Is it really a surprise to anyone that the SEC is above the rest?

[4down20]

A little history for you . . .

The Big Nine and PCC were of the same accord when it came to treating players as amateurs, as compared to the semi-professional status that the Southern Universities proposed. Also, the Big Nine and PCC both had the same attitudes towards desegregation and allowing African-Americans to play football. Many other universities were still segregated. None of the Southeastern Conference schools had an African American athlete until 1966. The Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl would not be integrated until 1948, 1955, and 1956 respectively.

The Big Nine agreed, after eight years of negotiating over payments, rules, and ticket allocations, to a five-year exclusive deal with the Rose Bowl committee to send the conference champion to meet the PCC conference champion. UCLA, USC, Minnesota and Illinois all voted against it.

The Tournament of Roses committee selected from the former members of PCC and invited Washington, the first champion of the newly formed AAWU (Athletic Association of Western Universities, formerly the PCC) to play Big Ten champion Wisconsin in the 1960 Rose Bowl. The Big Ten authorized its members to accept any Rose Bowl invitation at their discretion.

The AAWU signed an agreement with the Rose Bowl that remained in force from the 1960 Rose Bowl until the advent of the BCS era in 1998. In 1962, after Minnesota changed its vote against pursuing a new agreement (resolving a 5–5 voting deadlock which had prevented any new negotiations for years), a Big Ten agreement was finalized, which went into effect with the 1963 Rose Bowl and lasted until the BCS era.

While the Big Ten supplied the "East" representative and the PCC, AAWU, or Pac-8/10 supplied the "West" representative from the 1947 Rose Bowl to the BCS era, statements about an "exclusive" Rose Bowl agreement existing during this period are not entirely accurate: the Big Ten was not part of any agreement for the 1961 and 1962 games and the status of the agreement for 1960 is questionable, at best. The fact that the 1961 Big Ten champion, Ohio State, declined the invitation to play in the 1962 Rose Bowl (without penalty) is the clearest evidence that this "exclusive agreement" did not exist in these years.

Both conferences also had "exclusive agreements" with the Rose Bowl game, in the sense that member schools were not allowed to play in any other bowl game. Both conferences abolished this rule before the 1975 college football season.

I couldn't care less if you think the reasons for the actions were justified or not. The bottom line is the Pac12 and Big10 shut everyone else out of the Rose Bowl.

 

[4down20]

You may be the king of moving the goalposts, but I've never let you get away with it and I'm sure not doing so now.

Never did I say the Pac and B1G haven't both locked onto their deals with the Rose Bowl. Not once. I said the other major bowls had their tradition as well and had long standing tie ins. There is zero chance you are going to get a Pac 1 or 2 to have a perm tie in with a SEC 1 or 2. The playoff system and traditional tie ins wouldn't have room for it. You'd have to look to the 4th - 6th place team tie ins. Been talking about that all along, you just want to harp on the RB which has zero to do with the topic at hand.

Sure, neither wanted to let go of their very long standing tradition. What's wrong with that? How is that related to the Pac and SEC not having any bowls together? So the only way the SEC can have a regular game with the Pac is to somehow force the B1G out of their long standing relationship with it and give it to the SEC? That's what you are suggesting?

I'm the one calling bullshit.

There is ZERO agenda keeping the Pac away from playing the SEC. In fact Scott pushed hard after joining the Pac to try and get some kind of tie in, again probably in the mid level where it should be easier to make deals, and found no interest in making that happen. They have every incentive to want a game and no reason to keep one from happening. The SEC itself isn't keeping it from happening, at least that's not how I'd view it. They simply don't care. They have their ties and are making their money just fine without us.

First of all, I haven't even read all this thread and don't know or give a fuck what your existing conversation was. I responded to you trying to claim the SEC is in control of well, basically the majority of bowl games and that the SEC was not scheduling the PAC. You said "tell me I'm wrong", and you are wrong.

I've merely pointed out that it was the Pac, not the SEC, who was the one that locked others out of the bowl games and started all this "tie in" mess. To which you immediately started in with excuses about how the Pac doesn't have such influence and wouldn't be able to do such things.

And that not only does the Pac and Big10 have a lot of influence, they've actually exerted that influence for decades in the opposite direction.

That's the fact of the matter. So when your main bowl game was the one who locked out everyone else and refused to allow other conferences to play, you don't get to sit here and try to pretend like it's up to everyone else to fix it.

