(07-09-2014 12:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for the Peach, we actually agree: I never said the Peach was some tiny, piddling bowl. I said it was one of the better non-major bowls. The only thing I objected to was the ECU fans characterization of it as a major/quasi-major in 1992, which it definitely was NOT, and from your description of it you seem to agree that it was not too.

Hey, just because we agree is no reason for us not to argue.

(07-09-2014 01:56 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 12:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 07:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for the Peach, we actually agree: I never said the Peach was some tiny, piddling bowl. I said it was one of the better non-major bowls. The only thing I objected to was the ECU fans characterization of it as a major/quasi-major in 1992, which it definitely was NOT, and from your description of it you seem to agree that it was not too.

Hey, just because we agree is no reason for us not to argue.

And my opinion is that you both are wrong and I even showed how the Peach Bowl has been incorporated into the major bowl rotation for the upcoming playoffs.

So we will agree to disagree on this topic.

We all know the Peach has been incorporated into the Access Bowl/Playoffs rotation and so HENCEFORTH will be a major bowl. But it NEVER has been major before now, and it certainly was NOT major or "quasi-major" in 1992! Not even close.

And how did it get major status in the CFP? By bidding BIG money to claim that status. It was not because the Peach had been drifting upwards all that much in prestige. E.g., over the past 10 years, the Peach was never as prestigious as the Cap One bowl. But the Peach organizers came up with bigger money so were elevated to major in the CFP.

(07-09-2014 02:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 05:57 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true. But then again it's also true of the Gator Bowl, Sun Bowl, and several others.

I think it's pretty clear: The Peach was an upper-middling kind of bowl. It was obviously in no way shape or form a major bowl, quasi or otherwise, but it was one of the better non-majors. Behind those like the Cap One or Cotton,

Cotton was a major bowl back when. Citrus/Cap One, not.

Quote:but ahead of bowls like the Independence and Heart of Dallas.

Yes.

Yep there were 4 major bowls, Sugar, Cotton, Orange and Rose. Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10. Sec was a lock with Sugar, Orange with the Big 8 and Cotton was SWC. The reason all this playoff BCS stuff started in the first place was because too many times you would get a number 1 ranked teams from all 4 big conferences and they never got a shot at each other because they were locked into the bowl contracts. SWC killed the cotton, the Fiesta, a minor bowl became prominent. Orange shifted from Big 8 to ACC when Florida State and Miami made them relevant.

All bowls other than those four were minor bowls. The bowls that began to distance themselves from the minor bowls were the ones that started locking in the big conferences 2nd place teams. The rest is history. The ACC was never considered big time football. The big east did not exist.

The idea that the Peach was a somehow minor bowl is misleading because all bowls were considered minor. The Peach has always been a quality bowl game. Really all bowl games were big games back then particularly before there were eleventy million bowls. The Capitol One bowl was once the Tangerine Bowl, a small college bowl until the 1970's when it started drawing big time schools.

To suggest that when ECU played in the Peach it was a small or lesser bowl, like the Tangerine prior to 1970 designed for just smaller colleges is absurd and ignorant but apparently an effective troll for young and dumb posters.

quo might understant some of this had usf even fielded a football team or been a real univeristy at any point in history when ECU was actually going to bowl games and playing decent football, heck even the University of Tampa was playing in bowl games back then. Maybe you should consult a Tampa fan.

The Rose Bowl is ho hum? Weird it is the best of them IMO.

"Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10."

Rose is big....to the pac10/big10 fans and people in their footprint

I lived in Missouri for years, people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. It certainly doesn't carry the weight it does in say, Iowa.

Huh? The Rose Bowl is always the highest-attended bowl game period, and the most-watched bowl game save for the national championship game. It is the most famous bowl, the bowl everyone has heard of even if you don't follow college football.

So it obviously had national appeal that transcended the B1G and PAC. Almost like the Army-Navy game in that regard, it was synonymous with New Years Day.

