Get your facts straight, people!
ESPN has posted its official bowl preview, and I have to say that I'm really, really annoyed by this factually erroneous statement about the USC-Illinois Rose Bowl game:
The Tournament of Roses chose tradition (sorry, Georgia) over a better matchup.
I've seen numerous sports "journalists" make similar statements over the last few days. Only problem: it's not true. The Rose Bowl did not have Georgia as an option.
As I explained on Sunday, "The Rose Bowl gets first pick to replace the Buckeyes, but they can't pick Georgia without the Sugar Bowl's consent under Rule 3C of the Team-Selection Procedures."
Admittedly, I made this mistake myself in some early bowl projections last weekend, but I quickly corrected it Saturday night. And I'm just a blogger. There is no excuse for self-styled journalists, analysts and pundits to be so blatantly ignorant of the basic rules that govern the very process that they're writing about. It would be like a New York Times political reporter criticizing the House of Representatives for failing to ratify a treaty or confirm a judge. (That's the Senate's job, if you didn't know.)
This reminds me of 2005, when people repeatedly and belligerently complained that the Fiesta Bowl had unfairly "chosen" #6-ranked Notre Dame for the final at-large spot instead of #5-ranked Oregon -- when in reality, the Irish were guaranteed a BCS berth under the rules then in place, so the Fiesta Bowl had no choice in the matter. Admittedly, the Fiesta folks undoubtedly would have chosen the Irish anyway, just as the tradition-obsessed Rose Bowl probably would have picked Illinois over Georgia if they'd had the option. In both cases, the BCS rules created a "please don't throw me in that briar patch" situation for the bowls, whereby they could get precisely what they greedily wanted, all the while crying "it's out of our hands!" But that doesn't make it factually accurate to claim that they had the option when they didn't, unless you subscribe to the Dan Rather "fake but accurate" school of journalism.
"... they can't pick Georgia without the Sugar Bowl's consent under Rule 3C of the Team-Selection Procedures."
That may be the greatest nerd analysis of college football I've ever seen.
Posted by: Condor | Dec 6, 2007 7:55:02 PM
I'd rather see Pac-10/Big Ten. 9-3 vs 10-2 isn't a bad matchup by any means, and yes the Rose Bowl likes tradition, tradition can be a hell of a lot of fun.
Posted by: David K. | Dec 6, 2007 8:12:27 PM
Tradition smadishion, this Rose Bowl blows. The Rose should have taken the team that most deserved the bid, not the 3rd place Big-10 team. USC vs. West Virginia would've been a marquee match. USC vs. Mizzou wouldn't have been bad either, and would've saved Kans-ass from ruining the Orange Bowl.
Posted by: Sandy Underpants | Dec 6, 2007 8:58:44 PM
Ok, the Tournament of Roses chose tradition (sorry, West Virginia) over a better matchup.
I thought this post would've contested the idea that the Rose Bowl chose tradition over the better matchup. What part of picking runners-up from the Big10 or Pac-10 is tradition?
They chose conference loyalty over a better matchup.
Posted by: USC 2L | Dec 6, 2007 9:03:51 PM
Had they chosen West Virginia, Kansas or Missouri, Arizona State would have had a pretty solid shot at a BCS bid, probably in the Fiesta. Screw tradition. Besides ... in the last five years, there have only been two Pac-10 schools (USC/Washington State) and one Big Ten school (Michigan) in the Rose Bowl. The tradition is dead. The Big 12 has put more teams in the Rose Bowl (Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma) since 2002.
Posted by: lex icon | Dec 6, 2007 9:31:45 PM
Brendan, that's false. Your own analysis points out that Rose Bowl officials could have sought approval under Rule 3C. It's not like Georgia wasn't eligible to appear in the bowl, like, say, Notre Dame; it's merely that there was an additional administrative step impeding the selection. So the Rose Bowl did chose tradition over a better matchup: they never attempted to pursue the option of the better matchup.
Posted by: Derek | Dec 7, 2007 11:14:35 AM
they never attempted to pursue the option of the better matchup
Bullcrap. Even if it's true that the Rose Bowl didn't ask the Sugar Bowl for permission (I have no idea whether they did or not), your argument is equivalent to saying that an ugly jerk of guy who marries the most desirable woman who'll have him "never attempted to pursue the option of proposing to Jessica Alba."
It would have been totally pointless to pursue the "option." What you call "merely...an additional administrative step," I call a insurmountable barrier -- and my description is the far more accurate one. There was absolutely no possible way in Hell that the Sugar Bowl was going to give up Georgia, the hottest team in college football, to the Rose Bowl, and be left without an SEC team (since only two can go to the BCS), and thus be forced to stage an incredibly unattractive matchup like West Virginia vs. Hawaii or Kansas vs. Hawaii or Missouri vs. Hawaii. It simply was not going to happen.
But, fine, if you want to be hypertechnical, my statement "The Rose Bowl did not have Georgia as an option" should read: "The Rose Bowl, for all practical intents and purposes, did not have Georgia as an option. They could have asked the Sugar Bowl for permission to get the Bulldogs, but the chances of that happening were so infinitesimally slim that I can't imagine why they would have bothered."
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Dec 7, 2007 11:40:40 AM
P.S. Regardless, my point still stands. However we want to classify the technicality of the Rose Bowl's "option" or lack thereof, it certainly was not as simple as inviting Georgia or inviting Illinois, as ESPN's language clearly implies and various other sports journalists have been either implying or stating outright. At worst, the Rose Bowl saw the writing on the wall and didn't bother to pursue a hopeless cause. That's a lot different from saying that they picked Illinois over Georgia of their own unfettered volition.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Dec 7, 2007 11:48:31 AM
For clarification, the SEC (and current BCS) commissioner stated equivocally that the Rose Bowl did not even ask if Georgia was available.
