So here we are during rivalry week (actually weeks) and one thing has become abundantly clear- the Rose Bowl could end up being called the Stinking Rose.
Yes, the stinking rose is technically garlic, but the fact of the matter is, two possible Rose Bowl games could be regular season rematches.
Raise your hand if you want to see USC vs. Ohio State again. Stomp your feet if you want to watch Penn State and Oregon State go at it again? I'm waiting.
Just what the heck would a rematch against Ohio State prove? If USC wins, well, that just proves that the Buckeyes can't beat the Trojans with Beanie and Terrelle, even though Terrelle did play some in the first game, and USC stopped him after some adjustments.
If Ohio State wins, then the win would be some vindication, but really, 1-1 against a team screams for a third and final game, doesn't it? The only positive over the whole thing is that Ohio State could brag they won in Pasadena, but the SEC fans will diminish their win by screaming, "So what, you beat an overrated USC team."
Yeah, SEC fans tend to kill the mood a lot. Lucky for us, their moods have been tempered by their own conference's wild mood swings lately. Suddenly, Stanford's loss to TCU and UCLA's loss to BYU seems slightly more acceptable than Tennessee losing to Wyoming, doesn't it?
But I digress. Back to the Stinking Rose.
Another possible rematch would be Oregon State and Penn State. This bowl game will at least sell out. Oregon State hasn't been in the Rose Bowl since 1965 (and they lost in a blow-out to Michigan) and Penn State could be playing their last game with Joe Pa at the helm. Both teams' fans will show up.
The problem is, nobody will care. If Penn State wins, especially in another blow-out, everyone will be screaming over what a waste of time this bowl was. If the Beavers win, then all that will do is prove nothing. The teams will be 1-1 head-to-head. I need an aspirin.
While all of the rest of the BCS Bowls have only one tie-in to a conference, the Rose has two. They are locked in. And in this day and age of conference strength based on perceptions about conferences, two teams from "weak" conferences battling it out is really not that compelling. It used to be the big bowl, now it's suddenly a "oh, is the Rose Bowl the only bowl game on today"?
Things could change if these two conferences become more dominant, but until then, the Rose Bowl has about the same excitement factor as watching an ACC team and a Big East team in a bowl. Wake me up when it's over.
What to do? Simply put, the BCS needs to add another two bowls. One for the Big East, which is like a ship without a harbor. No bowl-tie in means somebody has to pick them, and depending on an at-large BCS buster, it's usually the last team in the selection order. This year, the Orange Bowl gets the honor. Oh yeah, a Big East-ACC match-up. Thrilled, football fans?
The second bowl should be a bowl located somewhere in the Midwest, and every other year, host to the Big Ten and Pac-10 champs. This is simple to do.
This year, the Rose Bowl hosts the two conferences. But after that, the Rose and the Snow Bowl would alternate using one conference team only. Yeah, it's dicey, but the excuses about how the Pac-10 teams have an advantage because they don't have to travel far or play in snow would be forever distinguished.
The format would look like this:
2009 Rose Bowl stays the same.
2010: The Snow Bowl gets the Pac-10 champs, the Rose Bowl gets the Big Ten champs. The opponents would be at-large teams.
2011: The Rose Bowl gets the Pac-10 champs, the Snow Bowl gets the Big Ten champs. Opponents would be at-large teams.
Why do it this way? For one, neither team wants to give up their traditional ties to the Rose Bowl- winter in Pasadena is really a great reward. You can't give the Rose Bowl tie-in to one conference without the other one agreeing.
So why not still make it a traditional tie-in game, but alternate the years so only one conference gets the berth, and leave open more compelling match-ups with other quality teams?
If the BCS is smart, they'll seriously look at this proposal. The possibilities of getting an SEC team or a Big 12 team as a match-up will increase revenues for the Rose Bowl. Right now, half of the fans in the Rose Bowl have been USC fans for years- let's face it, no one spends the night and no one really goes out to eat. The SC fans tailgate, then drive home. Getting more out-of-state fans would increase the revenue, and make the bowl more exciting.
Finally, the BCS needs to eliminate the two-conference teams maximum rule, especially with the addition of two more bowls. If there were a playoff -oops, I said that dreaded word - it wouldn't matter how many teams were from the same conference. The fact is, we want a true champion, and by limiting how many teams from one conference can play in bowls is really counter-productive.
Would college football fans like this format? Let's see, two more football games, a chance to see another conference team, besides their traditional one, play their own team, and a chance to answer critics from other conferences who claim the Big Ten and Pac-10 don't play anyone.