(07-09-2014 04:09 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 07:14 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 10:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:12 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Taking the staring year of 1992 (since it's the year the ECU fans are talking about)...looks like the Peach Bowl, it's New Years Day time frame and the match ups are pretty big time to me....


January 1, 1992 #12 East Carolina 37 #21 North Carolina State 34
January 2, 1993 #19 North Carolina 21 #24 Mississippi State 17
December 31, 1993 #24 Clemson 14 Kentucky 13
January 1, 1995 #23 North Carolina State 28 #16 Mississippi State 24
December 30, 1995 #18 Virginia 34 Georgia 27
December 28, 1996 #17 LSU 10 Clemson 7
January 2, 1998 #13 Auburn 21 Clemson 17
December 31, 1998 #19 Georgia 35 #13 Virginia 33
December 30, 1999 #15 Mississippi State 17 Clemson 7
December 29, 2000 LSU 28 #15 Georgia Tech 14
December 31, 2001 North Carolina 16 Auburn 10
December 31, 2002 #20 Maryland 30 Tennessee 3
January 2, 2004 Clemson 27 #6 Tennessee 14
December 31, 2004 #14 Miami (Florida) 27 #20 Florida 10
December 30, 2005 #10 LSU 40 #9 Miami (Florida) 3
December 30, 2006 Georgia 31 #14 Virginia Tech 24
December 31, 2007 #22 Auburn 23 #15 Clemson 20 (OT)
December 31, 2008 LSU 38 #14 Georgia Tech 3
December 31, 2009 #12 Virginia Tech 37 Tennessee 14
December 31, 2010 #23 Florida State 26 #19 South Carolina 17
December 31, 2011 Auburn 43 Virginia 24
December 31, 2012 #14 Clemson 25 #9 LSU 24
December 31, 2013 #20 Texas A&M 52 #22 Duke 48

Looking at the 1990s, not a single time did a top 10 team play in the Peach and only half the time were both teams ranked.

Absolutely nothing 'major' about that.

Heck, i lived in baton rouge then and LSU played in the Peach in 95 and 2000. Nobody regarded that as anything but a nice little rebound bowl to play in after a couple of down years.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

well using your arguments though most of the schools in this bowl have "brand"....ranked or not ;-)

That's true. But then again it's also true of the Gator Bowl, Sun Bowl, and several others.

I think it's pretty clear: The Peach was an upper-middling kind of bowl. It was obviously in no way shape or form a major bowl, quasi or otherwise, but it was one of the better non-majors. Behind those like the Cap One or Cotton, but ahead of bowls like the Independence and Heart of Dallas.

I stopped trying to convince you that the Peach was a quasi-major bowl a couple of days ago because I'm not sure if you would admit it even if I could persuade you to change your stance at all and I think this back and forth just annoys many on this board. However, I feel sort of compelled to address your above contradicting comment.

Again, quasi by definition means being almost. By your own admission, it was one of the better non-major bowls. Doesn't that inherently mean that it was almost a major bowl and thus a quasi-major bowl?

Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears by your comments that in 1992 you consider the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton bowls to be the major bowls. So even using your definition of what constituted a "major" bowl at that time then the next best 4 or 5 bowls should be considered almost major bowls. You have already essentially admitted that the Peach at that time was in this next tier of bowl games.

Outside of the bowl games that you consider major back in 1992, the next best tier of bowls IMO in order from best to worst were the Citrus, Gator, Peach, Holiday, & HOF bowls and then after those games the Liberty and Sun Bowls would begin the next tier.

My point is, if these bowl games are the next best bowls outside of the 5 that you consider to be the major bowls of that era then why are you so adamant that the Peach was not a quasi-major bowl, i.e., almost a major bowl? It would be one thing if your position was that it was arguably not a quasi-major bowl but you completely disregard the notion in an ostensible attempt to make it seem ludicrous for me to have the audacity to take that position.

