Rose Bowl wants "fifth game" plan this week

[Agent_Bond34 0]

Credit - ESPN.com

 

Associated Press

Rose Bowl officials don't want to give up their prestigious status and traditional ties to the Pac-10 and Big Ten to be part of the Bowl Championship Series.

 

 

They are willing to compromise, though.

 

 

"We are taking a pragmatic stance," Mitch Dorger, CEO of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses, said Monday. "We are not going to be so unreasonable that people can't work with us.

 

 

"We are trying to be part of a system and cooperate with the other members of that system."

 

 

The BCS is set to present its plan to implement a fifth bowl game to the Rose Bowl by the end of the week. The Rose Bowl is scheduled to begin negotiations on its television contract with ABC later this week as well.

 

 

"We need to be able to tell the Rose Bowl how it fits in," Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said Monday in a telephone interview.

 

 

The fifth game is being added to give schools from smaller conferences a better chance to make the BCS.

 

 

Hansen said BCS officials are close to resolving what the BCS will look like when it adds a fifth game for the 2006 season.

 

 

Hansen said officials are leaning toward having the current BCS games -- the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange and Rose bowls -- host two games, including the championship game, every four seasons.

 

 

The bowls, sponsors and ABC, which has a contract to televise the BCS through the 2005 season, didn't like the idea of the championship game rotating between five games instead of the current four, Hansen said.

 

 

Dorger said the "double-host" model is workable, but didn't give it a resounding endorsement.

 

 

"We believe from an economic standpoint that the so-called 'piggyback' is probably the least objectionable option," Dorger said.

 

 

ABC paid $525 million to televise the BCS for seven years. That contract is separate from the Rose Bowl deal. The BCS and ABC are expected to start working on a new contract in the fall.

 

 

Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg said recently that about 12 bowls interested in becoming the fifth game approached the BCS.

 

 

A model that would add another week to the season and match the No. 1 and No. 2 teams after the first four games are played has drawn support from ABC, but not the university presidents.

 

 

"That is not going to happen because there is no presidential support for teams playing more games," Hansen said.

 

 

The BCS is also in the process of simplifying the formula used to determine which teams play in the title game. BCS officials have said that the new formula will rely more on The Associated Press media poll and the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll, and less on the computer polls.

 

 

"Some of the things that have been added on -- strength of schedule and points for quality wins -- we're trying to see if those things should be removed," said Weiberg, who is taking over as BCS coordinator this year from Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese.

 

 

The BCS took a public relations beating last season when LSU and Oklahoma played in the Sugar Bowl for the national title, while Southern California was ranked No. 1 in both polls.

 

 

For the first time since the BCS was implemented in 1998, there were two champions. LSU was required to be voted No. 1 in the coaches poll for beating Oklahoma, and USC took the top spot in the AP poll.

 

 

Weiberg said the BCS expects to announce its new math, which will be used this season, later this month. 

 

IMO, they should just add an existing bowl to the BCS. The Cotton Bowl would be a pretty good fit.

 

What do you guys think?

[Art Sandusky 0]

The Cotton Bowl certainly has the historical credibility, and I can't think of a better choice off the top of my head that wouldn't be major overlap. It's also one of the few that still has its own name (it's still the fucking Citrus Bowl, not the CapitalOne Bowl).

 

Adding a fifth BCS bowl is just silly though. It's already bad enough they're trying to create one here in Charleston called the Palmetto Bowl.

 

END THE BOWL CREATIONS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. 27(?) is MORE than enough.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Give me one good reason why playoffs are unreasonable. Make the final four the big bowl games. Ta-da, no excuses from the sponsors.

[Mole 0]

Some people might complain which teams are the top 4 then.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How? They would have gotten there via a playoff. There's no arguing with that. You either win and advance, or lose. Considering this fifth bowl game, it could be the championship which rotates anyway. It would also give the mid-majors a GENUINE shot at winning the national title.

[Damaramu 0]

What I don't understand is this. The situation we had this year was a freak occurence. I don't believe it'd happen to often. One team will go undefeated next season.

Now how is it fair for that team to have to play another game? They're undefeated. They won there bowl game.....they should be national champs. But wait a minute. You have to play another game where you could possibley lose on a fluke! Sorry for your hardwork of going the whole season undefeated and then dominating your bowl game. This 2 loss team here beat you and are national champs!

I know with the frequency of sudden USC bandwagon jumpers on this board that you guys would be furious if they went through the regular season undefeated and beat someone like OU in the national title game. But Georgia who had two losses still made it to the other game and defeated someone like Miami. We have the game......USC doesn't play there best game or is having a bad day(it happens) and suddenly they lose by a field goal and Georgia despite losing twice is declared the National Champs. People would be FURIOUS. Hell I'd be livid. Basically what just happened is no different than what happened last season.

I say hold off on the 5th game and only have it when you run into a situation like you had last year.

Hell if you have 2 one loss teams then the format currently works. It works for 2 undefeated's as well.

It's just when 3 teams get into the mix that things get out of hand.

 

I'd love for one team from every major conference to go undefeated. Watch them try to figure that one out.

[Damaramu 0]

It's been completed and it's confusing as hell.

