The Rose Bowl is considered the "Granddaddy of 'em all" among the bowl games. Right now it's a granddad that needs a divorce.
The Rose Bowl is like a marriage that started out with lots of passion that made everyone stand in awe. However, as the years have gone on, the passion has burned off, leaving people to only reminisce of what once was. Now the old couple only co-exist and stay together because after so many years with one another what would be the point of a divorce.
Well in the case of the Rose Bowl it would be to recapture the glory and passion of what was once the greatest game of the year. The solution is simple too. All the Rose Bowl needs to do is divorce the Big-Ten.
Since the turn of the century the Big-Ten has gone 1-5 in Pasadena, and if you are one those "know-it all" types and consider the new century 2001 because of the lack of a year 0, then the Big-Ten is a big goose egg for 5.
This record is the meaning of the word futility in sports. The Big-Ten has become the Notre Dame of the Rose Bowl. Not only has the Big-Ten lost in their last five trips to Pasadena, but they have lost by an average of 14 points per game. Ouch!!
- B/R Ticket Guide
So what should the Rose Bowl do after giving the Big-Ten the boot? First they go ahead and keep the Pac-10 for obvious reasons like location and success in the Rose Bowl of late. Then they could take some time to play the field. Why not, they deserve to have some fun after being in such a long term relationship.
If they decide that they would just rather go and find a suitor right away because being promiscous just isn't their style, well I think I have the perfect one for them.
The Big XII made it's debut in the Rose Bowl in 2002, and was a real dud. They laid out their first pick up line and it got shot down, but it wasn't by the Pac-10 or Big-10, but Miami from the Big-East at the time. Nebraska, in the 2002 National Championship, was like the nerdiest guy in the bar hitting on the super model.
However, the Big-XII was very persistent, and in its next three attempts was able to impress the Tournament of Roses. First, was Oklahoma the very next year in 2003 which wound up pounding Washington State 34-14. OU showed the Pac-10 what domination is truly about.
Then came Texas two years later in 2005. It took Michigan a little while to be hooked, but by the end of the night they belonged to the Longhorns. Texas performed so well they took another shot the very next year at the best that the Rose Bowl had to offer, USC. Like a well written love story these two went back and forth at each other all night before Texas finally won the Pac-10 over. Oh, and by the way, it was a game that many consider the best ever played.
Now the Tournament of Roses has gone back to its old ways. No more running around on each other. And what has been the result of that? Two lack luster games in which the Pac-10 has walked all over the Big-10 by an average margin of 23 points.
So today I implore everyone to make it known to the Rose Bowl that it should make a clean break from the Big-10 and join it's new passionate lover, the Big-XII, because after all 12 is greater than 10.
comments (75) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Great article I think what would be best for College football is for there be no Bowl/Conference alliances and use the the bowls for a playoff to a real National Championship.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the comment, and I completely agree. I think that would be the first style of playoff that college football would go to, but it still won't happen for a while regardless of how much the fans want it.
about 1 month ago
Wow, how I could argue this for days.
Were you calling for the Rose Bowl to divorce the Pac 10 when they lost six Rose Bowls to the Big Ten in seven years in the 90's? Of course not. Why? Because things go in cycles. In fact this year is the worst time to bring up this argument as it is widely regarded that the Pac-10 representative is the one that could deter people from watching (if Oregon State wins this weekend). The reason the Big Ten has been showing little in recent Rose Bowls is because they have not been sending their best team. Neither Illinois nor Michigan was the Big Ten champion the last two years.
Has the Rose Bowl lost some of the luster? Of course but is the problem solely because of the Big Ten? Hardly. Look close enough and you will see that the Pac 10 is very similar in operation to the Big Ten. The Big Ten doesn't have an image problem, Ohio State has an image problem. Penn State is going for their fourth straight bowl victory (including wins over the SEC and Big XII and shooting for a victory over the Pac 10).
If anything the Rose Bowl should demand a conference champion to play in their game. If the Big Ten is sending a team to the BCS championship they should not insist on taking a team like Illinois (like last year). It was the Rose Bowl committee's fault for being stubborn last year, not the Big Ten's.
from about 1 month ago
Also you say this in closing; "So today I implore everyone to make it known to the Rose Bowl that it should make a clean break from the Big-10 and join it's new passionate lover, the Big-XII, because after all 12 is greater than 10."
The Big Ten has eleven teams. Maybe it should be Big Ten vs Big Twelve by that logic?
from about 1 month ago
Obviously this is an easy article to argue against. While I was being serious that the Rose Bowl needs to do something to reclaim the glory of the Rose Bowl game, I was being very satrical through the whole article. Also, the two best Rose Bowl games this century have come with a Big XII team playing in the Rose Bowl. So maybe the solution is just to give the Big XII the automatic bid with alternating years between Pac-10 and Big-10. I do appreciate your comments though, and I fully expected some people, especially the Big-10 supporters to hammer me on this argument, but you really can't argue that the Rose Bowl has become overshadowed not just by other bowl games, but even the parade has been more interesting in recent years. Also, if USC goes to the Rose Bowl and plays Penn St. because I believe Oregon wins this weekend, then I would expect Penn St. to be completely overmatched.
from about 1 month ago
If Penn State were to face USC (which I tend to feel Oregon will win this weekend as well) there is no doubt that USC would be the favorite and in all honesty USC would likely win. However, I would bet that Penn State would give the Trojans a much better game than they got from Ohio State or Michigan in recent years.
