Why the Alamo Bowl isn’t a disappointment
Northwestern fans were hoping for a bid to the Outback Bowl in Tampa Bay, the same way that, as a kid, I hoped I could teach my cat to set up my bath for me. I knew it wasn’t likely, probably not even possible, but it was still a nice thought to entertain. In Tampa, mini-golf would be a-plenty and the game would have been a winnable one against an inconsistent South Carolina team. It all seemed so perfect. But then reality hit, and it was announced that the Wildcats would be going to the land of the steak burrito: San Antonio.
San Antonio, unless you’re really into rivers or boring yet dominating basketball teams, probably isn’t the place for you. To make matters worse, Northwestern’s foe in the Alamo Bowl is a team that was a chic pre-season pick to win it all: Missouri. Yet, all is not lost. While it may seem like the Alamo Bowl is the Yu-Gi-Oh! to the Outback Bowl’s Pokémon, it is not. In fact, the Alamo Bowl might just be the better option for the Wildcats and their fans.
First off, the match-up is unique in that it features two quarterbacks who are both bigger than your average signal callers. Both C.J Bacher and one-time Heisman candidate Chase Daniel weigh in at well over 200 lbs. and give hope to young gunslingers everywhere even if they too have love handles. Big will be beautiful, as both quarterbacks have shown the ability to shine in big games. Bacher and Daniel are both seniors, who have each set records at their respective schools, and each look to make their last NCAA game count.
With a win, Northwestern could earn some respect for its conference, the fiercely criticized Big Ten. Mizzou is a member of the Big 12, which is considered by many to be the best conference in the country this year. Both teams finished with similar records, but if Northwestern can earn a victory, it would go a long way in proving that the Big Ten is not the Joey Fatone of BCS conferences. South Carolina, the team Northwestern would have played in the Outback Bowl, has been middling all year. Beating them wouldn’t have turned many heads.
Perhaps the biggest advantage that the Alamo Bowl has over the Australian alternative is its date and time. The Alamo Bowl is at 7 p.m. on Dec. 29, while the Outback Bowl kicks off at 10 a.m. on New Year’s Day. Rather than waking up with two minutes left in the third quarter and realizing that you have a tattoo of Tony the Tiger hula-hooping on your left arm thanks to New Year’s Eve shenanigans, the Alamo Bowl gives the average Northwestern fan a chance to invite some friends over, put out the chips and dip and maybe even cue up and buffer the Go U! NU video by Mo Greene.
If all this hasn’t done enough to convince you, and you are still mired in a state of Outback Bowl-less depression, then just repeat the phrase “Northwestern is going to a bowl” to yourself over and over again. You’ll soon realize that a year ago, even a bid to the Emerald Nuts Bowl would have put a smile on your face.
– Lex Singer, Communication freshman
| Print
Don't just be excited -- go to the game, too, with this handy road trip guide. Or you can return home.
Worst. Article. Ever.
J
December 25, 2008 at 4:06 pm
It’s not an article “J”, it’s a letter. And before you start going around devaluing someone’s work, care to elaborate on your opinion? Idiot.
Aaron
December 26, 2008 at 3:36 am
Suck a dick.
J
December 27, 2008 at 3:40 am
But to be perfectly honest, this has to be the most dulled piece of writing I have seen on NBN in awhile. If the metaphors don’t make it a tasteless piece that could come straight out of RumorRoyalty, then at least we can establish it’s crap straight out of someone’s ass. The fact that the writer found reason to put in “love handles” and “Joey Fatone” seriously destroyed the potential.
Yes, we know that the Alamo Bowl isn’t a disappointment. We also know that references to all things non-football doesn’t make us any more open to this bowl.
J
December 27, 2008 at 3:47 am
Dear J,
Hiding behind your first initial cannot and will not hide the fact that you, good sir, are a philistine. In an attempt to bring down the author of this piece, you have, in fact, revealed your own personal jaundiced and crass ignorance (not to mention your amateurish reading comprehension skills).
The very first line of this piece emphasizes the jocular tone that makes it such a unique and welcomed addition to the NBN canon. You have either missed this indicator entirely, or perhaps you can honestly boast the privilege of having a cat run your bubble bath every morning. So when you write that the author’s employment of humorous metaphors “seriously destroyed the potential,” you are not only wrong, but you have proved the author to be successful in his mission.
This piece is satirical, and thus does not intend to delve into the minute details of monday night’s game- you should check in with Lee Corso, or the thousands of other bare bone rundowns of the Alamo bowl online if you’re looking for that. Conversely, the author’s intentions are to provide a basic overview of the game with a dash of pop culture and jovially far fetched metaphors for no better reason but to make us smile.
Your last statement is an attempt at brazen, authoritative, be-all-end-all concluding declaration, but it falls flat on its face. Despite the fact that it may or may not be grammatically correct, it is not the author’s intention to make anyone “more open to this bowl,” whatever this may mean, because hasn’t making a bowl this late in the bowl season proven this season to be a dramatic success already?
If you’re looking for in depth analysis, this piece is obviously not going to deliver. But if being funny is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
Silent Bob
December 29, 2008 at 12:48 am
This article isn’t as horrid as “J” so eloquently stated, but the sarcasm does lack clarity, maybe not as laudable as “Silent Bob” would defend it for, but it does a yeoman’s job at it. To the former, philistine is close to it. The latter… wins.
Alamo Bowl goes to Tigers. You expected this plug at the end.
A [civil] Missouri Fan
December 29, 2008 at 2:47 am
Mr. Singer’s article is irrelevant, for soon, we all shall fall.
J II
January 13, 2009 at 6:17 pm