From: scott@ods.com (Scott Harper)
Subject: Re: Possible #1 vs. #2 matchup in major bo
Organization: Optical Data Systems, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:29:27 GMT

Jason Fawcett (jfawcett@encore.com) wrote:
: Scott, that was based on current #2 Bama losing a game, and then #3 Michigan
: moving up to take the #2 ranking.  I that case Miami whould have a choice.
: Since Michigan is not in the alliance.
: 
: If the #1 and #2 teams ( AP poll ) are in the alliance, and one of the 
: two teams doesn't have a bowl lock then THEY MUST PLAY.

No, that's not true.  Again, there has been a great deal of discussion on
this the past couple of weeks in the Dallas Morning News, complete with
interviews with Miami's AD Maggard, and various bowl commissioners.

First of all, the *bowls* (not teams) with conference champion hosts
are not even obligated to pick the highest ranked member of the coalition
as their opponent!  They merely get to *select* in the order of the ranking
of their hosts...  Now, everyone involved keeps swearing that they will do
"what's right for the coalition", but it is not a requirement.  The one
concrete example being used here in Dallas assumes that the Sugar Bowl picks
first with #2 Alabama, and selects #1 Miami.  Then the Cotton Bowl picks
second with #4 A&M -- they pick #3 FSU right?  Wrong.  Speculation is that
they would take #7 Notre Dame for the TV draw.  Now don't flame me, because
as far as I'm concerned it's major bullshit.  Remember, the key is that the
*teams* don't get to select their opponents, the *bowls* do... and we all
know what the bowls are in it for.

Secondly, the team that is invited to one of the conference champion bowls
*is not* obligated to accept the invitation.  The example discussed was
(before NU's loss and FSU jumping A&M) that assuming Alabama lost, the 
Cotton Bowl with a #2 A&M would select first, and invite #1 Miami.  But,
Miami *might* have a chance to play a top-5 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl,
make 1.2 million more on payout, save 700,000 on travel expenses, and
still (try to) say they played an opponent meriting the MNC.

Now, my question was about if neither #1 nor #2 was tied to a bowl. I
don't know what the coalition says about "mandating" that they play in
the Fiesta Bowl.  You may very well be correct about that.  But it just
seems to me that if it is optional in one case (in a conference champio
bowl), that it is likely optional in the other.  And, there is possibly
a "no rematch" escape clause.

Also, someone (you?) said that the main objective of the bowl coalition
was to set up a #1 vs. #2 championship game...  Well, while that is a
nice side effect, that isn't really true either.  The main objective of
the bowl coalition is to try to add a little sanity to the *selection*
process.  Remember the bullshit that flies around early every November
with secret deals ahead of the "official" bowl selection date when the
bowls were looking out for themselves only.  Invariably, at least one of
them comes out looking stupid.  Avoiding that is the main reason for the
coalition.  (That, and trying to prevent a playoff system...)

Oh well, it seems that no one *really* knows exactly what will happen
with the coalition...  I suspect the day after the SEC championship
game we will all know the real answer!
-- 
Scott Harper                       Optical Data Systems, Inc.
scott@ods.com                      1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college