On a side note I want to commend you for your article. To me a good article strikes conversation and sometimes arguments. That is exactly what you did. Even though I disagree with you, I give you kudos.
from about 1 month ago
Thank you very much Kevin. I know you can't please everyone when it comes to sports, and I always welcome all points of view. Debate is what makes sports fun. Also the reason I picked the Big-10 to boot from the game is because kicking out the Pac-10 would be like booting the SEC from the Sugar and then naming it a Big-10 Big East bowl.
from about 1 month ago
I agree, Kevin. Things are cyclical. The BCS takes the best 2 teams, so frequently the Rose Bowl ends up with the best of what's left. Also, as in all things, money is a consideration. The Big 10 brings in money. It's hard to for a committee to say that it doesn't need Big 10 and Pac 10 money. That's the real reason there's no play-off. The Bowls have been cash cows for so long, no one wants to tinker with financial success. Many say that there are several ways to have a play-off AND keep the revenue, but why gamble? The present system is a sure thing. Besides, if the top 8, or so, teams make the play-off, there's less excitement in those top 5 games during the year.
from about 1 month ago
FACT: The Big Ten has lost more than 2/3 of their bowl games the past 3 years. The Big Ten DOES have an image problem my friend.
about 1 month ago
this is a terrible article! you're using the last five years as a basis for your article? how long has this "marriage" been going on? wow, terrible.
from about 1 month ago
Once again this article is mostly satire, I'm sorry if some people don't agree with it, but the Rose Bowl does need to do something. The most exciting games they've had recently have come with teams from outside their usual conferences. I understand everyone's argument against and can appreciate them, but I'm simply trying to shake up an old institution to give it back some lost luster. Thanks for the comment by the way I always appreciate feedback whether positive or negative.
about 1 month ago
I do agree that there needs to be a change, but a change to the entire system. The Big 10 is just fine and as the SEC starts to fall from grace will they be the next one to get booted from a BCS bowl? Kevin pretty much hit all points in this article, so I will leave it at that, but the PAC 10 and BIG 10 will come around again and hopefully be able to field their best teams for this bowl game.
from about 1 month ago
Now I never said that the Big-10 should be excluded from the BCS. That point is nowhere to be found in my article. Of course they would still be able to play a BCS game or two if they deserve it that year. I'm simply saying that a shake up of the Rose Bowl might do it some good. Thanks for the comment.
from about 1 month ago
The SEC is falling from grace? It is a down year and there are still 2 teams in serious title contention. The BIG 12 may have the edge this year, but the SEC will be back next year as the superior conference.
about 1 month ago
I am a Big Ten supporter and I agree with the just of the article. Here it comes... BUT, let's do away with the automatic conference bids to the BCS. The ACC and Big East winners does not deserve to be in a BCS game. If we truely want to get the best teams in this system then why don't we change the criteria. The projected Ohio State-Georgia game should be better than 3 of the BCS games. If Ohio State decides to show up that is.
from about 1 month ago
I agree. Who wants to watch a Florida State versus Cincinnati Sugar Bowl? I'll take the Buckeyes and Bulldogs in the Capital One bowl any day.
from about 1 month ago
I completely agree with this plan. I think there are 5 BCS games and so the top 10 teams should go. I can't believe the ACC and Big East are going to have teams in and more deserving teams are being left out. Unfortunately we've seen what the BCS thinks of fans opinions.
about 1 month ago
Wow this is kind of sad. Your saying just due to a past record for the last few games they should just close the game down away from the big ten? Look at this the big ten this year has created great teams this year with some old favorites losing. We've got Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Iowa, and Northwestern. The last four team I mentioned are going to be stronger next year due to good coaches and recruiting. The Pac 10 to me seems like a joke. There is only one team that is really good that can play on a national level and that is USC. The rest of the teams are pretty bad with the exception of the Oregons.
from about 1 month ago
I too think the Pac 10 is not great, but considering their location in comparison to the Big 10, the Pac 10 gets to stay. I don't know if I can agree that Penn St. or Michigan St. will be better next year because they are losing a lot, but you never know. Thanks for the comment though.
about 1 month ago
Get real you goofs. What does it matter. its only a game. Watch and enjoy and get a life. Bob
about 1 month ago
James, lets look at the facts.
2008 & 2007 - USC (no. 1 team in Pac-10) beat the no. 2 team in the Big Ten as OSU went to the NC both years.