It's about as bad as you trying to claim the SEC should be the ones to go to crazy difficult schedules rather than the other conferences. You ALWAYS have bullshit double standards for the SEC vs the Pac12. Before the SEC was the bad conferences for not doing way more than everyone else in scheduling while already posting the most difficult schedules on average, and now you are here blaming the SEC for lack of matchups with Pac12 teams. The SEC is supposed to make threats to get it to happen, while the little ole Pac12 is at the mercy of the bowl committee.

Bullshit.

Personally don't think it much matters with you, you'll find some weird stupid thing to claim and harp on no matter what.

 

[umichgradfan]

I couldn't care less if you think the reasons for the actions were justified or not. The bottom line is the Pac12 and Big10 shut everyone else out of the Rose Bowl.

I didn't try to "justify" anything. The history speaks for itself. The Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl shut out any teams who fielded black players until 1948, 1955, and 1956 respectively. Some Southeastern Conference teams actually refused to play teams that included black players until the mid 60s. I wonder whose actions were more egregious.

 

[4down20]

I didn't try to "justify" anything. The history speaks for itself. The Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl shut out any teams who fielded black players until 1948, 1955, and 1956 respectively. Some Southeastern Conference teams actually refused to play teams that included black players until the mid 60s. I wonder whose actions were more egregious.

You are still trying to justify it.

 

[umichgradfan]

You are still trying to justify it.

Your "opinion" is noted.

 

[4down20]

Your "opinion" is noted.

No shit, it's a forum where it's saved forever.

 

[WizardHawk]

First of all, I haven't even read all this thread and don't know or give a fuck what your existing conversation was. I responded to you trying to claim the SEC is in control of well, basically the majority of bowl games and that the SEC was not scheduling the PAC. You said "tell me I'm wrong", and you are wrong.

Utter and complete bullshit. Never said it, never implied it, and wasn't part of any point made.

You are fucking full of yourself with this SEC paranoia.

I've merely pointed out that it was the Pac, not the SEC, who was the one that locked others out of the bowl games and started all this "tie in" mess. To which you immediately started in with excuses about how the Pac doesn't have such influence and wouldn't be able to do such things.

Nope, not even close to what was said.

What the hell is wrong with you?

And that not only does the Pac and Big10 have a lot of influence, they've actually exerted that influence for decades in the opposite direction.

That doesn't even make a shred of sense. Pure stupidity.

That's the fact of the matter. So when your main bowl game was the one who locked out everyone else and refused to allow other conferences to play, you don't get to sit here and try to pretend like it's up to everyone else to fix it.

Not only didn't I say that, but I've clearly said to YOU directly the point is the BOWL ORGANIZERS control those things, not either/any conference! You are just flat out making shit up.

It's about as bad as you trying to claim the SEC should be the ones to go to crazy difficult schedules rather than the other conferences. You ALWAYS have bullshit double standards for the SEC vs the Pac12. Before the SEC was the bad conferences for not doing way more than everyone else in scheduling while already posting the most difficult schedules on average, and now you are here blaming the SEC for lack of matchups with Pac12 teams. The SEC is supposed to make threats to get it to happen, while the little ole Pac12 is at the mercy of the bowl committee.

Didn't say a word of that.

You must be on drugs.

Seriously.

I really can't be more clear. RA started this accusing the Pac of being pussies and avoiding games with the SEC. The ONLY thing I said that you are trying to stretch into some massive attack on the SEC is that if it actually mattered to them I'm sure it would happen. That's it. There is no blame in that. Not even a smidge. There is no attack in that. You have to be a conspiracy nut to think otherwise. Let me make that more clear for you since you are struggling. I really don't think the SEC commissioner gives a rip if a Pac team goes against any of his teams. They have some of the best tie ins and great revenue from the bowls they are already associated with. There is no reason for them to care. The Pac has shit tie ins after like their 3rd one. They have pushed to improve those and have reached out to try and make games with the ACC (which did end in one tie in) and the SEC. My guess is either the bowl organizers the SEC is already with don't want the risk of travel shortages from this far west or the contracts they currently have go out far enough there wasn't room.

The Pac hasn't blocked out anyone from the Rose Bowl. Didn't happen. Prove that wrong. Seems to be a thing for you so go right ahead. You can't prove it wrong because it's fucking stupid. They used to take the best team from the east they could find. They being the RB committee. Politics got in the way at the end of WWII and two conference that agreed athletics should remain amateur both agreed to play in the RB every year and have renewed their contracts ever since. It became a tradition. The Pac can't just tell the B1G to leave to make it so an SEC team can play in it. That's not how it works.

I haven't once brought up anything about a top 4 team from either playing because those long traditions of the major bowls are not going to change for reasons this small. And I put it ENTIRELY ON THE BOWL ORGANIZERS AND THE MONEY. Not ONCE have I put even a small bit of blame on anything else.

