Since 1946, the Pac-10 and Big Ten have clashed in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. However, everything changes this year, as there will be no Rose Bowl on January 1, and the Pac-10-Big Ten matchup will come to an end.
The BCS title game is the Rose Bowl game this year, and it has been moved to January 3. Since the title game pairs the top two in the BCS rankings, it is unlikely the Pac-10 and Big Ten will face off for the national championship. That is not meant to dog either conference. It's just the truth.
|  | | Oregon was one of three Pac-10 teams with a bowl victory last season. |
Only twice have the Pac-10 and Big Ten had the top two teams -- according to the poll -- face each other in the Rose Bowl. First, in 1963, when top-ranked USC beat Wisconsin 42-37; and again in 1969, as top-ranked Ohio State beat USC 27-16.
The Pac-10 hasn't had a sniff of a national championship since 1991 when the Washington Huskies split the title, and both conferences are so balanced it's unrealistic to expect them to produce undefeated or nearly undefeated teams -- which is what will likely be necessary to get into the title game.
This change will seriously damage, if not destroy, the Rose Bowl mystique.
For many of us, the Rose Bowl is the focal point of the New Year's Day routine: catch the Rose Parade and recover from New Year's Eve, then prepare for the Rose Bowl party while casually checking out the other bowl games. You're fully recovered and ready when the Rose Bowl begins. Drop everything else and watch.
The Rose Bowl mystique is hard to explain. It is embedded in the memories we have of games while growing up. Every player and coach in the Pac-10 and Big Ten dreams of playing in the Rose Bowl -- but they don't necessarily dream of playing in a national championship game.
The Pac-10-Big Ten matchup was compelling because it gave us a clash of different styles. Three yards and a cloud of dust vs. the West Coast Offense. Tailback U. Brains vs. Brawn. The Big Ten could pound, but the Pac-10 was clever. Midwestern cold and snow vs. West Coast sunshine.
It gave us David vs. Goliath on an almost annual basis (e.g. Stanford vs. Ohio State and Michigan back to back in the early 70's, Northwestern vs. USC and Oregon vs. Penn State in the 90's.)
We rooted for the conference with which we identified. We respected, but hated the other. We rooted for our part of the country -- our way of life.
That is all gone now. The Rose Bowl will become indistinguishable from the Fiesta, Orange and Sugar Bowls. Oh sure, there will be a nice matchup, but there won't be a great rivalry. There won't be a clash of cultures or style of play built up over the years that serves as the prism through which you measure the teams from the respective conferences.
It'll be a great game, but it will go no deeper than that. Can the Rose Bowl recover its mystique in 2003? I don't know.
So far, the coaches and players with whom I speak aren't making a big deal out of the change. That's because at this time of the year they all believe that they will win the conference and play for the national championship in the Rose Bowl.
But this will become a bigger issue as the season winds down and reality sets in that the traditional matchup is gone. The loudest cries of "foul" will occur if a team that has never been to the Rose Bowl (stand up Arizona) or one that has not been there in decades (roll call for Cal, Oregon St., Indiana) actually wins the conference and does not qualify for the Rose Bowl.
Not so incidentally, had the the Rose Bowl been the national championship game last year, 11-1 Washington and 11-1 Oregon St. both would have been shipped away from the Rose Bowl. If that happens this year, the rumbling won't be an earthquake, but it will seem like one because the Pac-10 teams will be livid.
The BCS is certainly a better plan for determining a national champion than anything else we've had. However, this plan also kills one of the truly great rivalries in sports, and it may not be the same when it returns next year. At least the New Year's day routine will return.
| |
|