2006 - Pac-10 loses to Big 12
2005 - Big Ten loses by 1 point to Big 12
2004 - USC waxes Michigan
2003 - Pac-10 gets creamed by Big 12
2002 - Miami beats Nebraska
2001 - Washington beats Purdue by 10
2000 - Wisconsin beat Stanford
Call me crazy, but I don't see a real big trend of the Big 10 stinking up the joint. The big problem was the past two years when the Big 10 champion went to the NC but USC didn't and got to play the number two Big 10 school.
I agree that it is time for the Rose Bowl to not be locked in to just a Pac-10 and Big Ten match up. I think that is one of the big catch points holding back a playoff. But, get clear about the facts and don't blame the so-called decline of the game on just the Big Ten.
from about 1 month ago
Well Doug interesting points, but the Big 10 has lost 5 straight by an average of 14 points. That I believe is the definition of stinking it up. The Big XII actually is 2-0 against the Pac 10 and 1-0 against the Big 10. In that Big XII Big 10 matchup it was the Big 10 champion vs. the Big 12 runner up so by your logic since it was a champion vs. a runner up then Michigan should have walked all over Texas. The Big 12 seems to like playing in Pasadena, but has struggled in Tempe so perhaps a switch by moving the Big 10 to Tempe, where they have had success lately, and moving the Big 12 to pasadena would be good for both.
from about 1 month ago
Point taken James. Sure, I'll take Tempe. The Buckeyes seem to play down there very well. In fact, it is almost home field advantage for them.
My take on this year's Rose Bowl: Penn State CRUSHES Oregon State, but gets CRUSHED by USC.
from about 1 month ago
Home field advantage that nets you an embarrassing 41-14 loss? I'd knock that home down.
about 1 month ago
All the Bowls need to absolve their allegances and be used in a D1 playoff. Plain and simple.
about 1 month ago
Jason Whitlock said I'm wrong because I want a playoff. This is his only take that sucks because he is an exceptional journalist and he is here so perhaps I might offend him. That would suck! In any case, everyone (except Lou Vozza and Kent Moore, God rest their souls) realizes how stupid the BCS is.
about 1 month ago
Personally, I think the the Rose bowl should go back to the Pac-10 champion playing the Big 10 champion and the BCS be abolished. If you are not going to have a play off like every other sport then I think it is stupid to try to have a championship game period.
The way things were done for years, AP, Coaches poll, both or whatever deciding the MNC made as much sense as what we have now. Its still based on voting biases.
I think the BCS is making a mockery of the bowls. Go back to the SEC champion playing in the Sugar, the Big 12 playing instead of the Orange to playing in the Fiesta bowl for logistic purposes and the ACC champion playing in the Orange for the same logistical reason. Make the games interesting and easier on the fans who watch and love the sport!
I also do not like the conference championship games. Abolish them if you are not going to make them part of a playoff.
Take Bama for an example, which I am a Bama fan by the way, lol. If we beat Auburn this Saturday we will be 12 and 0. We will still have to play against a Florida team who at the moment is playing better than probably anyone in America. But Florida lost to Ole Miss earlier in the season which was unranked and Bama beat Ole Miss. Does not the whole body of work for the year mean anything anymore? I mean even the last time Bama won the MNC in '92 the first year of the championship game pitting East against West, Bama had to play an extra game against a 3 loss Florida team and it was close! Had Bama lost that game, a 3 loss team would have won the SEC over a 1 loss team. And we know on any given day any team can be beaten. Its not like we have a 7 game series to see who the best team is over all. You just have to win on that particular day.
In my opinion if Bama beats Auburn they should play in the Sugar bowl against as high of ranked team possible and let the chips and votes fall as they may after the bowls are over. Even with the BCS its all subjective to opinions and biases.
If we are not going to have a playoff then go back to the way it was for decades. Yes sometimes teams will be left out of the MNC but that is happening with the sorry system we have now. But the BCS is also destroying the traditions that most of us have grown up with and for what? More confusion and less attractive holiday season games! Bah Humbug!!
from about 1 month ago
Well if we went back to something like that, think of the kinds of things we would have missed out on. Miami might have been national champions instead of Ohio State becaue they would have both gone undefeated, and we would have missed one of the best games ever. USC might have been national champion instead of Texas because they would have both been undefeated, and we would have missed one of the greatest games ever.
The Big XII is already tied into the Fiesta not the Orange. The ACC already is tied into the Orange, and the SEC is tied into the Sugar.
As for conference championship games either everyone should play them or no one. It's unfair to the conferences that play them and have upsets happen, and then their are conferences who can go without putting the two best teams in the conference against each other.
I believe, however, that winning your conference shouldn't gaurantee you a spot in a BCS bowl. That has led to some terrible games. The BCS should just take the top 10 teams and pit them against each other. Or they should make a playoff and take the top 8 teams. However, today's system is light years ahead of the old system of not making 1 play 2.
about 1 month ago
James I understand your argument and it has its merits. But last season pretty much everyone here in SEC land thought that Georgia was playing the best of any SEC team at the end of the season. Had it not been for the SEC championship game who knows, maybe Georgia would have won the MNC. And they would have had a more attractive opponent in the Sugar bowl for us to watch. LSU and Georgia didn't play head to head so they would have tied for the SEC championship along with Tennessee, so who knows who the Sugar bowl would have taken. I bet the polls at the time would have determined that just as they are most likely are going to do for the Big 12 South champion this year.