I do that because, quite frankly, the notion that the 1992 Peach was "almost" a major bowl is just not really arguable. I have watched college football for more than 40 years and am completely immersed in its culture. In 1992, the Peach was not regarded as anything like a major bowl.

Your point that it was in the "next category" of bowls after the majors is not compelling, because just because item B is in the next category behind item A, doesn't mean B is "almost" in the same category as A. The gap between those categories could be immense. E.g., imagine if there are 10 guys playing tennis on some courts. One of them is Rafael Nadal. The other nine are me and eight of my buddies, hackers like me but I happen to be the best of the hackers. But, even though I can fairly be called the 2nd best out of the 10 players on the courts, that doesn't mean i'm "almost" in the same category of skill as Nadal. I'm 1 skill level above my friends, he's 30 skill levels above me.

Now that's just an extreme example to make the point: The gap between the Rose Bowl and Peach Bowl isn't nearly as great as between me and Nadal. But in 1992 it was a significant gap, such that nobody would ever have said the Peach was "almost" or "quasi" major. They just wouldn't have. I remember.

All that said, I enjoy reading your posts on this forum as well.

Stop bickering like an old married couple & get the thread back on topic. Lol.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

(07-09-2014 02:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 05:57 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 09:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That's true. But then again it's also true of the Gator Bowl, Sun Bowl, and several others.

I think it's pretty clear: The Peach was an upper-middling kind of bowl. It was obviously in no way shape or form a major bowl, quasi or otherwise, but it was one of the better non-majors. Behind those like the Cap One or Cotton,

Cotton was a major bowl back when. Citrus/Cap One, not.

Quote:but ahead of bowls like the Independence and Heart of Dallas.

Yes.

Yep there were 4 major bowls, Sugar, Cotton, Orange and Rose. Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10. Sec was a lock with Sugar, Orange with the Big 8 and Cotton was SWC. The reason all this playoff BCS stuff started in the first place was because too many times you would get a number 1 ranked teams from all 4 big conferences and they never got a shot at each other because they were locked into the bowl contracts. SWC killed the cotton, the Fiesta, a minor bowl became prominent. Orange shifted from Big 8 to ACC when Florida State and Miami made them relevant.

All bowls other than those four were minor bowls. The bowls that began to distance themselves from the minor bowls were the ones that started locking in the big conferences 2nd place teams. The rest is history. The ACC was never considered big time football. The big east did not exist.

The idea that the Peach was a somehow minor bowl is misleading because all bowls were considered minor. The Peach has always been a quality bowl game. Really all bowl games were big games back then particularly before there were eleventy million bowls. The Capitol One bowl was once the Tangerine Bowl, a small college bowl until the 1970's when it started drawing big time schools.

To suggest that when ECU played in the Peach it was a small or lesser bowl, like the Tangerine prior to 1970 designed for just smaller colleges is absurd and ignorant but apparently an effective troll for young and dumb posters.

quo might understant some of this had usf even fielded a football team or been a real univeristy at any point in history when ECU was actually going to bowl games and playing decent football, heck even the University of Tampa was playing in bowl games back then. Maybe you should consult a Tampa fan.

The Rose Bowl is ho hum? Weird it is the best of them IMO.

"Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10."

Rose is big....to the pac10/big10 fans and people in their footprint

I lived in Missouri for years, people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. It certainly doesn't carry the weight it does in say, Iowa.

people that werent big 10 or pac 10 fans didnt care about the rose bowl any more than the tangerine. the winner usually was pimped as an National Champ by the media creating a myth that big10 and pac10 football was better than it was in reality. Since the BCS, where they cant hide in the rose bowl the pac and big have won 2 national championships and one was vacated

the bcs exposed the myth. The pac10/big10 have not won a rose bowl since the contract ended and they had to face outside opposition.