Yeah, I think they would like it.
comments (31) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
I think there are definitely 14 teams in the FBS worthy of playing in BCS bowls.
This year I think they're:
Big 12: Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma
SEC: Florida, Alabama
Pac-10: USC, Oregon State
One team from Big East and ACC combined.
Big Ten: Penn State, Ohio State
MWC: TCU, Utah
WAC: Boise State
So if we'd have 6 BCS bowls with six-conference tie-ins and at-large bids, we'd have 12 teams in NCS bowls plus 2 teams in the BCS NC game.
This'd work out very well. Pac-10 vs. Big Ten is getting boring.
Hey Lise, where is your Lisa vs. boys pick'em this week?
from about 1 month ago
I COULD'NT GET ANYONE TO PARTICIPATE. RON JOHNSON SAID HE WOULD DO IT, BUT HE NEVER EMAILED ME AFTER I GAVE HIM MY EMAIL ADDY. I LEFT HIS OFFER UP IN MY PROFILE SO Y'ALL WOULD KNOW THAT I DID TRY.
I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO CALL THE BOYS THE WINNER! GREAT JOB!
from about 1 month ago
I'm so offended right now.... I specifically remember requesting you to do a boy vs. Lisa thing and u said its not that easy and there is a list and if someone from that list didn't reply, you'd come to me.
Not only did u not do that but you SHOUTED at me right now using CAPS.
I'm not talking to you anymore.
from about 1 month ago
Red-
I wasn't shouting at you...my caps key was stuck! Even when I'm ticked at some posters, I never use caps to yell.....you know that! My key was stuck.
And a couple of people who were in line to play and when I picked someone to sub, they got upset with me because the ones who wanted to playe weren't picked. So this time, I sent out some emails, no one responded, so I asked Ron Johnson to send me an email, since he requested to be one of the pickers...his request is on my profile. He never sent me an email, and by that time, it was too late.
Sorry if you were offended, that was not my intent. I was just trying to play fair.
from about 1 month ago
Oh. Well that makes things a lot clearer.
Okay, back on talking terms then.
about 1 month ago
Interesting concept, Lisa.
Although the "reward" of being in Pasadena shouldn't be reserved for just the Big Televen... in the early days it was the PCC (Pacific Coast Conference, forerunner to the Pac-10) vs. an at-large team, usually the most attractive opponent.
This was because until the mid-30s or so, the Rose Bowl was literally the ONLY bowl!
It's in Pasadena; so the Rose Bowl is the Pac-10's, and the Pac-10 will *never* give up its affiliation to play in the Rose Bowl every year. The Rose Bowl historically belongs to the Pac-10, just as the Sugar Bowl historically belongs to the SEC (The Orange Bowl's history is more complicated).
I still think it's a good idea to use the four BCS bowl sites for quarterfinals (fifth and sixth bowls would be "best of the rest" matchups) and then move the "Final Four" to a neutral site (likely a domed stadium, not host to any college team), that could change each year. For example, this year it could be in the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis... next year in the Georgia Dome in Atlanta... etc.
In that case, the Pac-10 and Big Televen champs would always meet in one quarterfinal. In the rare occasions when those two are No. 1 and No. 2, tough cookies! Most years it's not the case. For instance, this year could be No. 8 (currently) Penn State vs. No. 6 USC.... or No. 20 Oregon State (though the Beav's ranking will be higher should they win against Arizona and Oregon... perhaps No. 13, like last year's "champion", Illinois... haha).
If it's OSU in the Rose Bowl, then USC would have to hope for an at-large berth in one of the other three quarterfinals, and root for Florida and/or Oklahoma to lose, and lose big. That's not much different from the way it is this year without a playoff (if OSU wins out)... the Trojans will be looking for an at-large berth.
If the Big Televen wants its own "Snow Bowl", I suppose it could set up in Lucas Oil Stadium (Ford Field is already taken, I think). Or Soldier Field, if they want to truly exploit the weather advantage...
Or...
Return the Cotton to the elite and make it the Big XII's bowl;
Make the Fiesta the Big Televen's bowl (leaving the Big East as an at-large);
Or...