Take Auburn in '04. Undefeated and if not for the BCS game could have shared or won out right the MNC. USC destroyed OU and chances are USC would have had a tougher game against the Big 10 champion, but we will never know. Also when LSU won the BCS championship game against OU with coach Saban, USC still won the AP MNC. Whats wrong with 2 teams claiming to be the champion?
While the BSC may make for a good championship match up it makes the rest of the BCS bowls suck in my opinion. Back years ago the Big 12, or I should say the Big 8 at that time were tied in with the Orange bowl just as the old Southwest conference was tied into the Cotton bowl. There were very attractive games every year in all the bowls. If you are not going to have a playoff of some kind what makes the BCS any better than what we had way back then? Its all subjective and now you have computers in the equation. i just don't like it myself. To me have a playoff or go back to the way things were done for decades.
from about 1 month ago
Well Damon that was a very good argument. It was about as a good an argument as you could make for going back to the way things used to be. Your point definitely has its own merits, but I have to believe that going back to the way things used be would only take us further away from a play off than we already are. To tell you the truth I wasn't really expecting so many comments about the state of the BCS since I didn't write about the BCS, but I guess that really shows what a sad state the BCS is in, and just how much we really need a playoff system. Thanks for the comments.
about 1 month ago
James I didn't mean to get away from your original subject I just think the BCS is what is taking away from the Rose bowl being a more attractive game for fans to watch. The Big 10 champion has played in the BCS championship game the past 2 years so the Rose bowl wisely or not chose to take the Big 10 runner up. I agree the Big 10 has been down the past few years. The Pac 10 champion would have probably destroyed Ohio State just as the SEC champion did in the last 2 BCS MNC games.
The answer to all the problems in major college football is still the same today as it was 20-30-50 years ago. We need a playoff. Use the bowls if need be. A top 16 playoff would be reasonable to me and the bowls would be watched passionately through out the post season. Otherwise we are going to be subject to having to endure pitiful uninteresting bowl games and the ratings will suffer. If we were to at least go back to the old way, the bowls would have more options as to picking the teams that would be more compelling to the average college football fan to spend 3 hours watching.
Either way, BCS or the old way, is subject to speculation of biased voters.
about 1 month ago
I agree with you. I think the Rose Bowl should take the Big 10's spot a away and give it to whatever at large team will give the country the best game against USC ( i know they arent in first this season but they will probably win a majority of the conference titles until Pete Carroll decides to leave.) Tradition has nearly run its course when it comes to the Rose Bowl because the conferences that traditionally have been the best are not what they used to be. Big 10 teams are getting blasted in BCS bowls and for the most part with the exception of OU the Big12 is smashing their opponents or at the very least giving the nationa a good game. So for the Big 12 to have 3 top seven teams and one of them not make it to the BCS isnt fair to the players. Doesnt neccisaily have to be a Big 12 team but that other spot should be open to anyone who deserves it. Last year is a prime example, Illinois should not have been on the same field with USC, Missouri should have had that spot.
from about 1 month ago
Oh, so I guess Penn State, who pummeled Oregon State, wouldn't give USC a good game? The Penn State team who is one of the best teams in the country, and is amazing?
from about 1 month ago
Yes, I think that tradition has run its course. After all it is tradition that traditions must change, right? I completely agree that its unfair to keep the deserving teams out of the BCS. Last year the Big XII deserved to have 3 teams, but thanks to the crappy rule we had to suffer through a terrible Rose Bowl, when I think that Mizzou-USC would have been an outstanding game. Instead Illinois was overmatched in the Rose Bowl and Arkansas was overmatched in the Cotton Bowl. This year the Big XII again deserves 3 and Ole Miss is going to be the unfortunate soul in the Cotton Bowl having to deal with most likely Texas Tech.
about 1 month ago
Dude, wrong year to bring it up. Penn State already killed Oregon State, and will do it again. Penn State is better than most people think, and they lost because they played like crap against a very good 8-4 Iowa team on the road. Anyway, I think Penn State could beat USC. You should have brought this up after USC crushed Illinois, but not now, when a great PSU team is going to the Rose.
from about 1 month ago
Well I knew you would come out on this article. I think Penn State will beat OSU, but it's still will be a lackluster game that doesn't draw any interest outside of the two schools. That is the reason behind this article. I do believe, however, that Penn State will be playing USC in what will be a rout by the Trojans. The Nittany Lions have shown their struggles with a good defense, but USC has the best defense in the country. I personally am hoping that if Texas doesn't make the National Championship that we get a rematch of USC-Texas in the Fiesta Bowl. I think that would be a great game to watch. I understand everyone's point about this not being the year to say that because of Penn State, but Penn State hasn't won the Rose Bowl yet and the Big 10 is still sitting on a 5 game losing streak. Thanks for the comment there Isaac.
