re: LSU #6 in USA Today PreSeason Top 25

quote:

---

Not true. In 2004 Texas was ranked behind Cal with USC in the BCS title game but was invited probably because Pasadena wanted the tourism money.

---

No, Texas was 4th in the final BCS rankings. As I pointed out above, that guaranteed Texas one of the at-large spots. With the other at-large spot guaranteed to Utah by virtue of their #6 final BCS ranking, there was no slot available to invite Cal (or any other Pac 10 team) to face Michigan.

The line you quoted from my post, however, was regarding the 2006 season, when there was talk of LSU going to the Rose Bowl to face SC because both Michigan and Ohio State might be in the National Championship Game leaving no Big 10 team available for the Rose to invite as SC's opponent. Then, once Florida got in instead of Michigan, the Rose invited Michigan and that was that.

quote:

---

Those annoying things like history and facts disagree with you

---

Not really. There may have been some talk of LSU going to the Rose against Michigan that I missed (we didn't get it anywhere around DC, and I don't recall seeing any discussion here other than the possibility of facing SC). But if SC had gone to the National Championship Game, there would have been no at-large spots available for any other Pac 10 team to take their place. So if either SC or Michigan went to the National Championship Game, the Rose would be forced into something other than it's traditional Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. That being the case, LSU was the most appealing option out there.

Interestingly, the only scenario that presents the Rose Bowl with the freedom to choose it's traditional matchup without requiring them to do so was exactly the one that occurred: a Big 10 or Pac 10 champion in the National Championship Game (Ohio State), with at-large candidates available both from the conference in the Championship Game (Michigan) and from other conferences (Boise State, Notre Dame, LSU) available. And, presented with that situation, they chose their traditional Pac 10/Big 10 matchup exactly as they have every time it has been available to them.

quote:

---

Not really.

---

And then you go ahead and take a 190 on your original postion without batting an eye?

quote:

---

with at-large candidates available both from the conference in the Championship Game (Michigan) and from other conferences (Boise State, Notre Dame, LSU) available. And, presented with that situation, they chose their traditional Pac 10/Big 10 matchup exactly as they have every time it has been available to them.

---

As has already been beaten to death, when UF went to the national title the Rose no longer HAD LSU as an option. The rules basically forbid it.

So their choices were 1)Mid-Major Cindarella, 2)One of the lower ranked at-larges who was presumed to be beat regardless of which bowl they played, and ended up I believe to be the last team picked period out of any BCS team, or 3) a historical powerhouse that many at the time think has a serious argument to be in the national championship game.

Yeah, I can clearly see how obvious the "tradition" argument of theirs overrided all logic and reason. They shoulda gone for the better bowl game matchup.

quote:

---

As has already been beaten to death, when UF went to the national title the Rose no longer HAD LSU as an option. The rules basically forbid it

---

And, of course, that is not necessarily true. We don't know if LSU was an option for them or not because we don't know if they ever asked the Sugar for permission, or if the Sugar would have said okay even if they did ask. We can be pretty confident the Sugar would not have agreed, but we really don't know. And in no event was LSU barred from the Rose by rule. At most, they were simply denied permission by the Sugar.