LETTERS

Last week we asked readers what they thought about the Tournament of Roses’ decision to have a presenting sponsor for the Rose Bowl in 1999. Those who responded said it was a bad idea. A sampling of the responses we received:

The Rose Bowl and Pasadena Tournament of Roses have always been a clean, bright, shining star in the midst of mediocrity in all affairs having to do with giant parades and bowl games. Let’s keep it that way. The whole program has never had to have the money--so why now?

JACK ALBERTS, Mission Viejo

*

I can just see the electronic scoreboard after the Caltech students commandeer the controls: RO$E BOWL.

GREGORY M. KELLY, Tustin

*

One can’t blame the Rose Bowl for bowing to corporate pressure, but consumers who are annoyed can take a stand. When Edison chose to spend millions to sponsor Anaheim Stadium, my wife and I chose another electric service provider.

Such a stance lets corporations know that their intrusions into all phases of our lives are unwelcome. While I commend the Rose Bowl for holding out for so long, the sponsoring corporation should know that people like myself will view it with disdain.

CHRISTOPHER McBRIDE, Huntington Beach

*

The Rose Bowl’s reputation is being compromised by crass commercialism. Pasadena volunteers who have been the stewards of the Rose Bowl tradition must be as embarrassed and disappointed as I am.

SANDRA H. DAVIDSON, Long Beach

*

A Rose Bowl by any other name will not smell as sweet but sure will smell like money.

JERRY BARUCH, Hollywood