2002 miami beat nebraska
2005 texas beat mich
2006 texas beat usc
2011 tcu beat wisconsin

apparently the only way a pac 10 team or a big 10 team can win the rose bowl is if they play each other.

so yeah, ho hum. but by all means believe what espn tells you.

(07-09-2014 08:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  ...the bcs exposed the myth. The pac10/big10 have not won a rose bowl since the contract ended and they had to face outside opposition.

2002 miami beat nebraska
2005 texas beat mich
2006 texas beat usc
2011 tcu beat wisconsin

apparently the only way a pac 10 team or a big 10 team can win the rose bowl is if they play each other.

Ohio State beat Oregon in 2010.

(07-09-2014 09:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 08:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  ...the bcs exposed the myth. The pac10/big10 have not won a rose bowl since the contract ended and they had to face outside opposition.

2002 miami beat nebraska
2005 texas beat mich
2006 texas beat usc
2011 tcu beat wisconsin

apparently the only way a pac 10 team or a big 10 team can win the rose bowl is if they play each other.

Ohio State beat Oregon in 2010.

You just proved his point

(07-09-2014 06:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 05:33 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 05:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:59 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not really. Quasi- means false or an impostor, a pretender to a status. The Aresco League circa September 2013 could be seen as a "quasi-power conference". (A lot of SEC fans see the ACC as a quasi-power conference now.)

"Major bowl" wasn't something that was on a continuum. There were four major bowls, and then all the other ones. (Until the Fiesta crashed the party paying big checks to arrange national championship games.)

But if it helps, the PEach Bowl was one of the better minor bowl games--compare it to any one of a dozen games that went under, or with the Independence Bowl featuring the Southland Conference champ....


No. It's a brighter line than that. Nobody would call the Cap One Bowl or the Chik-fil-A or Cotton Bowls (pre-2014) "quasi BCS bowls" or "almost BCS bowls."

I never defined the term "major bowls" as being synonymous with the BCS bowls. Moreover, we were talking about the pre-BCS era. Therefore your analogy is inconsequential.

You don't get to define the term "major bowls." Googling "major bowls", I found this as the third entry. It lists the announcers for the Rose, Sugar, ORange, Cotton, Fiesta and the 1984 Holiday Bowl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ann...bowl_games

Being a major bowl, just like being a BCS bowl, wasn't like being fat where there are degrees. It was like being pregnant. You is or you ain't.

Your point about one of the dictionary definitions is a better one. I don't think that definition reflects the usage of the term "quasi-", but now I'm arguing with a dictionary, which is an uphill battle.

While I like to use wikipedia to educate myself often, I think that most would agree that it is not always accurate or all encompassing. It lists the '84 Holiday Bowl with the "major bowls", I presume, because the winner (BYU) won the Nat'l title. However, it inexplicably leaves out the '91 Citrus Bowl, where the winner (GT) was a Nat'l champion.

The forgoing only further highlights my point.

Moreover, prior to the BCS, everything wasn't so cut and dry. For instance, in '91-'92 when ECU won the Peach Bowl and finished ranked #9, the #1 team in the country (Miami) played in the Orange Bowl against the #11 team in the country (Nebraska), a team that finished outside the top 15 (#16). So there really wasn't a bright line back then.

This is the meat of our disagreement. As far as I remember, "major bowl" vs other bowls was as bright a line as BCS bowls and non-BCS bowls.

Quote:Furthermore, for the last time hopefully, I never said that it was necessarily a major bowl but rather, I argued that it was at least a quasi-major bowl, i.e., almost a major bowl, in an era where there wasn't as a procedural distinction between the merit of different bowls (see above).

There wasn't a procedural distinction, but I remember a huge distinction in prestige, payout, etc. There was a huge dropoff between going to one of the major bowls and going to a non-major bowl. As I remember it.

