Go back and read my piece on BCS selections (scroll down or click HERE).
Now read Stewart Mandel's piece HERE.
Here is a relevant part:
Two sources not directly involved in the decision speculated that the commissioners feared such a matchup might damage the legitimacy of the Ohio State-LSU title game.
...
Asked whether the split possibility played a factor, Slive insisted, "It never came up."
My response to Mike Slive's comment: "Bullshit."
4 comments:
Kudos to those who at least tried to make this work, particularly the Fiesta brass, who would have lost the most in the requested reshuffling.
They would've exchanged Oklahoma for Kansas. That's it. That's pretty much a wash, actually - neither team really has a shot at the title because WVU, so it really would come down to ticket sales. Do they want a semi-disappointed fanbase (that wanted the BCS NCG or at least a better opponent) and who had just gone to that bowl the previous year, or do they want an excited fanbase playing in their first New Years' Day (or later) bowl in nearly 40 years?
I'm sure OU fans have been buying tickets at a good pace, but the word is that Kansas ate up their ORange allotment in record time.
I'm not really sure why the other BCS commissioners should get a vote. Seems the clause should require only the unanimous consent of all directly affected BCS commissioners and bowls. If both bowls and the commissioners of the affected conferences are in favor, it should go through.
The Big 12 commissioner lost this when he (or his predecessor) agreed to language that allowed his member schools' postseason destinations to be controlled by outside parties who are obviously going to act in their best interests rather than the Big 12's.
The Pac-10 is the no vote that initially seemed misplaced, as they have no dog in the fight. I'd guess both the Big Ten and Pac-10 are going to shoot down anything that further overshadows their self declared bestest bowl game in the universe.
Post a Comment