From the section of the article I posted earlier, it sounds like they do like the other 4 BCS bowls and are forced to get a replacement. Not sure what all the big stink is regarding the Rose Bowl. The only difference I see is that they lay claim to both the Pac 10 and Big 10 champs, whereas the other 3 only lay claim to one of the 2 teams involved in their bowl.
If that had been in effect for last season and the Rose had been the designated BCS NC site USC and Michigan would have played a "regular" Rose Bowl game on January 1st and then LSU and Oklahoma would have played in the Super Rose Bowl a few days later. I completely understand why they are doing it that way. Every 4 years the cities of Pasadena (LA), New Orleans, Phoenix and Miami get the free spending fans of not 2 teams but 4 to spend a few days in their hotels, eating at their restaurants and drinking in their bars. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well thats a big "duh". We all knew whatever they would come up with would ultimately have to do with the "bottom line". It also expands the participants in the money-fest to 10 teams from 8, like you said. But it does absolutely nothing to solve the problem of what happened this past year. I think we can all agree to that. And that is simply a damn shame.
I guess each of these 4 Bowls can sustain having 2 consecutive weekends of bowl games. It will be 2 entirely different sets of fans at each. I just wonder if the regular bowl game will be hurt somewhat from the NC game being held at the same venue.'' Guess it wouldn't matter much, it's definitely going to mean overall a lot more money poured into that city.
yeah it comes down to being stuck with a non BCS team (<money) when the Rose keeps its tradition but not solving one damn real problem but it pacifies the idiot committees with more money than previously....just not quite as much as in Pasadena.
never thought of that.... seems it could take some luster off a NC game unless its LSU in it after not winning one for 45 yrs I dont think it matters.
Well actually I doubt it would hurt the NC game, I was referring to it hurting the previous week's bowl game (i.e., regular Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta bowls), for the bowl whose turn it was to host 2 games back to back weeks. The NC game should be the biggest draw every year.
So you think that in the scenario presented, that the Rose would get to choose another PAC-10 team. I don't believe that's what was agreed to from what I read. But if you are correct, just think about it, the Rose Bowl would be hurting themselves by having to pick a suck-ass PAC-10 team as a replacement. That team could conceivably be out of the top 25.
More likely it takes the luster off the "regular" bowl game because there will be a lot less interest in a Rose Bowl matchup between Michigan and TCU or Miami, Ohio than there would be for the real game.