Most fans smirk over the BYU national chamionship in 1984. BYU played ina weak weak WAC that had a lock with the Holiday bowl. So they couldnt face the #2 Washington (Rose vs B10) or #3 Florida or even a #4 Nebraska. The game was BYU vs an unranked 6-5 Mich team.
So you had an undefeated team from a weak conference playing a bigtime power school in a down year. BYU won by 7 points.

There wasnt any doubt that Washington, Florida or Nebraska would have handed BYU there arses if they had been paired up. it was another example of conf bowl contracts keeping the best 2 teams from playing. An undefeated team from a weak conference playing a weak big conf school. The media fell in love with lavell edwards and the Robbie Boscoes melodramatic injured play. they were the boise state underdog darlings of the time and they pimped them for a national championship from the middle of the season until the end.

Football fans that were alive in 1984 will still kinda smirk and laugh at the idea of the 1984 BYU national championship.

We didnt really get to see the best schools play for the NC in 1984. truthfuly, this game was probably started some of the earliest rumblings about how better to pic a national champ. It was widely regarded as the worst break down in the system ever. The game also gave BYU its overinflated ego and killed the WAC and led to where they are now. Thinking they are too good for their old foes that they beat in the old WAC to win an NC, when in reality they never were.

1984 represents the WAC champion beating a unranked 6-5 Michigan team in a minor bowl. It would not get you a MNC in todays dollars.


1990 was a split poll with Colorado AP and Gatech, CU was 11-1-1. GT was 11-0-1. I remember most people really considering GT the real champ. That was the year the idiot refs gave Colorado a fith down to score and win against missouri. CU should have been 10-2-1

(07-09-2014 09:55 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 09:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 08:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  ...the bcs exposed the myth. The pac10/big10 have not won a rose bowl since the contract ended and they had to face outside opposition.

2002 miami beat nebraska
2005 texas beat mich
2006 texas beat usc
2011 tcu beat wisconsin

apparently the only way a pac 10 team or a big 10 team can win the rose bowl is if they play each other.

Ohio State beat Oregon in 2010.

You just proved his point

His point is a good one, one that hadn't crossed my mind. I guess the one that really doesn't belong is Miami vs Nebraska, since when that game was played Nebraska wasn't in the B1G. Also, one he should have mentioned was 2003, when Oklahoma beat Washington (State?) as that is another example of a PAC/B1G losing to an "outsider" team.

(07-09-2014 10:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 06:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 05:33 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 05:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:59 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  I never defined the term "major bowls" as being synonymous with the BCS bowls. Moreover, we were talking about the pre-BCS era. Therefore your analogy is inconsequential.

You don't get to define the term "major bowls." Googling "major bowls", I found this as the third entry. It lists the announcers for the Rose, Sugar, ORange, Cotton, Fiesta and the 1984 Holiday Bowl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ann...bowl_games

Being a major bowl, just like being a BCS bowl, wasn't like being fat where there are degrees. It was like being pregnant. You is or you ain't.

Your point about one of the dictionary definitions is a better one. I don't think that definition reflects the usage of the term "quasi-", but now I'm arguing with a dictionary, which is an uphill battle.

While I like to use wikipedia to educate myself often, I think that most would agree that it is not always accurate or all encompassing. It lists the '84 Holiday Bowl with the "major bowls", I presume, because the winner (BYU) won the Nat'l title. However, it inexplicably leaves out the '91 Citrus Bowl, where the winner (GT) was a Nat'l champion.

The forgoing only further highlights my point.

Moreover, prior to the BCS, everything wasn't so cut and dry. For instance, in '91-'92 when ECU won the Peach Bowl and finished ranked #9, the #1 team in the country (Miami) played in the Orange Bowl against the #11 team in the country (Nebraska), a team that finished outside the top 15 (#16). So there really wasn't a bright line back then.

This is the meat of our disagreement. As far as I remember, "major bowl" vs other bowls was as bright a line as BCS bowls and non-BCS bowls.

Quote:Furthermore, for the last time hopefully, I never said that it was necessarily a major bowl but rather, I argued that it was at least a quasi-major bowl, i.e., almost a major bowl, in an era where there wasn't as a procedural distinction between the merit of different bowls (see above).

There wasn't a procedural distinction, but I remember a huge distinction in prestige, payout, etc. There was a huge dropoff between going to one of the major bowls and going to a non-major bowl. As I remember it.

Most fans smirk over the BYU national chamionship in 1984. BYU played ina weak weak WAC that had a lock with the Holiday bowl. So they couldnt face the #2 Washington (Rose vs B10) or #3 Florida or even a #4 Nebraska. The game was BYU vs an unranked 6-5 Mich team.
So you had an undefeated team from a weak conference playing a bigtime power school in a down year. BYU won by 7 points.

There wasnt any doubt that Washington, Florida or Nebraska would have handed BYU there arses if they had been paired up. it was another example of conf bowl contracts keeping the best 2 teams from playing. An undefeated team from a weak conference playing a weak big conf school. The media fell in love with lavell edwards and the Robbie Boscoes melodramatic injured play. they were the boise state underdog darlings of the time and they pimped them for a national championship from the middle of the season until the end.

Football fans that were alive in 1984 will still kinda smirk and laugh at the idea of the 1984 BYU national championship.

We didnt really get to see the best schools play for the NC in 1984. truthfuly, this game was probably started some of the earliest rumblings about how better to pic a national champ. It was widely regarded as the worst break down in the system ever. The game also gave BYU its overinflated ego and killed the WAC and led to where they are now. Thinking they are too good for their old foes that they beat in the old WAC to win an NC, when in reality they never were.

1984 represents the WAC champion beating a unranked 6-5 Michigan team in a minor bowl. It would not get you a MNC in todays dollars.


1990 was a split poll with Colorado AP and Gatech, CU was 11-1-1. GT was 11-0-1. I remember most people really considering GT the real champ. That was the year the idiot refs gave Colorado a fith down to score and win against missouri. CU should have been 10-2-1

Good points. Yes, the BYU title was considered extremely iffy when it happened 30 years ago, and still is considered extremely iffy by those who remember it today. They played an awful schedule and beat a sorry Michigan team (barely) in the bowl. The dominant opinion then was that Washington was the best team, and that this was just a terrible example of poll voters voting according to a "formula" rather than using common sense.

1990? That's the year I think most remember as the year without a real champ. Colorado, as you say, was real iffy. They got that 5th down win, and even their bowl win over Notre Dame was controversial (IIRC, a late Irish TD that would have won the game was called back on a penalty). That said, there was no great love for Georgia Tech. They skated through a very soft, pre-FSU ACC schedule and played nobody OOC. IIRC, they didn't have anyone picked in the first five rounds of the NFL draft.

Like BYU in 1984, there was the belief that heavyweight teams like Miami or Notre Dame would have beaten GT badly that year. 1990 is like 2007, when just about everyone had two losses, but somebody had to be named champion.

(07-09-2014 08:03 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 05:57 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:   Cotton was a major bowl back when. Citrus/Cap One, not.

Yes.

Yep there were 4 major bowls, Sugar, Cotton, Orange and Rose. Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10. Sec was a lock with Sugar, Orange with the Big 8 and Cotton was SWC. The reason all this playoff BCS stuff started in the first place was because too many times you would get a number 1 ranked teams from all 4 big conferences and they never got a shot at each other because they were locked into the bowl contracts. SWC killed the cotton, the Fiesta, a minor bowl became prominent. Orange shifted from Big 8 to ACC when Florida State and Miami made them relevant.

All bowls other than those four were minor bowls. The bowls that began to distance themselves from the minor bowls were the ones that started locking in the big conferences 2nd place teams. The rest is history. The ACC was never considered big time football. The big east did not exist.

