Is It Time For The Rose Bowl To Change Its Format?

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.