From: v262xxve@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Timothy C Pitts)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Sugar Bowl Thoughts
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:25:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <79537@hydra.gatech.EDU>, mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell) writes...
#On the contrary, Miami might not have been so quick to turn down the
#Sugar Bowl last season if they had to do it in the public forum of
#the bowl coalition "draft",

When the bowls announced their invitations last year, Miami had not yet 
formally accepted a bid to the Orange Bowl.  As far as I know, the only
real ``commitment'' Miami had made to play in the OB was a few comments 
saying they'd like to play there.  Indeed, the only people that seemed
sure that Miami was playing in the Orange Bowl were the ESPN broadcasters.
What was stopping the Sugar Bowl from offering a bid to Miami?  Certainly
by your suggestion Miami would be reluctant to turn down the bid in a
public forum in favor of a lower ranked team in a higher paying bowl:
why would a school want to be accused both of cowardice and greed?

On top of that, the Sugar Bowl did not come off looking particularly
innocent in dealings with other schools:  certainly Penn State was a
better choice for the Sugar Bowl last year, and had not committed itself
to a bowl as you claim Miami had, yet was passed over by the SB Committee
in favor of Notre Dame.  

# in addition to the possibility that the
#money excuse for chickening out may have been taken away.

But it wasn't, Mark.  The Sugar had a chance last year to host a great
game, yet, as far as I know, didn't even bother to contact the University
of Miami and certainly didn't make much of an effort to get any team
other than Notre Dame.  No matter how you slice it, I don't see any
evidence that suggests that the Sugar wanted Miami, nor that even with a
postseason bowl draft the Sugar would have chosen Miami over ND.

#  Therefore even 
#with the '89 game switched from Sugar to Orange, and the '91 game switched
#from Orange to Sugar the net result would be the same.  
	 
If the coalition worked as it probably ought to, you are correct.  Still,
your comment was something to the effect of ``Miami was forced to leave
the Orange Bowl'' and my response remains that the same matchup probably
would have been made this year.  And no matter what you think would have
happened last year, the only way Miami would have been ``forced'' to leave
the Orange Bowl would have been for the Sugar to pay $600,000 more.

#then Miami would not have been in the Orange Bowl in '83 either,
#since it should have been Nebraska vs. Texas for the championship.

If by this you mean that if #1 always faced #2, you are right, and of course
then we would have been left with a fantastic Sugar Bowl between the 'Canes
and Auburn rather than the boring Auburn-Michigan game.  Still, that's not 
how the coalition works, and under the present rules, Miami still would have 
faced Nebraska.

#Why bother when Miami had already verbally locked in to the Orange Bowl?

It's interesting that you rely on this.  Personally, I recall the Sugar
and Notre Dame making a commitment several weeks early, so whether Miami 
made any commitment to the Orange (not a particularly well supported 
assumption, I might add) or not is really a moot point.

#Hence, no matter which model of the universe you believe in, Miami
#would *not* have gone to the Sugar Bowl this season without the
#bowl coalition, and would certainly have ended up in the Orange
#Bowl.

I don't happen to subscribe to either of your contrived, simplistic 
universes, and I think the same matchup would have been made without
the Coalition this year.

___

Timothy C. Pitts             
Canada US Trade Center
Department of Geography
University at Buffalo        
V262XXVE@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu