Why does the Sugar Bowl have the third pick this year?

quote:

---

Well, for one thing you are forgetting the Rose Bowl.

---

Nope, the Rose Bowl has two conference tie-ins. The only time they select an at-large team is if a Big10 or Pac10 team is playing in the NC game. Any bowl "losing" a team to the NC game automatically picks an at-large team first (or second if the associated team is ranked #2) before proceeding to the normal order. If the Rose Bowl loses both their PAC10 team and their Big10 team then they get the first 2 at-large picks before proceeding with the rotation. That is why the RB is not a part of the rotation. This was one of the key concessions by the other conferences to get the Rose/PAC10/Big10 on board with the formation of the BCS.

quote:

---

It seems horribly unfair.

---

It's just one element of a very complicated contract, and the four bowls agreed to this rotation among other things. The Sugar Bowl had just as much input as anyone else, so it's not unfair.

In the current agreement, there will always be a mid-major in the at-large pool, and in a completely even rotation, that mid-major will go to the Fiesta Bowl more often than not since it will almost always come from the WAC or MWC. A mid-major has been the last pick three times, and twice it has gone to the Fiesta Bowl. The BCS doesn't want the Fiesta Bowl to get stuck with them every time, nor should they.

I know, I know. The Sugar Bowl got stuck with a middie two years in a row, you say. Not so. Last year, the Sugar Bowl picked Utah over Cincinnati for the 2nd pick, so that wasn't "getting stuck with a middie."