from about 1 month ago
to james.. Penn State hasn't won the rose bowl yet? try looking up the date of January 2, 1995. We beat Oregon 38-20. I'm guessing you're not old enough to remember anything past 2000?
from about 1 month ago
to james.. Penn State hasn't won the rose bowl yet? try looking up the date of January 2, 1995. We beat Oregon 38-20. I'm guessing you're not old enough to remember anything past 2000?
from about 1 month ago
To Matthew I was talking about this year. Penn State hasn't won the Rose Bowl yet this year. Isaac called Penn State a great team, and that this isn't the right year to write this article because of Penn State. I was saying that Penn State hasn't won the Rose Bowl yet this year. I didn't say they've never won the Rose Bowl
about 1 month ago
The premise is good - the Rose Bowl is more style than substance. I don't care about the parade ever or the game half the time. However, your article might want to look at more than just 5 or 6 recent games. What about $, viewers, who the Rose Bowl committee is, how the Big 10 would suffer from losing this tie-in, etc.
from about 1 month ago
Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate that. I really didn't put to much stock into anything like what your suggesting because I was really looking to write something that was truly interesting to read versus something full of a bunch of stats and information.
I only used the most recent games because it seems that in this day and age of sports everyone is only consumed with what is going on now. I mean the days of Ron Dayne running roughshod all over everyone in the Rose bowl seem like forever ago, but this Rose Bowl will only be 10 years removed from his first trip to Pasadena.
I don't know that the Rose Bowl would lose out on money by adding the Big XII over the Big Ten. Texas is the richest program in the country, OU is close, and OSU has T. Boone Pickens. Texas has maybe the best traveling fans in the country. It doesn't matter where they play, their fans will be there, and you could say that for teams like OU and Nebraska as well.
The Big Ten wouldn't suffer I don't believe because they would still send their champion to a BCS bowl, and as far as viewership goes USC-Texas was one of the highest rated games of all time, and I think a rematch of the two would be very highly rated this year as well, and that might actually happen, but in the Fiesta Bowl.
Mostly though, while I think the Rose Bowl needs to look into doing something to gain interest back, I was really writing this article for entertainment value, and maybe to plant a seed of thought in peoples heads. I do think the article is entertaining though. My wife thought so, and if she is ever entertained by sports then it must be.
from about 1 month ago
It's not just stats. I believe the Big 10 has some seats on the Rose Bowl committee. Not sure they'll give up on the gravy train is all I'm saying. Personally, I'm against all bowl tie-ins for BCS bowls.
about 1 month ago
maybe it's cyclical... I have only 20 years of watching Rose bowls to go fall back on. All I know is that regular season or bowl game, in recent past the Big 10 can't put up a team worthy of competing with a USC. Every year we march an OSU or Michigan into California (usually starts early in the regular season)...becoming the late Saturday game, the marquee matchup...only to watch the PAC 10 destroy our team.
My three cents is to expand the out of conference games for all teams in Div 1A (beyond "Sisters of the Blind" teams) and give us all a better sense of who is really who before we go pitting conference against conference. Heck, maybe in 4 or 5 years the Big 10 will emerge as a PAC 10 beating-machine... but lately it's an embarassment to even send a team out west.
from about 1 month ago
I do think that somehow teams should be forced to play harder non-conference teams, but year to year you just never know who that will be and with 119 teams it's just very tough to make everyone schedule somewhat equally. There should be a way for the NCAA to figure that out though, but I know with so many teams and so few games it's very tough to do.
about 1 month ago
I haven't read the comments, but I don't think the Big Ten should lose the Rose Bowl. When you're in the Midwest, it's a nice reward to come to sunny Cali in January.
I think they ought to add another bowl, say the Snow Bowl , and have these two teams be the host of that bowl every other year. I wrote about it recently. That way, the Pac-10 would have to play in the cold every other year, and the Big Ten could play in sun every other year. Every other year, that bowl would be the definitive Rose Bowl game.
Cheeers, Happy T day!
from about 1 month ago
First, I think the Big 10 should go to the Fiesta Bowl so they could still get a nice sunny environement in the state of the art stadium there in Tempe. Secondly, the idea of a snow bowl is very interesting, but the BCS will never go for it. They only accept warm weather sites or domes for BCS games for the purpose of the fans.
I don't believe that rotating the Pac-10 and Big-10 will restore the greatness to the Rose Bowl. I am a huge fan of college football. I love the pagentry and the tradition and the rabid fan bases. The Rose Bowl is the biggest institution in the college football postseason. There is a Rose Bowl tradition that is greater than the Pac-10 v. Big-10, and that tradition is that the Rose Bowl is the proudest, most respected, and greatest game in college football.
My article was aimed to point out that the Rose Bowl needs a makeover to restore some of its lost luster. At the same time my article was also just meant to be fun to read. While my article was serious in part, my argument is one of only many that could be taken to fix the Rose Bowl. I just that this idea would be the most fun to write about and very entertaining to read about.
