re: Pre 1970 was the Sugar Bowl a lot less prestigious?

quote:

---

Another thing to note for you youngsters, is that the bowls used to have much more independence.

They are still privately owned and they operate for a profit, but back before these huge TV contracts, bowls were motivated to invite which ever teams would be the most interesting matchup that would also bring the most spectators.

They were seen more like exhibition games between a "regional power" versus a team from a distant conference. Such match ups were much more rare during the regular season.

As a result, it was quite normal for some big name program to be invited to a bowl over a higher ranked team because the bowl wanted to make more money.

It was also normal for the big bowls to do some back room wheeling and dealing to get the match ups that would be most advantageous. Most of the time, the bowls saw themselves as being in competition, but sometimes deals were struck for the mutual benefit of the bowls.

All this talk about "which of the major bowls was more prestigious" is simply revisionist thinking. The Rose Bowl had the tie in between the Pac 10 and Big 10, which brought these two top conferences together for a big bowl.

Big 10 folks travelled well, probably motivated to get out of the cold and to visit California. Don't underestimate how star struck the rest of the country was about California, Los Angeles, and Hollywood. It was a top travel destination.

After the Rose, the other big bowls, Cotton, Sugar, and Orange, were all considered equal in prestige, depending on which teams they landed for that particular year.

---