The idea that the Peach was a somehow minor bowl is misleading because all bowls were considered minor. The Peach has always been a quality bowl game. Really all bowl games were big games back then particularly before there were eleventy million bowls. The Capitol One bowl was once the Tangerine Bowl, a small college bowl until the 1970's when it started drawing big time schools.

To suggest that when ECU played in the Peach it was a small or lesser bowl, like the Tangerine prior to 1970 designed for just smaller colleges is absurd and ignorant but apparently an effective troll for young and dumb posters.

quo might understant some of this had usf even fielded a football team or been a real univeristy at any point in history when ECU was actually going to bowl games and playing decent football, heck even the University of Tampa was playing in bowl games back then. Maybe you should consult a Tampa fan.

The Rose Bowl is ho hum? Weird it is the best of them IMO.

"Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10."

Rose is big....to the pac10/big10 fans and people in their footprint

I lived in Missouri for years, people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. It certainly doesn't carry the weight it does in say, Iowa.

people that werent big 10 or pac 10 fans didnt care about the rose bowl any more than the tangerine. the winner usually was pimped as an National Champ by the media creating a myth that big10 and pac10 football was better than it was in reality. Since the BCS, where they cant hide in the rose bowl the pac and big have won 2 national championships and one was vacated

the bcs exposed the myth. The pac10/big10 have not won a rose bowl since the contract ended and they had to face outside opposition.

2002 miami beat nebraska
2005 texas beat mich
2006 texas beat usc
2011 tcu beat wisconsin

apparently the only way a pac 10 team or a big 10 team can win the rose bowl is if they play each other.

so yeah, ho hum. but by all means believe what espn tells you.

As others have pointed out if no one cares about the Rose Bowl excpet for Pac and B1G schools why is it the highest rated of all the major bowls except the natty? Why is it the highest attended game? The Rose blows the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls out of the water.

(07-10-2014 12:12 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  The Rose blows the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls out of the water.

That's putting it a bit too strongly, but no question, the Rose is the 'granddaddy of them all' and has always been the most popular bowl game.

It and the Army-Navy game are the two college football games that transcend the sport and are a part of the broader national culture.

Heck, its appeal is obviously national. LSU fans don't care much for the PAC or B1G, but IIRC late in 2006 for an instant it looked like LSU might be going to its first Rose Bowl, and the local demand for tickets was overwhelming. LSU pre-sold, for $135, almost 20,000 Rose tickets in a single day, and had sold more than 40,000 tickets before it was announced that they were going to the Sugar instead. For a few days there was tremendous excitement in Baton Rouge about a possible Rose Bowl appearance.

(07-09-2014 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 05:57 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:   Cotton was a major bowl back when. Citrus/Cap One, not.

Yes.

Yep there were 4 major bowls, Sugar, Cotton, Orange and Rose. Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10. Sec was a lock with Sugar, Orange with the Big 8 and Cotton was SWC. The reason all this playoff BCS stuff started in the first place was because too many times you would get a number 1 ranked teams from all 4 big conferences and they never got a shot at each other because they were locked into the bowl contracts. SWC killed the cotton, the Fiesta, a minor bowl became prominent. Orange shifted from Big 8 to ACC when Florida State and Miami made them relevant.

All bowls other than those four were minor bowls. The bowls that began to distance themselves from the minor bowls were the ones that started locking in the big conferences 2nd place teams. The rest is history. The ACC was never considered big time football. The big east did not exist.

The idea that the Peach was a somehow minor bowl is misleading because all bowls were considered minor. The Peach has always been a quality bowl game. Really all bowl games were big games back then particularly before there were eleventy million bowls. The Capitol One bowl was once the Tangerine Bowl, a small college bowl until the 1970's when it started drawing big time schools.

