From: v262xxve@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Timothy C Pitts)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Sugar Bowl Thoughts
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:52:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <79437@hydra.gatech.EDU>, mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell) writes...
#So you are saying that even if the Coalition had been in place last
#year, Miami would have turned down an invitation to the Sugar Bowl
#to play in the Orange Bowl?  I'm not surprised.

I've said nothing of the sort:  my point was that the Bowl Coalition would 
not have``forc[ed]'' Miami to do anything different in any of the 
MNC-related games it has been in besides pitting the Canes against #1
Colorado in the Jan. '90 Orange Bowl instead of against #7 Alabama in the
Sugar.  Thus, not only is your comment uninformative, it is misleading since
Miami would have ended up playing in the Orange Bowl one more time over the
past ten years under the Bowl Coalition than it did in actuality.

#  In addition, the Sugar Bowl 
#executive director has stated that the bowl "will not lose anyone"
#due to the payout escape clause, i.e. if Miami tries to chicken out
#of the Sugar Bowl in the future, the payout will be increased by whatever
#small remaining increment is needed to force them to come.

And you believe him?  Why didn't the Sugar Bowl try doing that last year?
No matter your opinion on Miami's culpability in last year's bowl fiasco,
you must admit that the Sugar Bowl made little to no effort at drawing
Miami away from the Orange.  I'll believe the Sugar Bowl (or any other
bowl, for that matter) will pay more than it says when the check's been
cashed.

#This seems to be in direct conflict with your statement above, that
#in 1991 Miami would have chickened out of the Sugar for a slightly
#higher payout in the Orange.

Again, I never said it would since I am not the President or AD at Miami and
don't know what they would have done, I simply state that Miami *could*
have ``chickened out'' if the administration had wanted to.

#  It is also in direct conflict with
#earlier Blowhard statements that playing in the Orange Bowl is 
#Miami's goal every year, just like playing in the Sugar Bowl is
#every SEC team's goal.

Regardless of what any ``blowhards'' said, the primary goal of the University 
of Miami athletics in every sport is to win a National Championship.  There
seems to be a subsidiary goal in football to play in the Orange Bowl, if
possible (e.g., last year), but if the team could win a NC by going elsewhere,
they have not shied away from going.  Simply put, the university is trying
to optimize towards these two (among other) goals.

#Had the bowl coalition not been in place, Miami would certainly 
#have gone to the Orange Bowl instead of the Sugar, and Alabama
#would have been left playing Notre Dame while the 'Canes ripped
#Nebraska again.

That's pure speculation on your part, Mark.  You have no idea where Miami
would have gone, and you have no idea what teams the bowls would have
invited.  I speculate that nobody thought Alabama would lose another game
after mid-November, and nobody thought the 'Canes would, hence the Sugar
and the University of Miami would have taken the chance and the same bowl
matchups would have been made.

___

Timothy C. Pitts             
Canada US Trade Center
Department of Geography
University at Buffalo        
V262XXVE@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college