Now that the college football regular season is all but over, it is once again time to turn my attention to bowl games.

The last week in December and the beginning of January are an exciting time in a college football fan’s life, even if your favorite team isn’t going to be on the field.

However, I don’t want to talk about the match-ups on the field. Instead, I’d like to comment on the travesty of corporate sponsors taking away the history of college football.

All one has to do is look at the list of bowl games, and you will quickly realize that practically all the games have added a corporate sponsor to the beginning of their name.

Many may say this issue is trivial, but I am a firm supporter of saving the purity of sport, and I hate to see the NCAA heading down a road of corporate sponsorship that could lead to the loss of football tradition.

Isn’t it enough for these corporations to smear their logos all over the stadiums, tickets, programs and countless commercials during the games? Do they really have to put their name in front of the game as well?

Here are just a few examples of some of the more ridiculous bowl names: Nokia Sugar Bowl, Culligan Holiday Bowl, Toyota Gator Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl, CompUSA Florida Citrus Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, Micron PC Bowl and my favorite, the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl.

What, besides contributing money, does Chick-fil-A actually do for the game? Are players getting complimentary pre-game meals at participating restaurants? I doubt it.

Don’t get me wrong. I realize the schools are receiving a substantial amount of money from these sponsors, which in turn leads to better facilities.

I also realize that name recognition plays an integral part in advertising, but it isn’t like people wouldn’t know who was sponsoring these games without corporate names in front of the bowl names.

Instead of paying millions of dollars to put their name up front, maybe the corporations should give away some tickets to the consumers actually buying their products.

I guarantee that I’d eat Tostito’s chips and salsa for the rest of my life if they set me up with a few 50 yard-line tickets to the Fiesta Bowl. Now that is consumer appreciation.

One bowl game that has been opposed to adding a name to its title was the Rose Bowl. I say “was” because the Associated Press reported that, beginning in January, the game will become the Rose Bowl presented by AT&T.

The AP also reported the Rose Bowl Operating Co. is discussing selling naming rights to the stadium known as the Rose Bowl. The chosen company would have the right to place its name on all tickets, programs, news releases and on the Rose Bowl’s distinctive neon sign.

“We could potentially make lots of money, but at the same time I’d be appalled at the idea of the ‘Budweiser Rose Bowl,'” City Councilman Paul Little said in the Pasadena Star-News.

So, the question remains, when should enough be enough.

I can distinctively remember playing Peewee baseball in my No. 8 jersey with “Louie’s Tap” written underneath.

That type of advertising is what I would call donation-advertising, not the type of advertising saturation that college bowls are facing.

Louie’s Tap advertised so that kids could have matching jerseys. Tostitos and the other corporations are advertising to increase profits.

In the AP article, Porfirio Frausto, board member of the Rose Bowl Operating Co. said, “The Rose Bowl has a great history, legacy and heritage that can’t be bought. If you do, you’ve sold your soul.”

I’m afraid if collegiate athletics doesn’t put a limit on these corporate sponsorships, it may end up selling its soul.

As for the corporate sponsors, if they are really interested in promoting athletics, maybe they should take a lesson from Louie’s Tap and do what is in the best interest of the participating athletes. After all, without the athletes, there wouldn’t be any bowl games.

---

Jerod Bruner is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Newell.