So what the hell does this part of the article trying to say? "Resolution of the issue was made possible when the Rose Bowl agreed to open a slot for coalition qualifiers under certain conditions. The most likely scenario is if the Rose loses either the Pac-10 or Big Ten champion to the BCS title game (No. 1 vs. No. 2). It was not immediately known how often coalition qualifiers would play in any of the four bowls." This tells me that USC does not play the Rose Bowl. They play in the NC only and that the Rose would have to choose a coalition team to replace them. The scenario you present makes no sense whatsoever and not even the NCAA could come up with something that screwy.
no i guess there's no way that could happen. it would have to only work if not #1 and #2 they retain the champs of pathetic 10 and barf 10 for the rose.
No it won't work that way. USC would go to the NC, and the Rose would choose another team to play in the Rose Bowl.
no I misunderstood Dodd's previous article. They laid out 3 diff scenarios and this one was one of them I think. I hated all so I was sure which one it was.
So Tirk explain what you meant by this statement. I read this as USC having to play the Rose Bowl, then come back and play the NC game against LSU. I guess I need clarification of who "they" are in that statement. It only made sense that you meant USC.
they means they get PAC 10/BIG 10 champs for the ROSE unless they are in the NC game, then I guess they get the runner up. I didnt read this new article, Im in the finals of some online poker tournament so someone fill in the blanks. lol
