Time for the Rose Bowl to put the Big Ten to pasture
Well, just as I predicted moments before the opening bell, Penn State scored 24 points. Twenty-four! Not bad against the nation's top defense. I would have looked like an absolute genius save for one thing: USC came out las if they were the Bill Walsh 49ers and ran wild against the Nittany Lions' defense for 38 points. Thirty-eight -- not the 21 that I'd predicted -- and USC wins in a walkover that began with a lot of passion and energy, only to do a fast fade once SC nailed three TDs to the scoreboard in the second quarter.
That's the last time I bet against the Trojans for a long, long while. Or at least not till Peter Clay Carroll is coaching the Seattle Seahawks or the Los Angeles Saints (sorry, New Orleans) and Jack Del Rio is trying to find his way as coach in Trojanland.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed. Not that SC won, but simply that the on-field action didn't come close to living up to the pageantry and the magnificence offered up by this, the 95th Rose Bowl. As happens far too often, a burly Big Ten team strutted all the way to Pasadena only to play the game las if they'd spent the morning sitting in a gigantic sauna, losing their energy and speed and going all mushy upstairs.
When is this going to stop? When is a Big Ten team going to come here, play a highly ranked squad from the West Coast (not a Washington State or a Stanford) and actually execute? I'm waiting. Really, I'd love it. We need this game to be special, not something only remembered by the Trojans' faithful.
So far this bowl season, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota and now the Big Ten champs have all suffered humiliating defeats. Forget about talk of college football playoffs; how about this simple, small change? Maybe the Rose Bowl should just ditch the hulking Midwestern clunkers altogether and form a new bond with somebody like the Western Athletic Conference. After today's 38-24 manhandling, USC vs. Boise State has a certain special ring to it. We'd probably get the same final result, but the games would probably be a whole lot more entertaining.
-- Kurt Streeter
Photo: USC receiver Ronald Johnson scores on a 19-yard pass play late in the second quarter Thursday despite the defense of Penn State's Anthony Scirrotto. Credit: Lori Shepler / Los Angeles Times
The fact of the matter is, without USC, the PAC 10 is leagues below the Big 10. Remember the thwumping that Penn State gave Oregon State earlier this year? The Pac 10 has become boring with the USC winning again and again only to obliterate whoever they face from the Big 10.
Posted by: Mikey | January 02, 2009 at 11:24 AM
"When is a Big Ten team going to come here, play a highly ranked squad from the West Coast (not a Washington State or a Stanford) and actually execute?"
Outside of USC, is there another highly ranked team? What happens if USC goes to the title game, who does the PAC 10 bring? Oregon? Oreg. St?
Posted by: Eric | January 02, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Maybe the writer is showing his disappointment that his alma mater has not left Strawberry Canyon for a New Year's Day game in the Arroyo Seco for decades! Perhaps he should stick to tennis.
Posted by: Greg | January 02, 2009 at 01:49 PM
How about inviting ANYONE from the other major conferences to play here?
Who says it has to be the Big 10 year after year after year.
Posted by: syscom3 | January 02, 2009 at 01:49 PM
Why not the MWAC? USC vs. Utah would have been a great game.
Posted by: Sharat | January 05, 2009 at 05:23 PM
As a Big 10 alum, I think the writers memory may be a bit short. I can not deny the recent Rose Bowl dominance by the PAC 10 (or more accurately USC) but look back at the '90's and you see a different story. I also agree with the other posters that outside of USC, the PAC 10 is not terribly impressive. After a bowl season of mostly uninteresting games, Rose Bowl included, perhaps some thought will be given to dropping conference tie ins and look at putting good match ups together.
Posted by: RRyan | January 06, 2009 at 02:19 PM