To suggest that when ECU played in the Peach it was a small or lesser bowl, like the Tangerine prior to 1970 designed for just smaller colleges is absurd and ignorant but apparently an effective troll for young and dumb posters.

quo might understant some of this had usf even fielded a football team or been a real univeristy at any point in history when ECU was actually going to bowl games and playing decent football, heck even the University of Tampa was playing in bowl games back then. Maybe you should consult a Tampa fan.

The Rose Bowl is ho hum? Weird it is the best of them IMO.

"Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10."

Rose is big....to the pac10/big10 fans and people in their footprint

I lived in Missouri for years, people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. It certainly doesn't carry the weight it does in say, Iowa.

Huh? The Rose Bowl is always the highest-attended bowl game period, and the most-watched bowl game save for the national championship game. It is the most famous bowl, the bowl everyone has heard of even if you don't follow college football.

So it obviously had national appeal that transcended the B1G and PAC. Almost like the Army-Navy game in that regard, it was synonymous with New Years Day.

Whoever said this about the Rose Bowl must have just started following college football last year. people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. Dumbest quote in this entire thread.

(07-10-2014 06:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:32 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:09 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 05:57 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Yep there were 4 major bowls, Sugar, Cotton, Orange and Rose. Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10. Sec was a lock with Sugar, Orange with the Big 8 and Cotton was SWC. The reason all this playoff BCS stuff started in the first place was because too many times you would get a number 1 ranked teams from all 4 big conferences and they never got a shot at each other because they were locked into the bowl contracts. SWC killed the cotton, the Fiesta, a minor bowl became prominent. Orange shifted from Big 8 to ACC when Florida State and Miami made them relevant.

All bowls other than those four were minor bowls. The bowls that began to distance themselves from the minor bowls were the ones that started locking in the big conferences 2nd place teams. The rest is history. The ACC was never considered big time football. The big east did not exist.

The idea that the Peach was a somehow minor bowl is misleading because all bowls were considered minor. The Peach has always been a quality bowl game. Really all bowl games were big games back then particularly before there were eleventy million bowls. The Capitol One bowl was once the Tangerine Bowl, a small college bowl until the 1970's when it started drawing big time schools.

To suggest that when ECU played in the Peach it was a small or lesser bowl, like the Tangerine prior to 1970 designed for just smaller colleges is absurd and ignorant but apparently an effective troll for young and dumb posters.

quo might understant some of this had usf even fielded a football team or been a real univeristy at any point in history when ECU was actually going to bowl games and playing decent football, heck even the University of Tampa was playing in bowl games back then. Maybe you should consult a Tampa fan.

The Rose Bowl is ho hum? Weird it is the best of them IMO.

"Rose became ho hum because it had a locked in deal with pac and big 10."

Rose is big....to the pac10/big10 fans and people in their footprint

I lived in Missouri for years, people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. It certainly doesn't carry the weight it does in say, Iowa.

Huh? The Rose Bowl is always the highest-attended bowl game period, and the most-watched bowl game save for the national championship game. It is the most famous bowl, the bowl everyone has heard of even if you don't follow college football.

So it obviously had national appeal that transcended the B1G and PAC. Almost like the Army-Navy game in that regard, it was synonymous with New Years Day.

Whoever said this about the Rose Bowl must have just started following college football last year. people in Missouri don't give two squats about the rose above and beyond recognizing it as a "bcs bowl" game. Dumbest quote in this entire thread.

lol well I live in missouri for 10+ years and nobody I knew cared about the Rose...not above any of the other "bcs bowls" and back in the mid 80's when the B12 champ went to the Orange (Mizzou fans)...the Orange was the "big bowl" in Missouri just like the Cotton was the big bowl to people in Arkansas.

When I say "nobody" cares about the rose surely you don't think I meant LITERALLY for pete sake....but in general.

put another way....back before bcs talk to most B1G fans and their season wish list would look like this:

1. Win the B1G
2. Win the Rose Bowl

Mizzou fans in contrast would have said this (granted, their team couldn't have gone, but that's the point)