Does the Rose Bowl Committee regret its decision yet?

[A-Tex Devil]

The individual matchups are better, but the system isn't. Under the old system, consider this scenario:

USC beats Ohio State
LSU beats Virginia Tech
Oklahoma beats Georgia
West Virginia beats Missouri

Here you would have 6 two loss teams (and maybe a 7th floating around in Kansas, who actually could be a 1-loss team), four of which won major bowl games against highly touted teams. Who wins the national title? USC, LSU, OU, and WVU (and maybe Kansas if they are 12-1) all have solid claims and tragic flaws.

At least in the current system we get a 1-2 game. It may not be the game you wanted, but it's the game that the voters and computers, taking the entire season into account, gave us. That's better than the cluster the old system would've created.

But isn't that the point? The result of this year's BCS solves nothing, but creates at least 2 (maybe 3 in the Orange Bowl) complete mismatches.

I mean, if we are going to arbitrarily pick from a bunch of 2 loss teams, why not make all of the games have some meaning and potential title implications? It's not like we are solving anything if LSU wins next week. They get the crystal football, but UGa, USC, OU and VaTech (if they each win) all could, conceivably, win the AP and we have the same split championship.

If we can't have a playoff, I prefer bowl ties and more big games than the current system.

[tommy]

The individual matchups are better, but the system isn't. Under the old system, consider this scenario:

USC beats Ohio State
LSU beats Virginia Tech
Oklahoma beats Georgia
West Virginia beats Missouri

Here you would have 6 two loss teams (and maybe a 7th floating around in Kansas, who actually could be a 1-loss team), four of which won major bowl games against highly touted teams. Who wins the national title? USC, LSU, OU, and WVU (and maybe Kansas if they are 12-1) all have solid claims and tragic flaws.

At least in the current system we get a 1-2 game. It may not be the game you wanted, but it's the game that the voters and computers, taking the entire season into account, gave us. That's better than the cluster the old system would've created.

But this system often provides a cluster too -- like this year. Just because the voters, many who are pushing their own agendas, and the computers say these two teams are the best doesn't make it so. They put Nebraska in a few years ago against Miami and they clearly weren't deserving. The computers left the #1 in both polls USC squad out of the title game a few years ago.

Now I don't really mind the cluster -- the arguments are fun. But my point is that under this system or that one, you have to get pretty lucky to get a game in which just about everyone agrees the top two teams are matched, and the winner is a consensus champion. I mean, look at it this year, especially if two-loss LSU beats Ohio St. Can you really say there will be any consensus that they're more deserving than USC or Georgia or even Kansas, Va Tech, or Oklahoma? I don't think so. Just look at all the good arguments that have gone on just on this board in support of all these different teams.

Matter of fact, if most folks were asked who are the two best teams or the two most deserving teams going into the bowls, I venture to guess they would've picked Ohio St. and USC. A good old traditional Rose Bowl would've set that one up.

[A-Tex Devil]

And, I'll point out that there were plenty of bowl blowouts under the old system where Illinois and Hawaii would not have gotten in. Just a sampling of not close major bowl games in the 15 years or so prior to the BCS.

1984 Rose Bowl: UCLA 45 Illinois 9
1987 Orange Bowl: Oklahoma 42 Arkansas 8
1986 Sugar Bowl: Tennessee 35 Miami 7
1991 Fiesta Bowl: Louisville 34 Alabama 7
1992 Rose Bowl: Washington 34 Michigan 14
1992 Fiesta Bowl: Penn State 42 Tennessee 17
1996 Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska 62 Florida 24 (in a national title game)
1994 Sugar Bowl: Florida 41 West Virginia 7
1997 Sugar Bowl: Florida 52 Florida State 20 (in a national title game)

So, the old system didn't always provide good games (just like the BCS doesn't always give us bad ones) and it wasn't very efficient in choosing a champion.

There will always be mismatches and blowouts. But I would make every effort to watch all 4 games you hypothesized - and I tried to watch all the major bowls back when there was a conference champ in every one. I completely skipped the Rose and Sugar this year and will likely skip the Orange. Now I'm just me, so maybe I'm in the minority and ratings will be great for the Sugar Bowl (for instance), but I doubt it.

