(11-14-2019 03:37 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote: (11-14-2019 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote: The thing about 1994 was, Colorado was going to face a mediocre team anyway. Because of the rules of the Bowl Coalition, the Fiesta Bowl had to choose among #17 Virginia Tech (8-3) or Notre Dame (unranked, 6-4-1).
That's interesting, and thanks for the information.
I was pretty young then and didn't know all the ins-and-outs of the Coalition, but why couldn't the Fiesta Bowl have taken either 8-3 Texas or 7-3-1 USC to face Colorado? Why were they limited to ND or Virginia Tech? Were they simply at the "back of the line" despite already having Colorado (who at #4 would seemingly be a "front of the line" type pick)?
It was because the BC rules actually favored conference standings over overall record. The rule was, a Tier I Bowl Coalition Bowl - the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton - had to select either (1) a Bowl Coalition conference champion (all champions were guaranteed a spot) or (2) a BC conference runner-up, or (3) Notre Dame. There was an exception for the SEC - because the SEC #2 was contracted to the Citrus Bowl, the SEC #3 was eligible to be picked by a Tier I bowl as well. And there was a selection process, kind of like in the BCS era.
Note that even though the Rose Bowl was not part of the Bowl Coalition, the PAC was a quasi-member, such that their runner-up was eligible to be selected by the Tier I bowls, even though their champ was committed to the Rose Bowl. The Big 10 was not a member at all, and its teams could not play in the BC bowls, which included the four big Tier one bowls, plus the three Tier II bowls - the Sun Bowl, the Gator Bowl, and the Blockbuster Bowl. To complicate things further, the Blockbuster Bowl could save one spot for a truly "at-large" team, a team not designated by the BC rules, BUT again not including the Big 10! That's how independent Penn State played in the 1992 Blockbuster Bowl. To complicate it even further, the Blockbuster was only part of the Bowl Coalition one year, 1992. I do not know why it was dropped or withdrew after that.
Anyway, in this 1994 case, the Cotton Bowl got to pick before the Fiesta Bowl, and they selected PAC #2 USC, so USC was not available.
Texas was not available to the Fiesta either, because of the cluster-frack SWC situation that year. Texas AM won the conference and was undefeated (they did have a tie), but they were ineligible for a bowl because of NCAA sanctions. After them, four teams, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Baylor were all tied with a 4-3 conference record. By some arcane formula, the SWC determined that Texas Tech was the #2 team, and since the SWC was traditionally tied to the Cotton Bowl, they played USC in the Cotton Bowl. This was because another BC rule was that the Orange, Cotton, and Sugar Bowls retained their traditional ties to the Big 8, SWC, and SEC respectively. Champs of those conferences played in those bowls, unless a #1 vs #2 matchup could be created by releasing them from those ties. **
But again back to our case, that meant Texas was not eligible for the Fiesta Bowl, because they were not the #1 or #2 team in the SWC. Even though TAMU could not go to a bowl, they were still regarded as the SWC champ and thus the #1 SWC team.
Virginia Tech was available because they were the Big East #2, after champ Miami. Also, I made one mistake in the last post - the Fiesta also could have taken #23 NC State, 8-3, as the ACC runner-up to champ FSU. They chose Notre Dame over both.
** In the three years of the Bowl Coalition, 1992 - 1994, no release of Tier I traditional tie was ever necessary. In 1992, a #1 vs #2 matchup between Miami and Alabama was accomplished by putting Big East champ Miami, not tied to any bowl, into the Sugar Bowl vs SEC champ Alabama. In 1993, a #1 vs #2 matchup was achieved by putting ACC champ #2 FSU, not tied to any bowl, into the Orange Bowl vs #2 Big 8 champ Nebraska. And in 1994, no #1 vs #2 matchup was possible, because #2 Big 10 champ Penn State was committed to the Rose Bowl while #1 Nebraska was in the Orange Bowl.
/
Bowl Games and back fills
