Dave Dye
FOX Sports Detroit
East Lansing - With Wisconsin apparently headed to the Rose Bowl based on its higher ranking in the BCS standings, the assumption has been that Ohio State will receive an at-large bid to the Sugar Bowl.
Not necessarily true, says Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis.
Hollis insisted Monday the Spartans, contrary to public perception, are still in contention for the Big Ten's potential second BCS bid.
"I really do think we have a chance," Hollis said. "The decision hasn't been made. We're in the door."
While it's difficult to imagine the Sugar Bowl rejecting the Ohio State brand name in favor of Michigan State, don't underestimate Hollis.
This is the guy who made outdoor hockey games so popular; brought the idea of expanding capacity for basketball games in domes, including the Final Four; and convinced WJR, a clear-channel radio station, to switch from Michigan to Michigan State football back when the Wolverines were still the superior program.
Hollis is also expected to confirm one of these days that Michigan State will play a basketball game next year on Veterans Day (Nov. 11, 2011) on an aircraft carrier, an idea to honor the military that's been eight years in the making.
He's a master salesman.
But if he can't convince the Sugar Bowl (New Orleans) to take the Spartans, MSU will likely end up in the Capital One Bowl (Orlando).
Michigan State finished in a three-way tie for the Big Ten championship with Wisconsin and Ohio State.
The Rose Bowl bid comes down to the Big Ten's third tiebreaker, the BCS standings. Wisconsin is No. 5, Ohio State No. 6 and MSU No. 8 in the latest rankings. That order is not expected to change in next Sunday's final standings because all three teams have completed their seasons.
If this had happened two years ago, when the Big Ten's tiebreaker formula was slightly different, Michigan State would have gone to the Rose Bowl.
That's because Ohio State would have been eliminated as the most recent team to play in Pasadena (last season).
Michigan State and Wisconsin would then have reverted to the regular two-team tiebreaker rules with MSU going because it defeated Wisconsin in the Big Ten opener.
However, in May, 2009, the schools voted to change the third step of the tiebreaker formula, switching to the BCS standings.
Ironically, Michigan State was the only school that opposed the change.
"It was a 10-1 vote and you know who voted against it," Dantonio said. "You're looking at him."
Dantonio wanted the coaches and/or athletic directors to vote if the first two tiebreakers (head-to-head competition and then overall record) didn't determine a winner.
"If I'm going to make a decision in my family, I'm not going to outsource it," Dantonio said. "I wish we would have kept it in-house. I wish people would take it upon themselves to make a decision as opposed to letting other people make a decision for them. That's the thing that's frustrating.
"I thought we had that power to do that in our conference. We chose not to do that as coaches. I don't think that was right.
"That way everybody could be hands off.
