Check out this fascinating little bit of information Barnhart dishes out today at his blog:
Over the course of the week I found out that there is an interesting little nugget in the new BCS contract with ESPN, which will begin after the 2010 regular season.
In past contracts if the Rose Bowl lost one of its traditional partners, the Big Ten or Pac-10 champ, to the BCS championship game, it could simply fill with another Big Ten or Pac-10 team that qualified. That’s how a 9-3 Illinois team got to Pasadena two years ago.
But in the new contract, I’m told, there is an interesting clause: The first time in the deal that the Rose loses one of its champions to the BCS title game, that opening will be automatically filled by a Coalition (non-BCS conference) team if one has qualified. [Emphasis added.]
Yeah, I’d say that’s interesting. It could placate ESPN’s viewers by avoiding a weak matchup (USC vs. Illinois, anyone?) and as Barnhart notes,
Should the BCS get sued and hauled back before Congress, it is another way it can counter the claim that the Coalition schools don’t have enough access.
What I’d like to know is whether the BCS boys thought this up themselves or whether it was imposed on them by Disney. Because either ESPN/ABC is getting scary enough to threaten the Rose Bowl and pull it off, or the BCS suits are smarter than a lot of people give them credit for.
Get The Picture 
still chaps my ass that we didn’t get a crack at USC in 2007. THAT would’ve been a memorable game, and those bumblefucks at the selection committee and behind the Big 10 and Pac 10 screwed the CFB loving world out of essentially a #2 National title game. Can’t stand it when douchebaggery comes at my team’s expense
LikeLike
Or maybe the Rose Bowl is just figuring they’ll get to choose from Boise State or Utah anyway?
LikeLike
sorry, meant to reply to the Senator
LikeLike
Oh this is def the BCS boys hedging their bets. Maybe ESPN/ABC came up with the idea. But just like the fact that if the BCS schools are pushed far enough they could simply “take their ball and go home” and do their own thing the Rose Bowl def wouldnt have done this unless they wanted to or thought it was best for their game.
Illinois getting in their at 9-3 and being awful may have been a key reason as well.
LikeLike
Does anyone really want to see USC vs. Boise State?
LikeLike
Sure. I would. It would further make everyone in the nation realize just how powerful the SEC is. Wouldn’t it? Or am I still drunk?
LikeLike
You’re probably still drunk. The last time an SEC school went up against one of these little schools, they didn’t fare so well. 2009 Sugar Bowl. You can look it up.
LikeLike
That does not solve anything. Not many people would rather watch USC vs. Boise than USC/Illinois.
The fact that the replacement does not come from another Big conference is ridiculous.
The caveat is basically that one out of the 3 years a Little School team qualifies they could be in the Rose if it loses its Big 10/Pac 10. If there is not a Little School team to replace them, then there will just be another Illinois.
LikeLike
Pingback: Is The Rose Bowl Slumming? « The Mountain West Conference Connection
Very interesting. Great job digging this up
LikeLike
Thanks. And thanks for the link, too.
LikeLike
Pingback: Barbarians at the Rose Bowl Gates
Pingback: Is The Rose Bowl Being Strong Armed by ESPN? | sportsjabber.net
This does not increase access to non-AQ schools. The qualifications did not change. It merely increases access to the Rose Bowl. It seems more like forcing the Rose Bowl to abandon its ridiculous cry of “tradition.” Harvard has won a Rose Bowl. Florida has never played in a Rose Bowl, and neither has LSU. The first Rose Bowl for Texas was in 2005, made possible because of the BCS.
LikeLike