I really appreciate the read and the feedback. Good luck pushing your Snow Bowl idea. I would to see 2 top 5 teams duking it out in a blizzard.
about 1 month ago
So you are suggesting that the Rose bowl committee move the Big 10 (11) out and replace with the Big 12?
This is the same Big 12 that has been Texas (pretty good most years) and Oklahoma (pretty good but cant' win bowl games - USC killed them, WVU beat them, Boise beat them and had time to get engaged while doing it) and nobody else since Tom Osborne left Nebraska? Seems like you are caught up the one year wonder that is the high scoring/no defense Big 12 south. What will you do with McCoy and Bradshaw go pro?
The only other option discussed here is keeping the other slot open. Unfortunately, depending on the selection slot, the rose will end up with the Big Least, Utah or some other non BCS team. I'm sure the Rose would love the 10 fans the Big Least team brings if it is other than WVU.
from about 1 month ago
Texas has been very good in their bowl games under Mack Brown. Oklahoma has struggled recently, but in their only trip to Pasadena they were very impressive. Generally the Big XII performs well in their bowl games. At least the Big XII has more than one team that they send to a BCS game almost every year. The Pac-10 is only sending USC every year, and I'm not sure they've ever sent two in the same year. They may luck out and get two this year, but I'm still putting my money on Oregon to win this weekend. The Big XII has gone 3-1 in Pasadena so maybe what they need is change of scenery. Same could be said for the Big-10 because they have performed well in the desert this century as well.
Also, a little more from the Big XII. This is the second straight year they will have three teams that deserve to go to a BCS bowl. Last year was Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Kansas won theirs and yes Oklahoma stunk it up yet again. This year, as it stands right now, Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech all deserve to go to a BCS game, but yet again one of them will be left out.
about 1 month ago
There will never be a playoff, so long as coaches like Bob Stoops and Pete Carroll only call for one when it would benefit their teams, and not all the time. I'm getting tired of everyone toeing the party line and saying "well, the BCS is the best we can do".
No it isn't. A playoff system using the current BCS bowls would work just fine. Hell, there's almost a week already between the New Year's Day bowls and the BCS Title game. Why not extend that to a full week, and have a four team playoff to decide a champion? Or better yet, why not have 4 bowls (maybe the Motor City, Orange, Sugar, and Outback bowls) be played on Christmas Eve, send those winners to the Rose and Fiesta Bowls on New Year's Day, and then have those two winners play in a title game on January 8th?
You still use all of your bowl games, still have the Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, and Capital One bowls for the New Year's Day crowd, and you end up only extending the season by a single day! The only downside to this system would be that the champion would have to play three games instead of one, but think of the ratings bonanza it would be? This would be a real Bowl Championship Series, but the NCAA isn't one for common sense are they?
This is the real fix for the BCS, not simply booting the Big Ten rep from the Rose Bowl. To get to the real point of this comment, there can be an argument made that the ACC, Big East, Pac-10, and Big-10 reps this season may not be as worthy to play in a BCS game as Oklahoma, Texas, or Texas Tech. Hell, even Utah, and Boise State should be in ahead of those four conferences.
about 1 month ago
I agree completely with everything in argument. I will tell you, though, that all the coaches can support a playoff system, but it won't ever matter because the conference presidents are the ones who get to decide, and all they really care about is the bottom line. I think there is plenty of money to be made with the playoff, but their concern is that all the other smaller bowls will be lost, and with them tons of money.
While I agree your comment, I didn't write this article as an attempt to fix the BCS, but only to fix the Rose Bowl, and bring back the excitement that the game used to have every year. Yes, the ACC and Big East don't deserve a BCS game this year, and the Big 12 deserves to send 3 teams. This is something I've argued for a long time is getting rid of the automatic bids, but then conferences lose millions of dollars from not getting their teams in. It's wholy unfair because the power 6 conferences control the BCS, and this year they are taking millions away from Boisie State most likely, and giving that money that would greatly benefit Boisie and their conferece, and giving it to the Big East and ACC who aren't in as bad a shape financially. It's very wrong, but that's an article for an another time. Thanks for the comment it was rather insightful.
about 1 month ago
Great article!!!!!!!!!! The Big Ten isn't good enough to play Pac-10 teams. We should just have playoffs in College Football.
about 1 month ago
You have to remember the Big 10's best team over the last couple years Ohio State has been playing in the title game. I don't think the Big 10 would be 1-5 if Ohio State would have played in some of those games.
