What happened to a B1G/Pac-12 Rose Bowl Game??

Submitted by TheBlueBaller on
Reading up on the College Football Playoff setup, I noticed that the two semi-final games are the Rose Bowl Game and the Sugar bowl Game. At first I thought it was just played at the Rose Bowl, but I did some digging, and these websites say that it is the Rose Bowl Game itself, not just the location. This is pretty sad, so if someone can find evidence against this, please do. Here's the evidence for it: http://www.tournamentofroses.com/News/NewsDetail/tabid/132/article/2018… And Www.collegefootballplayoff.com

Farnn

August 29th, 2014 at 7:34 PM ^

I believe it rotates between the former BCS bowls, but I don't know what the criteria are for Rose Bowl selections when they don't have one of the playoff games.

LSAClassOf2000

August 29th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^

I believe the specification always was that when Rose Bowl was not part of the playoff bracket, which would happen now and again under the system as it is currently devised, the Rose Bowl would revert to its traditional arrangement, which we should know well around here, of course. I believe the same is true of all bowl tie-ins so long as that bowl is not in the playoff rotation in a given year. 

 

Matthew

August 29th, 2014 at 7:38 PM ^

The playoff guidelines have been scrolling along the bottom line during this uconn game. I believe when the rose bowl doesn't host a semi it'll be big ten pac ten.

Moonlight Graham

August 29th, 2014 at 7:53 PM ^

play the true Pac 12 champ though. That would only happen if...

1. The Rose Bowl has the 1 vs. 4 semifinal matchup and the 1 and 4 happen to be the Big 10 and Pac 12 champs. (Insert 2 vs. 3 in this scenario also, of course). 

2. The Rose Bowl is the site of the playoff championship game, and it happens to be that the B1G and Pac 12 champs end up there. HOWEVER, I don't believe this will ever happen ... the Rose Bowl stadium will only be part of the semifinal rotation as the "Rose Bowl." Could be wrong here, as Cowboys Stadium will host it this year but is also part of the semifinal rotation as the Cotton Bowl. If L.A. ever builds a pro stadium that would be a candidate, and would probably be the "L.A. site bid" in the future, not the Rose Bowl.   

3. As LSA mentioned, when the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal but merely an "access bowl," the Rose Bowl's selection committee will try to match up a Big 10 team vs. a Pac 12 team. However, the only way you'd get the two conference champs is if the selection committee chose a Big 12, ACC and, say, two SEC teams for the semis, leaving both B10 and Pac 12 champs out in the cold ... and making for a "consolation-prize" Rose Bowl. 

Otherwise, when the Rose Bowl is just an "access/non-semifinal" bowl, you'll likely get a Holiday Bowl-style matchup of the second place teams. Still somewhat traditional, but not the same thing. This has been happening a few times over the years anyway, like when UM played USC in 2007 as the B1G runner up while Ohio went off for their shellacking in the Fiesta Bowl. 

I believe this is the way it will go. The Rose Bowl as we once knew it was dead a long time ago but now it's dead and almost completely gone. 

Sadly, no matter how successful Michigan is in the future in terms of B1G titles, the scene of players passing out roses and holding them in their teeth IN MICHIGAN STADIUM will never happen again, and even getting that ritual in Indianapolis will be a rarity unless it's foreseen somehow that the selection committee will make option #1 above happen. 

Moonlight Graham

August 29th, 2014 at 9:19 PM ^

Looking at the Rose Bowl-in-the-BCS-era situation another way ... The stringent Pac 10-Big 10 tie-in that the conferences and the bowl adhered to up until 1998 either spared Michigan a split national championship or prevented them from winning it outright. If they had agreed to loosen their collective hold on the Rose traditions a year earlier, Michigan instead of Peyton Manning's Tennessee would have been matched up with Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, which at the time was considered at least a pseudo-BCS-title game. It wasn't given "full rights and privileges" of being a title game because the Rose Bowl was still a holdout. It wasn't until 1998 that the rotating BCS title game became the no-questions-asked championship. 

(Now, fast forward to 2003, there was some dispute when LSU won the "title game" but USC also finished undefeated and won the Rose Bowl ... but that was more of a function of there being three undefeated teams going into the bowls that year. In 1997 there was just Nebraska and Michigan but they didn't get to play each other. Wait, was Petyon's Tennessee undefeated too? No ... because Florida.) 

So, depending on whether Michigan would have won that theoretical Orange Bowl against Nebraska, that final pre-BCS holdout year had a big impact on M's legacy. 

Alton

August 29th, 2014 at 9:10 PM ^

Four of the next 12 years (2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023), the Rose Bowl will be either #1 v #4 or #2 v #3, with no regard to the conference of the participating teams.

Eight of the next 12 years (2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025), the Rose Bowl will be (the Big Ten champion or the best Big Ten team not ranked in the top 4) v (the Pac 12 champion or the best Pac 12 team not ranked in the top 4).

It is at least somewhat likely that the Rose Bowl will never again feature the Big Ten champion vs the Pac 12 champion, unless both champions are outside the top 4.

MGoPoe

August 29th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^

I am all for the college playoff determining the NC although I'd like to see 8 teams.  My question then reverts to the lines between FCS and FBS being blurred as of sorts.  Will solely revenue separate FBS from FCS?  I'd honestly be for a system not unlike what the EPL has for soccer with relegation and such.  Say the worst 10-20 teams from FBS go down to FCS and top 10-20 from FCS be promoted.  Conferences would largely be shot and we could go to a regional champ system.  Thoughts?

Reader71

August 30th, 2014 at 12:13 AM ^

Soccer works on a points system like hockey. And each team plays each other team home and away. College football doesn't lend itself to that. How do we decide the bottom teams, with polls? Who actually pays attention to those teams?

Also, do we want Grand Valley, with that stadium, hosting a game vs Michigan? It's too messy.

UMxWolverines

August 30th, 2014 at 12:56 AM ^

It was nice for a while but it's time to let it go. The Rose Bowl lost a lot of meaning once the BCS started anyway. 

Michigan needs to be concerned with winning national titles these days. Not getting to Rose Bowls (unless it's part of the playoff). 

uminks

August 30th, 2014 at 1:35 AM ^

that the playoff format is expanded. I could see the Fiesta, Sugar, Rose, and Orange all hosting the first round of playoff games (top 8 teams). Then you will get a semi-final and final game played again the following two weeks at one of the big bowl sites or an NFL football stadium. They will Probably call it the super college bowl!

Tater

August 30th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^

I am tired of the Big Ten playing a road game in the Rose Bowl.  When Michigan has played, it seems like they have had to overcome at least seven points of home cooking by the officials every time out.  When "tradition" results in the Big Ten team being put at a disadvantage, it's time for a change.