[rockymtn devil]

There will always be mismatches and blowouts. But I would make every effort to watch all 4 games you hypothesized - and I tried to watch all the major bowls back when there was a conference champ in every one. I completely skipped the Rose and Sugar this year and will likely skip the Orange. Now I'm just me, so maybe I'm in the minority and ratings will be great for the Sugar Bowl (for instance), but I doubt it.

Agreed. I posted those old results in response to a post that stated that under the old system we would've been spared Illinois and Hawaii who were, according to that poster, not ready for primetime. My point was exactly what you just said--in any system, teams that will be pitted against ones that are vastly superior, and that aspect of college football has nothing to do with the BCS. The four games I hypothesized about would've been great but there were years under the old system where the matchups were as bad as they are this year. And there have been years where the BCS has given us great slates (2000, 2003, 2005, 2006)

I watched the Rose Bowl through the 3rd quarter and then watched as I cleaned the house. I watched the Sugar for a full three minutes, but that was more because I'd heard enough about "SEC speed" for one day and didn't need any more. I won't go out of my way to watch the Orange Bowl at all, but will make time for the Fiesta and won't miss the BCS Title game (Buckeye fan).

[ugadevil]

I've returned from my Sugar Bowl game watching party and must say the same thing I said a month ago...UGA is as deserving as any team to play in the national championship game. 31 point victory over the vaunted offense of Hawaii and I think the 31 point margin doesn't actually indicate how lopsided that game was. That game seemed like a video game where Georgia knew everything Hawaii was going to do and just toyed with them. Oh, and Georgia's still undefeated after the opening kickoff! Take that Les Miles and your undefeated in regulation!

If UGA can't get in the national championship game, at least let them go to the Rose Bowl where they can play a team that would be an even match up. Currently, the BCS games have been a complete joke.

Rose Bowl + Tradtion = Stupidity

[dukemomLA]

Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

[devildeac]

Bad analogy. If Duke has a 15-18 point lead starting the second half, it's a guaranteed loss. It's actually known as the ThroatyBreen Corollary

I think the lead must be greater than 17 points for a 'guaranteed' W(unless Pete Gaudet is coaching ). If it is 17 points or less, there are no guarantees.

[hurleyfor3]

I think the lead must be greater than 17 points for a 'guaranteed' W(unless Pete Gaudet is coaching ). If it is 17 points or less, there are no guarantees.

Seventeen is the Number of Death. We hashed this out on the old boards a couple years back. We have blown numerous 17-point leads in the K era (especially the post-back-surgery K era), but never a lead more than 17, and strangely, very few I can recall in the 14-15-16 range.

[Channing]

Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

Thats a pretty bold assertion. USC may have won, but it is unlikely they would have mopped the floor with UGA.

Hawaii wasn't tested by a top tier team all season, and when they met one they put on their best deer in the headlights face. That game was fun to watch for the first half (and the only reason it was fun that long is because I am a die hard UGA fan). Oh well, at least we won and dont have to go through the embarassment OU went through last year.

[calltheobvious]

Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

Have you seen Georgia play at all this season?

[Channing]

Have you seen Georgia play at all this season?

If I may amend that assertion . . . have you seen Ga play at all over the last 6 games. They were nothing special for the first part of the season.

[billybreen]

If I may amend that assertion . . . have you seen Ga play at all over the last 6 games. They were nothing special for the first part of the season.

Yes, UGA over the last 7 games of the season was a different team. USC's O-line has been pretty beat up this year, and I don't think they could have kept the heat off of Booty. Would have been a good game.

[Cavlaw]

Given how well (surprisingly) Michigan played against Florida, I wonder if they would have been a better Rose Bowl contender than Illinois. Michigan beat Illinois head-to-head this year, but Illinois won the tie-breaker in the Big Ten standings due to their win over Ohio State.

Illinois did not look like the team that beat OSU yesterday, but neither did Michigan look like the team that lost to OSU.

[rockymtn devil]

Given how well (surprisingly) Michigan played against Florida, I wonder if they would have been a better Rose Bowl contender than Illinois. Michigan beat Illinois head-to-head this year, but Illinois won the tie-breaker in the Big Ten standings due to their win over Ohio State.

Illinois did not look like the team that beat OSU yesterday, but neither did Michigan look like the team that lost to OSU.

