Colin Cowherd is a notch above both of them. But if I had to choose between the two - it is no contest - Dan Patrick (especially with Keith Olbermann) is far more listenable than Jim Rome. Dan Patrick's downside is that he: can be somewhat boring at times, sometimes seems like he hasn't done much prep before the show, and sometimes he thinks his segments are more interesting - than I think his listeners find them to be.Jim Rome's downside is that he: is arrogant, cocky, condescending; is always trying to drum up fake outrage over frivolous sports stuff, and is just hard to listen to for an extended period of time (like fingernails on a chalk board).
I haven't listened to Cowherd since he initially replaced Tony Kornheiser (who blew 'em all away, IMO). I thought Cowherd was terrible. Is he really that much better now?
Comparing Rome and Patrick, those are two distinct personalities. Apples and oranges. Rome is very high-energy, while Patrick has a more laid back wit. Haven't listened to him much since Dibble left, but I've caught him with Olbermann a few times, and those two work well together. I'd have to say it's a toss-up. Maybe Rome, because he is what he is, has been consistent, and can work alone while relying heavily on callers. Patrick works best with a foil, but is still pretty good.