Good work out of Bob Condotta this afternoon on the PAC-10 bowl agreements. The Las Vegas Bowl has now re-upped with the PAC-10, locking in the number five team in the conference. What's interesting is that the match-up will be with the number one team from the Mountain West? I mean I know that has been basically the match-up over the years, although the MWC last year saw their top team in Utah win the Sugar Bowl.
But the MWC has been crowing a bit about BCS this and BCS that, threatening legislation and all that other stuff. Yet I will agree that they deserve to talk 'em up a bit, after a 6-1 regular season record vs. the PAC-10 in '08 (although Arizona saved a little face by beating BYU in that same Vegas Bowl).
I don't know though. You would think that with their recent success, that maybe the MWC could get a better agreement by sending their best non-BCS team to Vegas vs. the number five PAC-10 team? Ah well.
The PAC-10 bowl agreements, per Condotta, are now:
1) Rose (duh)
2) Alamo - this is new, rising up beyond the Holiday Bowl for second pick. It would still be a Big 12 opponent, same as the Holiday Bowl today.
3) Holiday Bowl falls to number three.
4) Sun Bowl in El Paso.
5) Las Vegas
Condotta adds that it's unclear what bowl agreements will come beyond the five above, but that more seem likely at this point. Mmmmm, bowl games. Wouldn't it be nice to actually worry about bowl games?? 2003 feels like a LONG time ago....