You could be right about the tie-breaker between Michigan and Illinois, but that isn't why the Illini went to Pasadena over the Wolverines. Illinois was the only other Big 10 team (outside of Ohio State) that was eligible for a BCS game. Michigan could not have been the choice. Had Illinois not got the bid, Georgia wouldn't gone to the Rose Bowl and Arizona State would've been in the BCS.

As for the notion that Georgia or USC should be in the BCS title game, for those of you who think that, are the games in September and October mere exhibitions? The system already treats them as quasi-exhibitions because human voters reward early losses over late ones, and I think that's enough. Yes, Georgia and USC played better than anyone in the country down the stretch, but the football season doesn't start in November.

And yes, I know USC was injured when they lost to Stanford (as if that's an excuse to lose at home to the worst team in your conference). But wasn't the Cardinal playing its backup quarterback too?

[Chicago 1995]

The Rose Bowl simply couldn't have chosen Georgia.

They would have had to have The Sugar Bowl's permission to take UGA, and there's no chance that the Sugar Bowl wouldn't have given it. Hence, the Rose Bowl's choice of Illinois wasn't over UGA, but instead over someone like Az State, KU or Mizzou. In that light, I think Illinois makes better sense, but I'm a traditionalist Big Ten guy, at some level.

Illinois moved the ball well against SC. Just too many silly turnovers and too much bad red zone execution. 455 yards of offense was enough to be competative. 4TOs wasn't.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, but had Willis not fumbled inside the SC 10 at 21-10, I wonder if we wouldn't have had something fun to watch in the second half yesterday.

[Channing]

The Rose Bowl simply couldn't have chosen Georgia.

They would have had to have The Sugar Bowl's permission to take UGA, and there's no chance that the Sugar Bowl wouldn't have given it. Hence, the Rose Bowl's choice of Illinois wasn't over UGA, but instead over someone like Az State, KU or Mizzou. In that light, I think Illinois makes better sense, but I'm a traditionalist Big Ten guy, at some level.

Illinois moved the ball well against SC. Just too many silly turnovers and too much bad red zone execution. 455 yards of offense was enough to be competative. 4TOs wasn't.

It probably wouldn't have mattered, but had Willis not fumbled inside the SC 10 at 21-10, I wonder if we wouldn't have had something fun to watch in the second half yesterday.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is a misstatement. The Sugar Bowl is guaranteed the winner of the SEC title game, as long as that team does not go to the national championship game. LSU is going to the national championship game. UGA was selected as an at large team, and the Rose Bowl had the first choice of at large teams. Had they wanted, they could have taken UGA without a problem (just as they had the chance to choose LSU last year - when LSU fans went out and bought up all their Rose Bowl Tickets only to not be selected for the game.)

[Cavlaw]

I had forgotten the BCS-eligibility issue w/r/t Michigan.

re Georgia, the Rose could have taken them per Steven's comments. Every year the priority for who gets the first at-large pick rotates, and this was the Rose's year to pick first.

[Chicago 1995]

I could be wrong, but I believe that is a misstatement. The Sugar Bowl is guaranteed the winner of the SEC title game, as long as that team does not go to the national championship game. LSU is going to the national championship game. UGA was selected as an at large team, and the Rose Bowl had the first choice of at large teams. Had they wanted, they could have taken UGA without a problem (just as they had the chance to choose LSU last year - when LSU fans went out and bought up all their Rose Bowl Tickets only to not be selected for the game.)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...column?page=2

In the link above, Teddy Greenstein quotes Rose Bowl CEO Mitch Dorger as saying he'd have needed to ask for Sugar Bowl permission to take UGA.

[Channing]

I have never heard of this rule, never heard it brought up, and didnt heare it mentioned during the BCS selection show. I am not saying it is incorrect, but I wonder if asking permission would have been more of a courteous thing to do than a mandatory thing.

[Clipsfan]

Anyone who thinks that Illini had a chance of coming close to beating USC is kidding themselves. Ridiculous. Again, an example of my discust with the BCS.

Would Georgia be a better match up? Maybe. But USC would have probably mopped the floor with them as well. As you call tell, I am disgusted with CFB. Yuk!

I mean seriously, who does UGA think it is? Stanford?