I don't know what to make of this

From Mark Schlabach's column on ESPN today.

"In the end, Meyer proved to be right. Michigan lost to No. 4 Southern California 32-18 in the Rose Bowl presented by Citi. And the Gators, despite being overwhelming underdogs, blasted the top-ranked Buckeyes 41-14 in the BCS title game to win the school's second national championship."

I'm confused as to the inclusion of the title sponsor for the Rose Bowl, and then not doing to same for the Tostitos Championship game, as it was this year.

You think this has anything to do with ABC/ESPN still having the Rose Bowl and not the others, or what is going on here?

 

You may have answered your own question, dear sir.

 

That's what it smacks of, yes. But who knows if Schlabach wrote it that way, or if it was edited in/out that way ...

When Citi pays our paper some kind of advertisement/sponsorship fee, we will use "Rose Bowl presented by Citi". But we are under no obligation to use their name otherwise.

 

Just seems shabby to me, and I like Schlabach's work.

 

I guarantee you the "presented by Citi" was inserted by an editor

The Mouse loves synergy, you now.

 

It is official. Vince Doria has lost his soul.
15 years ago, Doria would have skinned Schlabach alive (or whomever was responsible).

 

appalling. i'm going to puke.

 

i just loved when i was covering a bowl game a few years ago and the flak from the sponsoring company -- not the bowl's flak -- called to implore me to use the company's name in all stories. she honestly couldn't grasp why i wouldn't use it on every reference. i think my SE finally agreed to use it on first reference, but nothing more.