Here's the link.
I have to believe there needn't be a real formal investigation if Georgia was available. If the Rose Bowl was so inclined to look into the possibility of taking Georgia they probably could've done so very easily. CL Keedy (Rose Bowl Chairman) probably has Ray Jeandron (Sugar Bowl president) in his cell phone; it ain't like the BCS is a big community. A friendly, off the record, personal call could've assessed the situation.
It sounds like not even that was mustered.
I think it is safe to say that the Sugar Bowl wasn't going to give Georgia up but, at the same time, the Rose Bowl wasn't going to even ask because they didn't want Georgia. The Rose Bowl was 100% set on taking a Big 10 team, so pundits may be confusing the facts but they certainly have the spirit of the situation correct.
So everyone is right.
Posted by: CT | Dec 7, 2007 7:02:41 PM
Thanks for the info, CT.
The last part of your comment, though ("pundits may be confusing the facts but they certainly have the spirit of the situation correct") is the "fake but accurate" defense I referenced in my post. Sorry, I still don't think that's OK.
Now then, if the reports said a condensed version of what you just said, I would have no problem with that. Something like this: "The Rose Bowl jumped at the chance to pick a three-loss Illinois squad over worthier teams like Missouri and West Virginia, and did not even attempt to convince the Sugar Bowl to let them stage a dream USC-Georgia matchup." That would both capture the spirit of the situation and be factually accurate.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Dec 7, 2007 7:10:03 PM
Brendan, I don't recall all the facts but when ND was picked for the Fiesta, were they really the last team picked? I understand they were guaranteed a BCS game but the Fiesta did not have to take them, right? It's not like Hawaii (or Boise) where they were just the last team left. I'm asking more than saying it?
Posted by: Andrew H | Dec 8, 2007 8:36:50 PM
Andrew, I don't recall the selection order off the top of my head, but let's see. Back in 2005, there were only four BCS bowls, and only two at-large teams. Ohio State was guaranteed an at-large bid because it was a BCS non-champion in the Top 4, and Notre Dame was guaranteed an at-large bid because it was a non-BCS-conference team in the Top 6. The Rose Bowl was the national title game, and pitted USC and Texas. That effectively made the Big Ten champion, Penn State, an "at-large" team as well, eligible to be picked up by any of the other three bowls. The Big East champion, West Virginia, was similarly an effective "at-large," since the Big East doesn't have a "host" bowl. The SEC champion, Georgia, was guaranteed to go to the Sugar Bowl, and the ACC champion, Florida State, was guaranteed to go to the Orange Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl lost its "host" team, Big 12 champ Texas, to the Rose. So, before any selections were made, the bowl lineup looked like this:
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Texas
Fiesta Bowl: ______ vs. ______
Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs. ______
Orange Bowl: Florida State vs. ______
The four "fill in the blank" teams had to be #3 Penn State, #4 Ohio State, #6 Notre Dame, and West Virginia (I don't recall WVU's ranking off the top of my head, but they were ranked below ND). The only question was which blank each of those teams would fill in.
The Fiesta Bowl had first pick, because they lost Texas to the Rose Bowl. I don't remember what the order of the other three picks was. But I don't doubt that the Fiesta Bowl picked ND with its first pick. So I guess you're correct. They weren't technically the last team chosen. I stand corrected for wording it that way.
My point stands, however. The criticism re: the Irish was that the Fiesta Bowl "chose" them over #5 Oregon, which in fact the Fiesta Bowl did not do. If they had set up, say, a Penn State vs. West Virginia or Ohio State vs. West Virginia matchup (obviously they weren't going to stage a PSU-OSU rematch), that would simply have sent the Irish to either the Sugar Bowl or the Orange Bowl. And why would it had been "just" to pick WVU over ND anyway? The Irish were ranked higher.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Dec 8, 2007 9:24:02 PM
And yes, I recognize the irony of saying "my point stands, however" after criticizing the "fake but accurate" defense with regard to ESPN. :)
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Dec 8, 2007 9:26:46 PM
I agree about the larger point that the bowl didn't have the option of picking Oregon over ND based on how the rules were/are set-up. Esp. if all 8 teams were 'locked in' in terms of playing in the BCS....my memory of that season wasn't good enough to recall the details like you did. I do recall the actual games but I didn't recall that Penn St won the Big 10 and Ohio St was the at-large (or auto at-large if you will).
Posted by: Andrew H | Dec 8, 2007 10:43:50 PM
Yup. Penn State beat Ohio State in a "white-out" game at Happy Valley. The Nittany Lions' only loss was to Michigan on the same day as the epic USC-ND game, October 15, on a TD catch by Manningham with 1 second left. (If that game had turned out differently, the final BCS standings would have been... exactly the same, since there's no way PSU was going to jump USC or Texas.) OSU's only losses were to PSU and Texas, so both teams finished with one loss in the Big Ten, but PSU won the head-to-head tiebreaker.
Posted by: Brendan Loy | Dec 8, 2007 10:55:18 PM
Yes, I do remember that Michigan-Penn St game. It was a great game but almost got lost in the shuffle that day. Penn St really should've won it. I don't have any memory of the Ohio St-Penn St game though.
Posted by: Andrew H | Dec 9, 2007 9:42:56 AM