Penn State will kill Oregon State this year.
from about 1 month ago
I addressed the fact that the Big 10 isn't sending their champion every year in an earlier comment by saying that when Texas played Michigan in the Rose Bowl Texas was the second place team from the Big 12 playing against the Big 10 champion. So just because you aren't sending your champion doesn't mean you can't win or at the very least be competitive which the Big 10 hasn't been recently. I believe, as we saw this year, that USC would have pounded on Ohio State the last two years just like they did against Michigan and Illinois. Remember that Michigan played a very tough game against Ohio State two years ago. They played so well that people thought they should rematch against Ohio State in the NC game. Last year Illinois actually beat Ohio State, so it really isn't as if Ohio State was head and shoulders above the Big-10 runner up like USC was.
about 1 month ago
How about this for an idea to even the field between the B10 and PAC 10? Move the Rose Bowl Game to Soldier Field in Chicago so that a PAC 10 Champion like USC doesn't have home field advantage by playing a defacto home game in the Rose Bowl. How good would the PAC 10's Rose Bowl record be if they had to play every Rose Bowl on the road and in the cold? My money's on 0-25 over the next 25 years.
from about 1 month ago
Moving the game to a cold weather place would definitely be a bigger disadvantage to a warm weather team than vice versa. I agree that I don't like the defacto home game their in Pasadena. What about when UCLA actually has a good team? That is their actual home stadium. I was very concerned when Texas played in the National Championship against USC because it was in Pasadena. Luckily the 'horns were able to pull out the road victory.
about 1 month ago
Just because USC gets an almost automatic home game playing in the Rose Bowl because the Pac-10 is comprised of average teams other than USC doesn't mean the Big Ten shouldn't be playing in it. Almost every game you mention involves USC hammering someone. Maybe the Rose Bowl should just be called the USC vs. the Big Ten Champion Because the Rest of the Pac-10 Sucks Bowl. And how about before the turn of the century? Also, it's not looking good for the Pac-10 this year. I'd love to say Oregon wins, but I don't see how they do. This is the same team that struggled against Stanford and UCLA and they are on the road. Granted Oregon St. lost to Stanford, but that was the beginning of the season and they obviously aren't the same team that lost that game and got hammer by Penn State. No Rodgers might have them in trouble though. Even with USC vs. Penn State, they aren't gonna run away with that game. The problem I have with USC is when they play a team that is physical and runs right at them, they fold up. Oregon St. punked them with a 170lb freshman RB. They've changed their scheme since, but Stanford (funny how they keep popping up as average as they are) raised some serious questions. And their speed doesn't give them any significant advantage over a Penn State offense full of the same.
from about 1 month ago
I know that in the 90's the Big 10 was dominating this game. I probably still would have made the same argument to move the Big 10 to another bowl then too because logically due to its location you have to keep the Pac 10. USC has been the dominant team lately in the Pac-10, but last year Oregon had the best team until their Heisman favorite qb went down.
I'm hoping that Oregon wins this weekend and believe that they will because nobody wants to see Oregon St. v. Penn St. except for people in Corvalis. I have to believe that even those in Happy Valley would want to see Penn. St. v. USC simply because it's a better matchup.
I still think it would be good for college football in general if the bowl games were varied a little more. You keep the regional conferences as automatic bids for the purpose of local fans, but you bring in different teams to create matchups we don't see that often to create intrigue. The Pac 10 and Big 10 are very familiar. You should have the Rose taking the Pac 10 every year. The Sugar taking the SEC every year. The Orange taking the ACC every year. The Fiesta takes two at large since the only locals are in the Pac 10 which has a tie in already. I think this gives each bowl a chance to have interesting games.
about 1 month ago
Probably have had many similar comments already. But, you seem to ignore the fact that Penn State has already demolished Oregon State. That is Big 10 #1 versus Pac 10 #1. The same Pac 10 #1 that defeated USC. I have also listened to the press propoganda that PSU stands no chance in bowls for the past 40 years. But, they have the best bowl winning record out there. As for USC, PSU is 4-4 and I've heard the same pre-game comments every time I've seen them play. I do not know who will win that game, if it turns out that way. I'd rather play it at our home field, as the Rose Bowl is not exactly neutral. But, you are a fool to think that we have no chance.
from about 1 month ago
I have had some comments to that effect. People have said that this year is the wrong year to write this article because of Penn St., but Penn St. hasn't won the Rose Bowl yet this year, and we don't know they are going to play Oregon St either. I personally believe that Oregon will win this weekend, but we have to wait and see.
Also, just because Oregon St. beat USC doesn't mean that Penn St. will beat USC. We've seen what happens to the Penn St. offense when they play a good defense and USC has the best defense. If you want to go off of comparing what teams did against like opponents look at what USC did to Ohio St., a team Penn St. struggled against greatly. I personally don't know PSU's bowl history, but that really doesn't have anything to do with this year. I believe if Penn St. plays Oregon St. it will be a closer game than the first time the two played, and if it's USC that USC will hammer PSU. Sorry, if you don't agree, but that's my opinion, and everyone is right until the game is played, so you aren't wron either. Thanks for the comment.
from about 1 month ago
And look what Penn State did to Oregon St., a team USC struggled against. Using Ohio St. in any argument in big games is horrible because they've been historically horrible in them post-Clarrett. Penn St. has went to a Bowl game and won the past 3 seasons (FSU, Tennessee and TAMU) and 1 of those was a BCS game. (Orange Bowl vs. FSU) And we could say look what happens when USC plays a team that can run right at them with a big physical offensive line. Arizona ran all over them. So did Oregon St. They might beat Penn State, but they will not blown them out.
about 1 month ago
The balance in power tends to shift every few years or so with the one constant being that the SEC is always one of the 2 or 3 strongest conferences year in and year out - often the best. It was just a couple years ago when people were considering the Pac-10 supreme among all BCS conferences. This year, they're at the bottom of the barrel. I also believe that the Big 10 is consistently underrated. Over the past few years, Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin have been very good teams. That doesn't even include a Michigan team that will likely rise back to prominence once that program gets back on track, we'll see though.