Basically we'll have 10 bowl teams now.

8 that play in the regular BCS bowls then one of the bowls will host a National title game between #1 and #2. But it won't be called like the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl. It'll just be the national title game.

And it's not a +1 game.

Basically the example I was given was this. Let's say this year was the Rose Bowl's rotation. So USC and Michigan would have played in the Rose Bowl then the next week at the site of the Rose Bowl OU and LSU would've played in the national title game but it wouldn't have been the Rose Bowl.

I understand it but I don't understand why they didn't just take an existing bowl and add it to the rotation.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Why don't they just promote the Cotton Bowl?

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Give me one good reason why playoffs are unreasonable. Make the final four the big bowl games. Ta-da, no excuses from the sponsors.

Because the presidents of the universities don't want them. At the end of the day, the university's purpose is to provide the best system combining academics and athletics, not the most popular one with the couch potatoes who watch games on TV.

[ISportsFan 0]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding a game one week later, for only the best 2 teams in the nation, seeing as almost every university is off school for winter break. It wouldn't cut into studying or academics at all.

 

Why not have a playoff? The playoff would basically be taking place during the winter break too, just like the +1 game.

 

Jason

[RepoMan 0]

Give me one good reason why playoffs are unreasonable. Make the final four the big bowl games. Ta-da, no excuses from the sponsors.

Because the presidents of the universities don't want them. At the end of the day, the university's purpose is to provide the best system combining academics and athletics, not the most popular one with the couch potatoes who watch games on TV.

All the President worry about if making sure their rich alumni don't get pissy about the football team's performence and cut back on donations. Alumni from traditional powers are going to expect to make the playoffs and at least win a few games every year. They're not going to be able to spin the team's success by saying they went 7-5 and were the Pollen Weedeater Bowl Champions. It's time the NCAA took over the post season and have a playoff like in every other sport in the NCAA and the three lower levels of football.

[Agent_Bond34 0]

Why don't they just promote the Cotton Bowl?

I don't see why they shouldn't.

 

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the Cotton Bowl has the historical credibility for it, so why not?

 

It would be a better fit than any other bowl game that would want to be the 5th BCS game.

 

Who are the other bowl games wanting to be the 5th BCS game, anyways?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Once again, I see no problem with the current format and heartily endorse the BCS system, with an amending to take the human element into account more.

[Youth N Asia 0]

I don't like the idea of playoffs.

 

The kids are playing without money, which is how it should be. So they shouldn't be able to pile on extra games on top of that. They're milking these guys for all they're worth as it is. Although the BCS is crap and I think the writers and coaches should determine the champ.

 

I like that there's controversy and bitching about who should be this and that.

[Damaramu 0]

They didn't promote another bowl b/c the Rose Bowl wouldn't let them. The Rose Bowl got all pissy and said "Fuck this! We want Pac 10/Big 10 every year or we're gone!" So they had to appease them.

Oh and by the way you don't want them to promote the Cotton Bowl. That place is a DUMP. And it doesn't even have enough seats for OU/Texas....it definetly wouldn't have enough for a national title game.

 

Oh and the +1 system would be good in situations like last year but it wouldn't be good when there is one undefeated team. Would it have been fair for OU in 2000 to play another game!? Miami in 2001? OSU in 2002? No it wouldn't have. They were undefeated and won there bowl game. National champs like it always has been.

 

I actually thinkt hey should take into account what the writers say LESS. Because they are subject to human bias and that stupid "What have you done for me lately?" bias. The Coaches are prone to the same bias but I think they may be more professional than the writers in the long run.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

They didn't promote another bowl b/c the Rose Bowl wouldn't let them. The Rose Bowl got all pissy and said "Fuck this! We want Pac 10/Big 10 every year or we're gone!" So they had to appease them.

Oh and by the way you don't want them to promote the Cotton Bowl. That place is a DUMP. And it doesn't even have enough seats for OU/Texas....it definetly wouldn't have enough for a national title game.

 

Oh and the +1 system would be good in situations like last year but it wouldn't be good when there is one undefeated team. Would it have been fair for OU in 2000 to play another game!? Miami in 2001? OSU in 2002? No it wouldn't have. They were undefeated and won there bowl game. National champs like it always has been.

 

I actually thinkt hey should take into account what the writers say LESS. Because they are subject to human bias and that stupid "What have you done for me lately?" bias. The Coaches are prone to the same bias but I think they may be more professional than the writers in the long run.

I've always seen it the other way, the coaches are MORE biased than the writers. Most of the times there were split champs in the 90s (which happened so often I'm always baffled at why people worship the polls so much) I felt the writers had the better team at #1. And then there's the disgraceful results of 1997, where Michigan lost the championship because Charles Woodson won the Heisman instead of Peyton Manning.

[Youth N Asia 0]

Yeah, Michigan didn't have the weak opponents like Nebraska did that year.

[nogoodnick 0]

The Rose Bowl doesn't want a fifth game added to the rotation because then they would get the title game every 5th year instead of 4. The National championship game make them a ton of money so they want it as often as possible. I'm sure the other 3 bowls feel this way too. Adding the Cotton Bowl to the mix would take away money from the big 4 games.