Keep the Rose Bowl as is and make the Fiesta the Big East's bowl.
from about 1 month ago
Hmm...I am not wild about the Fiesta being the Big East's bowl, but like you said, the Cotton Bowl going back to the Big 12 could be plausible. The thing is, the , Az. stadium is much nicer than the Cotton Bowl. It's fairly new, and the Cotton Bowl is old.
about 1 month ago
I love this idea!!! You're right about the Big Ten and Pac-10 not ever wanting to give up the Rose bowl and I can understand that. It's such a large part of the history of both conferences. But the idea of a rotating system should make everyone happy. I nominate Ohio Stadium as the location for the Snow Bowl! It's already played host to one Snow Bowl in it's history, so why not make it a annual event.
I know part of the fun in going to a bowl game is getting to warm weather climate, but having a bowl in the midwest would eliminate a lot of the mid-westerner complaints about those warm weather schools never having to play in the cold and snow.
Beautiful plan, Lisa. Now let's make it happen!
from about 1 month ago
Kewl! I have a Big Tenner's approval, and one of the best writers on this site, at that. I am honored. Let's push this idea!
about 1 month ago
I really enjoyed this article. I agree with the dumb rule of the two teams max from a conference being dumb for the BCS. You're right. It is very counter productive. Why try if we know only the top two in your conference have a chance to go. Good read.
from about 1 month ago
Justin-
Yeah, it makes the Rose Bowl irrelevant right now. The Rose Bowl used to be the bowl that had National Championship implications. Now, it doesn't. Besides, having two auto-berths is counter-productive. How sad is it that USC fans are rooting for Oregon State to win out so USC can go on to a better Bowl?
about 1 month ago
Ha, for awhile I thought you listed his article under humor. The Snow Bowl?! Very Clever. And touche on the Stinking Rose Bowl.
In regard to crowing a national championship via a playoff system. Do you think having a playoff system would diminish the regular season in anyway? I dont think so but I have started to come across people saying this. Your thoughts?
from about 1 month ago
I think conference championships already diminish the regular season. You can have two top teams in a conference, or even four, which is the case in the Big 12 South, and yet only one gets to move on for the crown. CC's make it all about the division, not regular season play. Oh well.
As far as it diminishing regular season play if there were playoffs, well, I'm not sure. I do know that in order for the 8 team playoff to happen, you have to eliminate Conf. Champ. games, and three conferences weren't happy about that in April, and nixed that idea. The people who are screaming for playoffs don't undertsand that they will loses the CCs. And with all the revenue it generates, I dob't see it happening.
Plus one is a more plausible idea.
about 1 month ago
It's not that I hate this idea, but I am about bowled out. It seems like we already have 30+ bowl games, and I got to say I am not up for another one. But I digress.....
I will tell you that being in the role of a part of Ohio State, I know first hand that Ohio State always focuses on both the BCS title and Rose Bowl. But I think while any OSU player would be greatful for the Rose Bowl this year, I am not sure that is always the case. I think they should do away with conference tie ins all together. What is the difference? The payouts are the same and let's call the BCS bowls outside of the championship what it is....a consolation vacation. Unless like you said you create a great matchup, then no one really cares. Like 2004 Fiesta, we played against Kansas State. No disrespect to KSU, but the guys didn't really care. We won, but it wasn't something everybody was excited for. We were just happy to not be freezing our rears off in Columbus. The OSU/ND game was different because any OSU member loves to beat the snot out of ND, but it is the match ups that get the guys jazzed to play in the games. So creating one more bowl won't change the fact that the conference tie-ins don't do anything for the match ups. Good article none the less Lisa.
from about 1 month ago
Chris-
Interesting. USC always considers the Rose Bowl their ultimate goal since they can't control the BCS, but thay can control their own destiny if they win the Pac-10. At least that's what the official word is.
I'm never bowled out! In fact, I'm already depressed that regular season is over in 3 weeks. OMG. As long as there is a bowl, I'm happy. :)
about 1 month ago
Great stuff Lisa!! POTD no doubt. I like how your thinking away from a playoff. Even though everyone wants one the people in power wont let it happen. It gives the BCS and the other idiots in charge of college football to stay in power but lessens the chance of getting bad BCS games the way they have been the past couple years. The one exception being Boise over Oklahoma I think. Other than that I can't remember them being very close games.
Oh and I really liked on of your sentences. "If the BCS is smart, they'll seriously look at this proposal." Is it just me or is that line really funny? The BCS smart? HAHA.