Honestly, I believe that Ohio St. would beat USC if they played now. The bottom of the conference is also steadily improving with teams like Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois making a little noise the last couple of years. The national championship games are also misleading. The SEC is a superior conference, but that holds true for them in relation to almost any other conference. And didn't Michigan beat Florida last year in the Capital One Bowl. OUCH! As an SEC guy, I even had to admit that one stung a little bit.
from about 1 month ago
You are right, the balance of power does shift, and with traditional powers in the Big 10 they will rise back up again. My point used the recent debacle of the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl, but the overall point is that the matchup is just old and tired. People would be more interested in a fresh matchup of teams that are traditional powers that don't meet very often. That is one reason why the 2006 Rose Bowl was one of the most viewed games ever. Texas and USC, besides being two of the greatest teams ever playing each other, are two of the greatest programs of all time, but have barely ever played against one another because of the Rose Bowl tie in. The Rose Bowl is the only BCS bowl with two teams tied in and it's killing the game. So the only solution is to give on the boot, and due to the location the Big 10 is the obvious choice.
I can't agree with you about Ohio St. beating USC. Ohio St. is looking good because of the weakness of the Big 10. Just like the last two years Ohio St. has been able to build themselves up because they play weak competition. You could make the same argument this year about USC playing weak teams, but their recent bowl record is still outstanding, which is more than you can say for Ohio St. Until Ohio can win a big time bowl they will have that stigma just like OU has right now. I agree about the Capital One bowl last year. Who saw that one coming? While it was a shock it really shouldn't have been that was an underperforming Michigan team who was championship caliber, but suffered major injuries all year. They were definitely one of the most talented teams in the country.
about 1 month ago
some of ur points are well noted, but i dont think the big 10 vs. pac 10 rose bowl should be stopped, however it should be played on one condition, that if the big 10 champ is playing in the NC game which it has the last 2 years then the Rose Bowl should not take the big 10's 2nd best team. Illinois clearly should not have played in the Rose Bowl last year and even as a U-M fan the wolverines clearly did not belong 2 years ago. Unless its the big 10 and the pac 10's best teams are playing each other, it shouldnt be a big 10 vs. pac 10 rose bowl
from about 1 month ago
I agree that Illinois had no business in a BCS bowl last year, but with the no more than 2 teams from a conference the Tournament of Roses hands were kind of tied. Michigan two years ago though was a team that most thought should have been in the National Championship game in a rematch against Ohio State, so to say they didn't belong may be a stretch. Obviously with hindsight being 20/20 we can look back and say Michigan didn't belong, but at the time many thought Michigan deserved a game better than the Rose Bowl.
about 1 month ago
its hard to break tradition
about 1 month ago
its hard to break tradition, especially when it comes to the Rose Bowl....
about 1 month ago
Its hard to break tradition, especially when it comes to the Rose Bowl...
about 1 month ago
I am PRAYING that USC somehow backs their way into the Rose Bowl. They are OVERrated for many reasons mentioned above but I will reiterate the fact that they do not play well against teams that are physical with them. If Oregon was able to bully them then Penn State would knock the snot out of them. USC is a warm weather finesse team playing in a conference full of pansies. If they were in the Big Ten, they would have no chance of dominating every year as they do in the PAC-10 because every year they would have at LEAST one cold weather game on the road at Penn St, Ohio St or Michigan. No way a finesse team wins in those places year after year. A great hard nosed football team always beats a great finesse team in the big games. We saw a great example in the Super Bowl when the Pats thought they were going to throw the ball 40 times & everyone thought the Giants had no chance. What happened? The Giants played hard nosed physical football. While they ran the football down their throats on one side of the ball, they knocked the snot out of Brady on the other because the Pats weren't physical enough to run the football. Look at when PSU beat Miami in '86. Jimmy Johnson's team was loaded with offense and what happened? They had never played a hard nosed physical team and lost. I only wish they had Bowl games in cold weather cities.
from about 1 month ago
I don't think I would call USC a finesse team. They have the most depth at running back in the nation, and all of those backs would start almost anywhere. USC will never line up and throw 40 times a game with Mark Sanchez. Their defense was missing was some key elements in their loss to Oregon St., mainly Rey Mauluga who is a top ten draft pick. Penn St. has shown that they can't dominate a good defense and USC has a great defense. I know they play in probably the worst conference in America, but still to do what they hav