Wake the fuck up.

 

[4down20]

Utter and complete bullshit. Never said it, never implied it, and wasn't part of any point made.

You are fucking full of yourself with this SEC paranoia.


Nope, not even close to what was said.

You said this:

You don't think if the SEC had a bowl tie in somewhere down there and told them they would pull out and go to a different one if they didn't bring in a Pac that they wouldn't? Money talks and the SEC travels and pays for bowls very well, not to mention the tie to ESPN.

And then you turned around and claimed the Pac12 had no influence over the Rose Bowl, it was all committee.

The Pac can't come forward and tell the RB they would back out if they didn't drop the Big, no more than the Big could do the same. They have iron clad contracts. Doubt any of the top could make those changes.

I didn't read the rest of your post.

 

[4down20]

As usual, the Rose Bowl is special and everyone else should bend around it. Because when RA said something about the Pac12 ducking the SEC, he meant the teams ranked like 5th and 6th on down, not the teams at the top that matter.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I didn't try to "justify" anything. The history speaks for itself. The Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl shut out any teams who fielded black players until 1948, 1955, and 1956 respectively. Some Southeastern Conference teams actually refused to play teams that included black players until the mid 60s. I wonder whose actions were more egregious.

Apples and oranges....that dog don't hunt.

 

[offshore1509]

The year we played lsu for a national title was a home for them.. right in their backyard. But we've been getting fucked for years anyways by the rose bowl. Maybe some of you don't wanna travel up north, but people like me never see major bowl games and never will. There's a reason why nfl teams like the packers play hard for home field advantage.. and if we go to a playoff system, top teams should get HF advantage. Also, all bowl games should be 100% neutral.

Okla. played FSU in Miami for the NC, LSU in New Orleans, UF. in Miami, and USC in Miami, all title games.

 

[WizardHawk]

You said this:

And then you turned around and claimed the Pac12 had no influence over the Rose Bowl, it was all committee.

I didn't read the rest of your post.

You admit you didn't read any of the convo RA and I were having, that you jumped in. You also admit you haven't read half of what I've responded directly to you about.

And yet you are somehow an expert on what actually was said and what actually wast meant.

There is nothing you have posted here I didn't already cover. You didn't read it then, so why waste my time now?

There was ZERO attack on your precious SEC (love how you still deny being on team SEC with stupid shit like this lol) and there was ZERO blame for no Pac/SEC bowl ties on either party. Not once, not even a little. There is only your paranoia.

As usual, the Rose Bowl is special and everyone else should bend around it. Because when RA said something about the Pac12 ducking the SEC, he meant the teams ranked like 5th and 6th on down, not the teams at the top that matter.

Not sure how many times I can say I didn't make any claims about the RB being special or unique, nor different. In fact I've already said half a dozen times easily they are exactly on par with their agreements to the other of the 'big 4'. There wasn't any discussion about any bowl at that level until you went nuts. RA never brought up the RB, I never talked about it, nor did anyone else bring it up. It's a legit bowl. So is the alamo and holliday. The talk was about the bowls that had at larges that took mid majors and yet we never play SEC. That was the only thing being discussed.

But once again you are going to make some stupid claim about what others were talking about without actually reading any of it. Can't wait.

 

[WizardHawk]

I couldn't care less if you think the reasons for the actions were justified or not. The bottom line is the Pac12 and Big10 shut everyone else out of the Rose Bowl.

NO THEY DIDN'T.

They took offers to sign multi year deals for a tie in. Are you not capable of understanding what that means? Neither shut out anyone. Each agreed with the RB committee to give their champion to that bowl. Neither IS the bowl, they are participants. How do you not get this?

And why the fuck are you so damned butt hurt over shit that happened 70 years ago? Let it go man.

 

[WizardHawk]

You misunderstood my point but it does make a difference where the bowl is played...and mainly for the reason you stated. I'm no historical expert on the origin of bowls, but I'm assuming they started as a destination location for fans to get away to during the winter. That would mainly mean sites in Florida, Arizona and Southern California.

Anyone know the history/origin of the bowl system?

The Rose Bowl was the first. That's why it's called the grand daddy of them all. It was actually created to fund the parade which predates the bowl and it wasn't played every year back then. Wasn't even the 'champ' of the west in all of the games. It was kind of a exhibition game meant to showcase teams on opposite sides of the country.

Bama put southern football on the map because of the rose bowl. They came in and won one against Washington and showed their brand of football was legit.

The bowl made money. Between the 20's and 30's 3 more popped up. They were more about attracting people to their warmer winter states and bring in cash. So you do have the basis of their origin more or less correct. Those big 4 have been around for a very long time.