Your proposal is great and would work great, which is why the BCS wont do it.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks Bryan! I just don't think we'll ever have a playoff, so if not, then let's try and improve the quality of the games. There's too much money in the BCS for the conferences to vote for the playoffs. The almighty dollar rules.
from about 1 month ago
Yeah thats true but the thing is don't you think a college football playoff would have an obscene amount of money? I mean look at March Madness, the entire country is focused on college basketball for a month.
about 1 month ago
A BCS Bowl in the MidWest? Blasphemy! Just Kiddin.......Bring on the Elements!
Good job Lisa, if anything this would spark a lot of interest just to see something out of the norm, but I most definitely would love it, and I think it would stick.
from about 1 month ago
Cody!
I have to tell you, I would travel to the Midwest for the Snow Bowl...most of us Southern Californians "visit" snow, not live in it. So it would be different. It would also give a boost for the economy out there.
about 1 month ago
Lisa,
I like the dreaded word as you know. Your article proves the BCS is in a quandary and truly the best thing is a playoff. If the Rose Bowl dies, a playoff will soon follow, so to quote Rita Coolidge, let the rose die on the vine!
from about 1 month ago
Brad-
The BCS isn't in a quandry...the fans are. The BCS is fat and happy....the conferences are fat and happy. The fans are unhappy.
about 1 month ago
This doesn't seem like a bad idea. However, until a new generation of commissioners that aren't quite so wedded to the Pac-10 vs. Big Ten Rose Bowl idea comes to power there is no way it is going to happen. If we do make another big bowl, we need to drop a bunch of the little ones though. Personally I think there should only be enough bowls so that in the worst case scenario where there are the mathematically possible minimum 7-5 and better teams that they would fill up ALL the available slots.
from about 1 month ago
I like the minimum 7-5....too many teams are scheduling cupcakes, and half of their total wins are cupcakes...don't think you should get rewarded for beating three cupcakes, but barely have a winning conference record.
about 1 month ago
I think college football should do away with conference affiliations in BCS games all together. It prevents the best matchups. My idea would be to seed all 10 teams or 14 in your scenerio based on BCS standings. Top 2 play in BCS championship. The other bowls rotate each year getting the best matchups. 3 Vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, ect. If 2 teams play in the same conference skip a team. 3 Vs 5, 4 Vs 6 ect. It could get confusing but would let the OU's, USC, FL's have the opportunity to play without being in the National title game. Bowl affiliations are good financially for the schools but it prevents the best matchups.
from about 1 month ago
D-
While I agree that bowl tie-ins can give us yucky match-ups sometimes, there is no way we will ever get rid of conference tie-ins to bowls. It's part of what we have.
Technically, the only conference that gets the sham is the Big Ten- they have to travel all the way to Cali to see their team play, while Az isn't a big stretch for the Big 12, and Miami seems like a reasonable location for the ACC. The Sugar is perfect for the SEC. The Big Ten gets the short stick on this one.
Yes, it's nice to escape the cold weather in winter, BUT...the current economy will prevent many Big Ten fans from traveling this year. It's a shame.
about 1 month ago
Very interesting article Lisa. I was actually considering for a while writing one similar to it, but I've been waiting until closer to bowl selection, and I probably still will because I have some differing ideas. I definitely like the idea about getting rid of the two teams per conference limit, but would also favor getting rid of the conference champs get an automatic bid. The Big-East and ACC clearly don't deserve a bid this year. I think there are 5 BCS games including the NC game so they should be forced to take the top 10, but I know the money situation would never accept it. Also, definitely no chance whatsoever for a snow bowl. All the BCS games have to be warm weather or dome which is why they left the Cotton Bowl out, but with the building of the new Cowboys stadium they are thinking about bringing the Cotton Bowl in.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks James!
And could you please link me when you write yours? I will look forward to it. I heard about the new Cowboy Stadium being considered for a fifth bowl, and I love the idea...plus that 1 Billion dollar bill needs to be paid off...a BCS Bowl will certainly ease the taxpayers' responsibilities.
about 1 month ago
Snow Bowl for a BCS game?
I like it, but SCA-REW this "dome" nonsense. If you want to play up north in the winter then PLAY UP NORTH.
How about Soldier Field? I think Chicago might be a decent draw for the holidays.
about 1 month ago
Have you ever been to the Rose Bowl for any game?
about 1 month ago
hi Lisa, i couldnt agree with you more, especially being an ACC fan ( BC fan , do to the fact i can spell the school name) i really dont want to watch an ACC - BIG EAST bowl game and like you i cant get enough of bowl games,and as you stated it would bring a little econmic help to different cities
write a new comment