgetting about getting the other end of this.
It would be great if (since this is hypothetical I’ll make it stupid) Northwestern goes to the MNC and, instead of PSU going to the RB as at at large against USC we were able to do something like the FSU-Orange Bowl. But what happens when PSU is the BT Champ, Oregon State goes to the MNC, and we are stuck facing Hawaii in the RB because of the auto-qualifier?
It’s all USC’s fault, though. Or everyone besides USC I guess. They’ve really ruined the whole thing by only having one champion for so long. It would still be a cool tradition if (1) OSU wouldn’t have ruined it by going to two MNCs and sending UM and IL as also-rans, and (2) USC wasn’t the auto-bid out of the stupid Pac-10 ever year.
by Kevin HD on May 31, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or that USC always loses a game
and doesn’t go play for the National Title. Which in many ways is really what the problem is.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on Jun 1, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
I’d think pollsters would know by now that if you have a choice between USC and Oklahoma teams with the same number of losses, you put USC in the title game and let Oklahoma lose the Fiesta Bowl.
by drothgery on Jun 2, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would think that
Pollsters don’t typically do things that make sense. You know that once again they’ll come to the conclusion that the Big 12 is the best conference (entirely based off of how teams faired against other teams within their own conference and completely ignoring the fact that there’s not a single top level non-con win) and decide to give OU another shot.
by Brett Brown on Jun 2, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah, they'll give it to Texas if they can
if there’s one thing I know about pollsters is they like to make up for past mistakes (as long as it isn’t in JoePa’s favor) and award championships/chances to teams who may have felt sleighted in previous years.
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 2, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Applying the rule to other BCS seasons
2005 season Rose Bowl
PSU Vs TCU
2004 season Rose Bowl
UM vs Utah
In 2002, there was no non-BCS team that qualified for a BCS bowl
by Brett Brown on May 31, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Man that woulda been a tough choice
I was already unhappy about FSU (except for the chance to directly take down Bowden again), but I don’t know if I woulda forked over the $$$$ for TCU
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 1, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playing in the Rose Bowl is a big deal
We take it forgranted, but to everybody not in the Big or Pac Tens it is like forbidden fruit. They want to go to the Rose Bowl. I’m not in favor of anything that breaks our leagues stranglehold on that game, least of all for the benefit of Utah, Hawai’i or Boise State.
So there, I’m and old money college football snob. Deal with it.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on Jun 1, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, and I don't like that we got rooked out of the Rose Bowl
in 2005. I think the Rose Bowl tooK Illinois with to make up for them not being able to take them in 2001 when they won the league and had to go to the Sugar Bowl.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on Jun 1, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2005 Rose Bowl
There was no snub of PSU for the 2005 Rose Bowl because it was the national championship game that year. They didn’t add the National Championship Game as a 5th BCS Bowl Game till after that year which is why PSU went to the Orage against FSU, and OSU beat up on ND in the Fiesta.
by bfapsu110 on Jun 2, 2009 3:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sure
But it still sucks.
Big Ten teams play for the Rose Bowl. It’s been that way for 50 or 60 years, that’s always been the deal. It sucks when you win the league and you don’t get the prize. It’s not that bad for us, we’ve been there twice recently, and we have a tradition of going to different Bowl Games.
But for Illinois in 2001 it had to suck, and hard. They hadn’t been to the Rose Bowl since 1984 or something like that. Imagine being Minnesota, or Michigan State, and having not won the league in really long time, finally geting it done, then still not getting to go to Pasadena. It would be a serious bummer.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on Jun 2, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and imagine if the Rose Bowl wasn't such a shitty stadium
seriously, do they have the original color scoreboard up in there?
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 2, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does everything have to be new?
or can one bowl game be played in an old stadium, or are we now required have Billion Dollar Stadiums for everything?
I mean it’s one game. All the more reason to leave it the way it is.
I was at Yankee Stadium last year, and it was neat, but I couldn’t imagine [let alone afford] having that be my home ball park. Narrow isles, not enough concessions, etc….in short, it wasn’t a nice as PNC Park [not even close]. History and goasts are nice, but I’ll need a clean bathroom next to a Quaker Steak and Lube if you want me to got to 20 or 30 games.
But for one day, can’t we just enjoy it for what it is. Let UCLA worry about.
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on Jun 2, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would be one thing if they never did any renovations
but at least in 1998 they converted (some?) benches to seats, so it isn’t like they’re completely resistant to change. Also, I’m pretty sure the scoreboards weren’t there since 1923.
And I’m not talking about getting one of those huge jumotrons like at the new Yankee Stadium (which are quite nice), but I think something that has pixels smaller than 4" where you can actually discern what is being shown on the board would be nice (and being visible in daylight would also be a plus).
The stadium actually wasn’t that bad, but there’s definitely room for improvement, without messing with “tradition” too much (at least no more than they already have)
by The JuggerNitt on Jun 2, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
At least they haven't added any ribbon screens
which would totally be used to display “game information and statistics, as well as interactive messaging for the crowd” and nothing else like say, 50-yards worth of Berks hot dog logos, or Nationwide Insurance logos.
by dawsonPSU10 on Jun 2, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And some cold pepsi!
Shop on, on, at Rockvale Outlets! Shop on, State!
DO YOU HAVE ANY PRIDE, DANNY?
by ReadingRambler on Jun 2, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's funny to me
Normally advertising is designed to capture your audience’s attention, most of the time it works, and they want to buy your product. But after having to suffer through one after the other of “Thanking our Corporate Sponsors” during every TV time out, or as soon as the Blue Band starts to play a song, I really have no desire to buy anything they’re advertising (minus the Pepsi, but other than just having a few jumbotron signs, i don’t recall pepsi actually being mentioned gratuitously, and also I loves it so).
by dawsonPSU10 on Jun 3, 2009 2:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