The recent explosion of them has entirely watered down the product and made a total farce of it. At least half should be thrown away. Teams under 8 wins shouldn't be in showcase games IMO. No matter what conf they are from.

 

[4down20]

You admit you didn't read any of the convo RA and I were having, that you jumped in. You also admit you haven't read half of what I've responded directly to you about.

And yet you are somehow an expert on what actually was said and what actually wast meant.

There is nothing you have posted here I didn't already cover. You didn't read it then, so why waste my time now?

There was ZERO attack on your precious SEC (love how you still deny being on team SEC with stupid shit like this lol) and there was ZERO blame for no Pac/SEC bowl ties on either party. Not once, not even a little. There is only your paranoia.

Not sure how many times I can say I didn't make any claims about the RB being special or unique, nor different. In fact I've already said half a dozen times easily they are exactly on par with their agreements to the other of the 'big 4'. There wasn't any discussion about any bowl at that level until you went nuts. RA never brought up the RB, I never talked about it, nor did anyone else bring it up. It's a legit bowl. So is the alamo and holliday. The talk was about the bowls that had at larges that took mid majors and yet we never play SEC. That was the only thing being discussed.

But once again you are going to make some stupid claim about what others were talking about without actually reading any of it. Can't wait.

Also not reading this.

 

[4down20]

NO THEY DIDN'T.

They took offers to sign multi year deals for a tie in. Are you not capable of understanding what that means? Neither shut out anyone. Each agreed with the RB committee to give their champion to that bowl. Neither IS the bowl, they are participants. How do you not get this?

And why the fuck are you so damned butt hurt over shit that happened 70 years ago? Let it go man.

Yeah, I know exactly what it means when 2 conferences sign multi year deals for tie in - nobody else is allowed to go. Which is another way of saying - everyone else was shut out of the game.

 

[Deep Creek]

The Rose Bowl was the first. That's why it's called the grand daddy of them all. It was actually created to fund the parade which predates the bowl and it wasn't played every year back then. Wasn't even the 'champ' of the west in all of the games. It was kind of a exhibition game meant to showcase teams on opposite sides of the country.

Bama put southern football on the map because of the rose bowl. They came in and won one against Washington and showed their brand of football was legit.

The bowl made money. Between the 20's and 30's 3 more popped up. They were more about attracting people to their warmer winter states and bring in cash. So you do have the basis of their origin more or less correct. Those big 4 have been around for a very long time.

The recent explosion of them has entirely watered down the product and made a total farce of it. At least half should be thrown away. Teams under 8 wins shouldn't be in showcase games IMO. No matter what conf they are from.

I had a feeling it was Chamber of Commerce/Tourism generated. Thanks for the info. I too believe 8 wins should be the minimum if playing 12 games.

 

[WizardHawk]

Also not reading this.

Well no shit. You'd much rather preach and call out bullshit on everything you don't bother reading. What's new.

 

[4down20]

Well no shit. You'd much rather preach and call out bullshit on everything you don't bother reading. What's new.

This is how far I read your posts for each of them:

Utter and complete bullshit. Never said it, never implied it, and wasn't part of any point made.

You are fucking full of yourself with this SEC paranoia.

You admit you didn't read any of the convo RA and I were having, that you jumped in. You also admit you haven't read half of what I've responded directly to you about.

And yet you are somehow an expert on what actually was said and what actually wast meant.

There is nothing you have posted here I didn't already cover. You didn't read it then, so why waste my time now?

There was ZERO attack on your precious SEC (love how you still deny being on team SEC with stupid shit like this lol) and there was ZERO blame for no Pac/SEC bowl ties on either party. Not once, not even a little. There is only your paranoia.

And I'm not goign to bother going back on the rest.

You can't go 2 seconds without trying to claim any all responses to what you say are the sign of a SEC homer, so in general you get to go fuck yourself.

 

[WizardHawk]

Yeah, I know exactly what it means when 2 conferences sign multi year deals for tie in - nobody else is allowed to go. Which is another way of saying - everyone else was shut out of the game.

So who exactly is 'shutting' out other teams. Pac made a deal. B1G made a deal. Both have been resigned many times because everyone involved made good money. The other 3 of the big 4 were created before the exclusive agreements were made so it's not like people were left out in the cold.

The B1G and Pac wanted to keep football as amateur while much of the rest of the country did not. The civil rights crap created huge issues politically. Conferences formed alliances and held to their own. It wasn't just the RB.

This is all football 101. Nowhere in there is some mass conspiracy meant to keep others out. Not one bit of it. There was no collusion of exclusion. That's purely in your head.