BCS changes open Rose Bowl to non BCS teams

[hurdleisu24]

CHICAGO -- Some tweaking to the Bowl Championship Series rules gives greater access to the Rose Bowl to teams outside the six conferences with automatic BCS bids -- such as Utah.
"Under certain circumstances, they can play their way into the Rose Bowl, which hasn't been true in the past," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Monday at Big Ten media day. "That's additional access. Standards have been, I think, lightened to access the BCS."
The Big Ten and Pacific-10 champions are contractually bound to play in the Rose Bowl unless one of those teams qualifies for the national championship game.
Starting with the 2010 season and running through the 2013 season, the first time the Rose Bowl loses one of its conference champions and a team from one of the non-automatic qualifying leagues earns a BCS bid, the Rose Bowl must take that team.
Since the BCS was implemented in 1998, a team from a conference outside the automatic qualifying leagues has never played in the Rose Bowl.
The Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Southeastern Conference and Pac-10 champions receive automatic bids to the five BCS games.
The champions from the Mountain West Conference -- where Utah plays -- Western Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Sun Belt and Mid-American Conference do not get automatic entry into the big-money BCS games, but can play their way in. The Utes, Hawaii and Boise State from the WAC have done that in recent years.

What does everyone think a good idea?

 

[dualthreat]

i don't like

i just like big ten vs pac ten tradition

 

[rhillary]

I am all for this. I am so sick of Pac-10 vs. the big ten blow-outs. I know traditionalist will hate it but I wasn't really a fan of college football until I started college (2002) so I am not all about Pac-10 v Big Ten. It can't hurt.

 

[dualthreat]

the attendance for the rose bowl used to be around 100k, now its like 80k.. it does hurt ... it hurts fan interest

 

[gocubs2118]

Thats dumb as hell.

 

[StormnClone58]

the attendance for the rose bowl used to be around 100k, now its like 80k.. it does hurt ... it hurts fan interest

some reason i think the 2009 rose bowl would beg to differ ... probably even the 2008 rose bowl ... and the 2007 wouldn't either ...

 

[dualthreat]

The average attendance for the rose bowls

from 1964-1997 was 103,000

from 1998(99)-2004(05) was 92,000

those are facts

If they put Boise St. vs Va Tech in the Rose Bowl, the attendance would probably be 85,000 and not nearly as much TV interest

thats my opinion

 

[StormnClone58]

i do believe they did some renovations if i'm not mistaken ... i'm not out to prove you wrong but at first you said 100k and it was an average the last 3 years of around 93k but you said it was somewhere in the 80's range ....

 

[uro cy]

What better cure for a hangover than watching the Big Televen get stomped on New Years Day (again...)?

 

[cyclonemaniac7]

I think this is great for college football. Put the most deserving teams in. Period.

 

[Freebird]

You know your system is a big pile of crap when you have to change it every single year.

 

[keepngoal]

I can understand why the Big10 wanted other conferences to play there....

-keep

 

[MontyBurns]

On one hand I don't like it -- tradition is one of the great things about college football and the Rose Bowl's Pac 10/Big 10 matchup has a long tradition.

On the other hand something has to be done to make the Rose Bowl viable. Tradition says the Big 10's best goes to the Rose Bowl, but the Big 10's best no longer belongs. USC beat Penn State 38-24, Illinois 49-17, Michigan 32-18, and Michigan 28-14 in the last 4 Rose Bowls that have been Big 10/Pac 10 matchups, and the Big 10 has not been competitive in a Rose Bowl since the 1999 season. I don't think anyone can blame the Rose Bowl committee for doing what they have to do to create a competitive game.

 

[SplitIdentity]

On one hand I don't like it -- tradition is one of the great things about college football and the Rose Bowl's Pac 10/Big 10 matchup has a long tradition.

On the other hand something has to be done to make the Rose Bowl viable. Tradition says the Big 10's best goes to the Rose Bowl, but the Big 10's best no longer belongs. USC beat Penn State 38-24, Illinois 49-17, Michigan 32-18, and Michigan 28-14 in the last 4 Rose Bowls that have been Big 10/Pac 10 matchups, and the Big 10 has not been competitive in a Rose Bowl since the 1999 season. I don't think anyone can blame the Rose Bowl committee for doing what they have to do to create a competitive game.

Actually, if you want to be accurate, the Big Ten's second best has been going to the Rose Bowl more often than not.

Last year Penn State was the conference's best team... but the previous two years, it was Ohio State (who played in the NC game, rather than the Rose Bowl), and the Big Ten's second best team played USC. And in 2000, Wisconsin beat Stanford, in 2001 Purdue lost by 10 to Washington, and in 2005, Michigan lost to Texas in probably the second best Rose Bowl game ever. In the remaining 4 games, the Big Ten has lost by 14 three times, and then Illinois' fantastic thrashing two years ago.

But no, you'd probably rather not be accurate.

 

[isuclone89]

I like tradition, but you have already ruined for all the other bowls, so why should the rose bowl be any different than any others. If the rose bowl deserves the big 10 vs pac 10, just go back to the orange bowl going to the big 8 etc., I mean big 12 champ. I am sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[EggMcClone]

The average attendance for the rose bowls

from 1964-1997 was 103,000

from 1998(99)-2004(05) was 92,000

those are facts

If they put Boise St. vs Va Tech in the Rose Bowl, the attendance would probably be 85,000 and not nearly as much TV interest

thats my opinion

So, why is attendance at the Rose Bowl more important than it is at the other bowls? It's not really fair to ship Hawaii or Utah to the Sugar Bowl every year just so the Rose Bowl gets to keep Pac 10 v. Big 10+1.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like they are throwing a symbolic cookie to the non-BCS teams. Sure, you could get to the Rose Bowl! (In theory)

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Actually, if you want to be accurate, the Big Ten's second best has been going to the Rose Bowl more often than not.

Last year Penn State was the conference's best team... but the previous two years, it was Ohio State (who played in the NC game, rather than the Rose Bowl), and the Big Ten's second best team played USC. And in 2000, Wisconsin beat Stanford, in 2001 Purdue lost by 10 to Washington, and in 2005, Michigan lost to Texas in probably the second best Rose Bowl game ever. In the remaining 4 games, the Big Ten has lost by 14 three times, and then Illinois' fantastic thrashing two years ago.

But no, you'd probably rather not be accurate.

So to be accurate, the Big 10 has lost their last 6 Rose Bowl game appearances? To be fair, the trend is not exclusive to the Rose Bowl. Oddly, over the same time span, the Big 12 is 3-1 in Rose Bowls.

I wondered why the perception is that the Big 10 has been getting blown out in many of those 6 games....Looking at the scores it appears like the Big 10 has the "winning the fourth quarter" part down. For the sake of fan enjoyment, maybe USC would be willing to play their 3rd and 4th string the entire game.
'09: USC 31 PSU 7 in the 4th
'08: USC 49 Ill 10 in the 4th
'07: USC 32 UM 11 in the 4th
'04: USC 28 UM 7 in the 4th

 

[EggMcClone]

Also, for accuracy's sake, we should point out that the Big 10's "best team" was also blown out the last two times they made the title game so we really don't have any evidence they would have played USC any closer.

 

[illinoiscyclone]

Also, for accuracy's sake, we should point out that the Big 10's "best team" was also blown out the last two times they made the title game so we really don't have any evidence they would have played USC any closer.

But if you put the big 10's "best team" in the rose bowl with the team they should have been playing (Pac-10 2nd best because USC was the best team in the country both times), they probably would have won.