[Husker] clemson

[Nick Chevance]

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com> wrote:
> There are some rules in place that aren't just about money.  I believe
> that some bowls with tie-ins have to choose in order from the available
> team with the best record and other teams within 1 win of that record.

You are correct.  There are rules that tie certain conferences to
certain bowls, and from those conferences, bowls get certain seeded
teams.  But those rules are in place to assure that the more
prestigious bowls (but not one of the 'major' bowls), like the Alamo,
Sun, Cotton, and Gator, get first choice among teams likely to bring
an audience, and with them, money.  That's also why bowls with first
choice for certain seeded teams are allowed to select teams one win or
loss up or down in order to get the best audience.  Its not to get the
best match up, its intended to allow the more prestigious bowls get a
better chance to get compensated for putting on the bowl.

Not that some of these match ups don't sometimes produce interesting
results now and again.  That Oklahoma-Boise State Fiesta bowl, a BCS
bowl, was not expected to turn out anything like it did.  But there,
the bowl was forced to take Boise State.  I'm sure it would have
preferred USC, Michigan (maybe not), or even LSU that year.

But the point of the bowl tie-ins is designed to give certain bowls
teams people want to see.  That's why smaller conferences don't have
many bowl tie ins while major conferences often go 5, 6 or 7 teams
deep.  And having teams people want to see brings in the money.  And
while they try to bring in teams that provide a good game, they are
less concerned with that and more concerned with the
old-butts-in-the-seats issue.

Nick
-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
Anatole France