Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Rant: The Rose Bowl is Terrible This Year

It will all too soon be time for the most overrated game of the year, the Rose Bowl. ESPN would like to remind you of this fact, every couple of minutes.

ESPN would also like to remind you that this is a "classic" Rose Bowl game, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team. Were you aware that this is a classic Rose Bowl game, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team? I was, in fact, aware that this is a classic Rose Bowl game, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team.

In so often reminding viewers that this is a classic Rose Bowl game, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team, ESPN seems to be acknowledging that this is a match-up no one wants to see. USC is an obvious choice, of course, being Pac-10 co-champion, sharing that honor with an anemic Arizona State team. The match-up everyone wants to see would have been USC versus Georgia. Those are the teams that, we're also frequently reminded by ESPN, "are playing the best football right now."

By the way, were you aware that this is a classic Rose Bowl game, featuring Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team?

Instead of a genuinely exciting Rose Bowl, we have the classic Rose Bowl pap, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team. Of course, this would be the 9-3 Fighting Zooks. Isn't that exciting? While earlier in the season anyone could (and Stanford and Oregon did) beat USC, this is no longer the case. The Zooks are not going to break the Trojans anytime soon. This classic Rose Bowl game, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team should be a brutal drubbing.

Of course, this game is being crammed down our throats because of ESPN's tremendous Pac-10 and Big Ten bias. ESPN has the contract to broadcast the games from both conferences, and so it behooves the network to pump up any game its show ponies play in.

But that's a rant for another day. In the mean time, enjoy your classic Rose Bowl game, featuring a Pac-10 team versus a Big Ten team.

Which no one wants to see.

No comments: