Rose Bowl to Open Up to Non-BCS Teams in 2010

by War Eagle Atlanta on Jul 28, 2009 10:21 AM CDT

Rose_bowl_medium

According to ESPN, the Rose Bowl is set to open itself up to non-BCS teams for a run of three years, starting in 2010, assuming that the traditional qualifying teams from the PAC 10 and Big 10(11) get picked up for a BCS national championship title game. Here's the really strange part: the open slot MUST go to a non-BCS team and not to another perhaps more-qualified BCS team that has earned it's way into a BCS bowl game. In what appears to be CFB's version of bowl affirmative action, the Rose Bowl will give a shot to any deserving mid-major for this three year trial period. No mention yet if they may consider extending this charitable program, but similar to the Bush tax cuts, it'll probably be allowed to expire on it's own.

My question is this: in a time when the Rose Bowl has become virtually irrelevant in the national championship picture for decades as a result of being handcuffed to two waning and archaic conferences, why is it only opening up it's doors to the outsiders looking in? The other BCS bowls are open to the mid-majors, and Utah, Boise State and Hawaii have been given seats at the adults table the last decade, but why does the Rose Bowl risk a continued slide into mediocrity? Why not open it's doors to ANY qualified and attractive candidate? Other than BCS NC games played in Pasadena, the only time the Granddaddy of them allhas invited an outsider in the BCS era was after the 2004 season, when Texas played Michigan (and USC was playing Oklahoma instead of us in the Orange for all the marbles). The last time any southern teams played there was in 1945 when Tennessee lost to USC and 1946, when Alabama beat USC.

Sure, LSU came close to lobbying themselves in three years ago, but why not aim to get the most attractive teams that you can? Us that clout! Which teams among the rest of the BCS conferences wouldn't send all their fans to a game there? Be certain that I'm not suggesting making every BCS bowl to drop their long-standing affiliations, or am I? Would the major bowls be better off if they took turns each year getting to select the best teams available at the time (notwithstanding the BCS title game) or do you allow them to keep their tradition tie-ins (if they so choose). It's a question worth asking until we finally get the seeds of a playoff in the FBS.

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: Auburn Tigers, Syracuse Orange

Comments

I think you answered your own question. They don’t want the local favorites to lose to them dadgum southerners.

Isn’t it less risky to play those mid-tier teams? Yeah.

It is tacit admission that the SEC is tough.

by KungFuPanda9 on Jul 28, 2009 10:45 AM CDT reply actions

There goes the neighborhood.

ALABAMA leading the NCAA with infractions since 1994

by auskip07 on Jul 28, 2009 12:58 PM CDT reply actions

The Rose Bowl...

was single-handily responsible for putting southern football on the map back in the days when Alabama made the trip west a few times and earned (at least in their minds) all those national championships that don’t really exist (but I digress).

But maybe you’re right: they don’t want a repeat of Southern teams coming in an dominating their bowl like they’ve done with college football in general the last few decades…

by War Eagle Atlanta on Jul 28, 2009 1:48 PM CDT reply actions

Actually

I understand this little barb at Bama.

You see he is implying that Alabama going to the Rose Bowl is what jump started southern football (at least in the eyes of the media). Alabama going to the biggest game in the country and winning gained the respect for other programs in the south, which would go a long way towards setting up Alabama as one of the great traditions of college football
BUT

He’s an Auburn fan and to admit that in one sentence obviously would cause a physical reaction in his body that would force his brain to spew forth anti – Alabama comments in the form of the tried and true “them championchips ain’t real!” Auburn comment

I personally feel that every sane comment I make about Auburn must immediately be followed with hate filled rhetoric… if nothing else it feels like upholding an Iron Bowl tradition

WARNING small parts that could be a choking hazard

by Wallacewade04 on Jul 28, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Actually

I do give props to Alabama for those Rose Bowl wins in the 1920s and 1930s. They DID bring southern football recognition and pride and that fact is indisputable.

