Give your best explanation as to USC/Illinois vs USC/Georgia

First, the order of choice for the at large bids was:

1) Rose Bowl
2) Sugar Bowl.

It was in this order because tOSU finished #1 in the final BCS rankings and LSU finished #2.

The Rose Bowl did not need to ask permission to take Georgia as they were an at large team and not the automatic SEC qualifier. Remember, the Rose Bowl and the Sugar Bowl are competitiors. I'm sure the Rose Bowl Organizing Committee could care less what the Sugar Bowl people wanted.

That being said, unless you have ever been to a Rose Bowl, you won't understand how important tradition is to the Organizing Committee. Virtually every facet of the week, from the Tournament of Roses Parade, to the Dinner of Champions, to the run up to the game itself is all about tradition. Remember, the Bowl Game is just one part of the celebration of the Tournament of Roses. The Rose Bowl is the oldest bowl game and those blue hairs in Pasadena take that all VERY seriously. They were concerned that due to the way the BCS has worked out the last few years, the emotional connection for the Big Ten v Pac Ten matchup was waning. Therefore, it was determined that it was in the best interests of The Tournament of Roses to take a decent Big Ten team instead of making better TV with the Georgia - USC matchup, which we all would've preferred to see.

Hope that long-winded explanation clarifies the issue.:grin:

 

W--------------------T-------------------------F

I won't be able to sleep tonight because of that ambush...:hihi:

 

Man, you got that right? Kansas over Mizzou? Nuts.

 

I think it's pretty simple. The homers in Pasadena, in case the LSU - Ohio St. game ends up in a 0 - 0 tie, wanted to give the Trojans their best chance to win the thing, and went out and invited a sacrificial lamb for them. They don't have to provide a good matchup for television, the tv money is already guaranteed, right through 2010. So what do they care?

The posts about this being about tradition, are nonsense. There are about 8 people left who give a damn about that.

 

And women get accused of being oversensitive? My goodness. It was hardly a blast as I know whose house I'm in and if I'd a really blasted you, you'd know it. I asked you how you knew the RB hadn't asked the SB and even said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. After you gave the link to the LA Times article I merely pointed out that the SB would NEVER have given permission and I still stand by that.

I think TV viewing might be pretty close between Georgia/Illinois and even WV. Travel dollars would also have been close enough IMO so there are really 2 likely answers and the first is obvious, the tradition. I like tradition but in this case, USC was absolutely salivating at the thought of taking on the Dawgs. It had all the makings for great football and great side stories. The RB Commissioner said that Illinois was selected due to how they finished the season. I can buy that a bit. They are the only loss on the Buckeyes season and it it came late at the Shoe. Running up 28 points on the top rated D says something at least.

Since the BCS Coordinator is also the SEC Commissioner then ya'll need to put some pressure on him to fix the process. Mike Slive would no more have encouraged Georgia to California than move the NCG to the midwest. AND all conference commissioners need to work on a bowl tie-in that recognizes a Pac10/SEC matchup.

 

Yea, like the score would end up 0-0. :rolleye33: LSU and aOSU could battle it out in a very low scoring and unimpressive game and USC could blow out the Illini by 50 and it won't change a darn thing.

The Big10 has traditionally traveled well and from what I've seen so far it looks like the entire state is headed out West. :lol: More USC people who requested tickets via the lottery are getting them than in the past 6 years. I think it will be an easy game to see in person.

 

Let me clarify. I wasn't saying that it will make a difference, just that for the folks out there, why not give it a shot, as unrealistic as it might be. If nothing else, a Trojan victory for the homegrowns works just fine for them. I'm sure the Illinois faithful, after so many years of misery, are thrilled about going and will show up in droves.

The original question was why the Illini and not the Dawgs. Well what football fan not connected with either USC or Illinois would rather see the Illini in the Rose Bowl over the Dawgs? I think the underlying message is clear. If you can avoid the SEC team in a national game, then do it. Just ask Auburn.

 

Me thinks "crapspackle". :thumb:

 

What football fan connected with USC would not want to see the Dawgs? Not ONE that I've talked to. The Rose Bowl Committee is NOT USC. They are an entity interested in enhancing their financial interests once the season has played out. As far as they knew, 3 weeks ago, Oregon was the likely Pac10 representative. USC has no problem taking on an SEC team.....at home or at their home......just ask Auburn.

 

Crapspackle?!?!?! LOL! That word needs to be instantly entered into an official dictionary somewhere.:rofl: