Ok, so I am not really to stick up for Georgia after Richt's whining. But I was bothered when I read that the Rose Bowl had no interest in GA playing in their bowl. GA is 5th in the BCS, 4th in the human polls and 6th in the computers. IL is 13th in the BCS/ human polls and 16th in the computers. I realize that the Rose Bowl will probably cite tradition but believe they owe it to college football to try and put together the best game possible. IMO, GA / usc would have been a much better game.
If you like the BCS over a playoff, thank the Rose Bowl Committee. They care more about pomp and circumstance than good football. Besides, they wouldn't want an SEC team to come in and expose their precious USC to defeat.
I call b.s. The RB Committee is NOT USC. In fact it's my understanding that the Sugar Bowl retains the "permission" rights over any secondary SEC team to go elsewhere if the SEC Champion goes to the NC game. Sugar wanted Georgia so they exercised their contractual right to keep them. The RB Committee did however, pass on Missouri, WV, Kansas and Hawaii. I don't know if the Illini travel well but the farm has been bet.
Here is the rule considering bowls that lose their contractually obligated team to the BCS title game (i.e., Rose = Pac-10/Big10 Champs, Sugar = SEC Champ, etc): A bowl choosing a replacement team may not select any of the following: A. A team in the NCG; B. The host team for another BCS Bowl; C. When two bowls lose host teams, then the bowl losing the number one team may not select a replacement team from the same Conference as the number two team, unless the bowl losing the number two team consents. So Vball is correct on this one. Both the Rose and Sugar both lost their representative (Big 10, SEC). The Rose was first to replace Ohio State since Ohio State was #1 in the BCS, but the Rose had to get "permission" from the SEC to allow them to select Georgia, and they obviously declined, knowing that they were gonna get stuck with Hawaii, they obviously decided to keep Georgia to set up an interesting matchup.
I do agree the RB Committee is probably holding up any changes in the process of crowning a national champ more than any other bowl. They MUST have a matchup of Big 10 vs Pac 10 otherwise they might as well slit their wrists.
I'm only guessing here, but I bet money had a lot to do with it. I don't know how well GA travels, they probably thought they couldn't make as much revenue.
Vball and I just explained it plain and simple. Why would you post this? The PAC-10 didn't have a choice in the matter, the SEC kept Georgia to themselves.
``We looked very carefully at the quality of all the teams and the way teams ended the year and the way Illinois ended, it's a great matchup,'' Rose Bowl CEO Mitch Dorger said. Incomprehensible to me that they passed up WV and Missouri. For me, they picked Illinois because they ARE Big 10, they beat the luckeyes on the road late in the season, and put up 28 against their highly rated D. See where I'm going with this? :wink:
You're right that the Segar retains the rights, but it's not true that they exercised their rights over Georgia...The RB never asked about Georgia, they just went straight up and got Illinois to maintain their tradition (which is dumb). I think a better tradition is if you get the chance to put the best two teams out there to play against each other.
And you know this how? Come on, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, do you honestly believe the SB Committee would release Georgia? They want people to spend money in the city and increase chances of TV revenues. Georgia wasn't going anywhere.