However, many Bammers think of those early Rose Bowl games as de facto MNCs and that is simply not true. Debate class can commence if anyone is interested.

by War Eagle Atlanta on Jul 28, 2009 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions

oh the classic argument

Well yes, they weren’t necessarily AP titles

But even an AP title is handed down through a sportswriter system, so a bunch of writers declaring the winner of the Rose Bowl (the only bowl at the time and the de facto meeting of two highly regarded teams in the post season) while not as offical can warrant a school to claim a title during a time when the concept of a consensus national champion was sixty seven years away and the cut off period for AP titles coming in 1936

the first “consensus national champion” as it were wouldn’t really happen until the first origin of the BCS in 1992 when Alabama and Miami met as 1 and 2 in the sugar bowl…can’t remember what that system was called however…

WARNING small parts that could be a choking hazard

by Wallacewade04 on Jul 28, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Not so much "hate[-]filled rhetoric"; more like rational common sense and logic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbBwfDr6_s

"Tigers make history. Undefeated, unmatched, undeniably the best team in Auburn football history, and the best team in the nation. They are YOUR NATIONAL CHAMPIONS, Auburn fans. The TIGERS are 13-0!" -- Rod Bramblett, AU Network, 01.03.05

by AUshorecm on Jul 28, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Blah blah blah

This is almost as lame as that Tennessee site everyone continued to link for awhile back

If you want to get down to the nuts and bolts of this horse that has been beat to a slow and painful death, then consult what the major sports outlets credit Alabama which is (most often) 7

Most sports outlets give all the Bear titles plus Gene in 92, but the Alabama faithful say 12 (with the ability to defend 11) giving us pride and it continues to annoy you

so win-win

now the argument about schools claiming titles before the AP was established based on Rose Bowl wins is a lot more fun than someone linking a post to an obviously slanted opinion Auburn fan youtube video

WARNING small parts that could be a choking hazard

by Wallacewade04 on Jul 28, 2009 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions

BAH

must read book… about guy living the bible….

must finish class to graduate….

must not waste time on Awbarn sites arguing same argument again and again…

Also somewhere there is a cynical college football fan saying

“None of em are real until we get a playoff!”

WARNING small parts that could be a choking hazard

by Wallacewade04 on Jul 28, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions

You miss or ignore the basis of the argument......

the titles that Bammers claim are not just false because of a lack of consensus. They are titles that were mostly awarded many many years after the actual season transpired by various organizations. AU has several of these organizations that have recognized their achievements from seasons long ago and we claim none of them……you know the funny thing is I am old enough to remember when the bammers didn’t claim them either.

I would have gone to bammer if my grades hadn't been good enough to go to AU

by Todd92 on Jul 30, 2009 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions

You almost done it!

I want to congratulate you on almost having an entire post before feeling insecure about Alabama football. The only national championships that don’t exist are in Auburn’s trophy case.

by danbama on Jul 28, 2009 3:06 PM CDT reply actions

I am confused by his post

but I think your post was out of line, frankly. It’s an Auburn blog, even the best of them will give us a hard time. I enjoyed the read.

We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love. It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love a changed person. ~W. Somerset Maugham

by BamaReturns07 on Jul 28, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions

The only national championships that don’t exist are in Auburn’s trophy case.

You are right man. That 1941 MNC that bama claims is totally legit.

by Jumpn_JackFlash on Jul 28, 2009 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Insecure?

Would it be out of line to rate your post as being insecure about his post. Seeing that he isnt stalking the other team like an “insecure” fan LOL

ALABAMA leading the NCAA with infractions since 1994

by auskip07 on Jul 28, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions

Get over yourselves.

It’s called a rivalry. Auburn makes jabs at alabama, Clemson makes jabs at South Carolina, Oregon makes jabs at Oregon State, etc. “You almost done it”… Tell me, where did you receive your education? Bubba’s I-20/59 truckin’ school in tuscaloosa?

by AUshorecm on Jul 28, 2009 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Great Thread WEA

We are not the same persons this year as last; nor are those we love. It is a happy chance if we, changing, continue to love a changed person. ~W. Somerset Maugham

by BamaReturns07 on Jul 28, 2009 3:18 PM CDT reply actions

I think that this

is a step in the direction of a playoff whether the Rose Bowl committee or anyone else involved knows it…

War Eagle

by WarEagle86 on Jul 28, 2009 4:07 PM CDT reply actions

As a Pac-10 Fan Let me Interject. I'll try to be rational.

First of all, most West Coast people welcome a college football playoff. If degrading the tradition that is the Rose Bowl by welcoming a Mountain West (or WAC) team to the Rose Bowl as a transition phase towards a playoff, I believe most Pac-10 fans would welcome it.

Moving on, I am assuming your main point is to ask why the Rose Bowl would want a Mountain West team over an SEC team.

Honestly, I can’t answer that. Suppose my beloved Cal wins the Pac-10 this year and earns their first Rose Bowl bid in over 50 years, however, Northwestern surprises everyone by going undefeated and plays in the National Championship game. Who would I rather play: Utah or Auburn? I would rather play the big name school from the big name conference.

Also suppose… USC goes undefeated and earns a National Championship berth, meanwhile Cal finishes second in the Pac-10 at 11-1, and earns an at-large berth. This rule dictates that if a top-12 non-bcs team exists, we would be blocked from the Rose Bowl. I do not like this rule for that reason. It is harder for Pac-10 and Big-10 teams to receive a bid from their own bowl. Furthermore, we would subesequently end up in Arizona (most likely), but potentially Miami or New Orleans.

As for the Rose Bowl being irrelevant in the national title discussion. You claim it has been irrelevant for decades, I would like to remind you that Michigan won a share of the national title by winning the Rose Bowl in the year prior to the BCS (‘97). Washington also won a share of the title by winning the Rose Bowl in 1991. During the BCS era, that claim doesn’t make sense, since the BCS was designed to host a national championship game. Therefore, any other bowl game has been stripped of national title implications.

Regarding the notion that the Pac-10 or the Big-10 simply doesn’t want to play the SEC I believe a reality check is in order. The SEC has the best bowl line-up in college football. You have the biggest pay-outs, the closest games (geographically), and the highest caliber of opponents. Now you are clamouring for the Rose Bowl?!?! Seriously?!?!? It doesn’t make sense geographically, and it doesn’t make sense economically. If you want to make the argument for better match-ups, perhaps you should not direct your anger towards the Rose Bowl committee, but rather towards your own athletic director who turned down an opportunity to play UCLA in the Georgia Dome. That would have been the quasi-Rose Bowl match-up you are seeking.

I would also like to note that during the BCS era, the Pac-10 has not been aided in placing a team in both the nation title game and the Rose Bowl. The Big-10 has with the horrendous choice to pair Illinois with USC a few years back. In both 2004 and 2005, the Pac-10 had one loss teams, in both instances neither team was chosen for the Rose Bowl. Oregon in 2005 didn’t make sense considering USC was already in the Rose bowl against Vince Young and Texas, but again the Big-10 was given favoritism, and both Ohio St & Penn St were selected for BCS games (leaving Oregon on the outside). Furthermore, that doesn’t dispute that Cal got shafted, much like Auburn in 04.

My conspiracy theory (completely unsubstantiated): The BCS is considering adding the Mountain West as a BCS conference, particularly if Boise St joins their conference. Both Sugar Bowls involving non-BCS teams yielded little fan support from their non-BCS representative (Utah 09, Hawaii 08). However, in both instances the travel distances were extensive, therefore this rule allows for a trial run in the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl is much easier to get to for most of the BCS gatecrashers (Boise St, Utah, BYU). If they still lack fan support, they have ample evidence it is not in the BCS’ financial interests to add the Mountain West as a BCS conference.

by chowder on Jul 28, 2009 6:41 PM CDT reply actions

Your post are too long. All i see is BLAH BLAH BLAH

ALABAMA leading the NCAA with infractions since 1994

by auskip07 on Jul 28, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions

Why would you say that? I thought he made a rational reasonable argument. Please tell me that you are capable of reading things longer than 1 page in length.

by Jumpn_JackFlash on Jul 29, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions

Seconded

you come off like a dick on this one skip

"Jay Jacobs can't go to the bathroom without Bobby Lowder's permission" - Paul Finebaum

by GumptownTiger on Jul 31, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions

Auburn/UCLA

Believe me, I DO blame our AD for turning down the UCLA game. I saw him at an Auburn baseball game this spring, walked by him, and simply said “UCLA.” I think he knew what I thought of him.

by AUshorecm on Jul 28, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions

The Pac-10 guy presents a reasonable Pac-10 fan argument.

As a kid, my impression of the Rose Bowl was that it was intended to be a showcase for a California team against an opponent usually out of their regular conference play. I still kinda feel that way.

It is true that the Rose Bowl was the Super Bowl of college football back in the old days (like when Notre Dame was good).

I wouldn’t say SEC teams are clamoring to play in the Rose Bowl. Not so much anymore. That ship has sailed. But the conference does have a chip on its shoulder from preceived slighting by talking heads on ESPN who we believe influence BCS voting. The Rose Bowl selection was/is symptomatic of that same perceived anti-SEC snobbery.

by KungFuPanda9 on Jul 29, 2009 2:42 AM CDT reply actions