Talk:Rose Bowl Game

The MVP table needs to be changed to record both the offensive and defensive winners (I just saw it on TV and Michael Huff won too). Come on, this is kinda ridiculous. Was this done accidentally or just biased?

Could someone fix the MVP table?

The MVP table is all messed up. Vince Young won in 2005 not 2004, Matt Leinart won in 2004 not 2003 ect. It looks like it starts with Donald Dufek who was ommitted as MVP in 1951. William Tate was the MVP in 52 (according to http://www.laalmanac.com/sports/sp01ac.htm) --Eenu 23:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

-Nevermind I figured it out --Eenu 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I'd like to suggest that we move this to Rose Bowl (game), because in common usage, the game is referred to as the "Rose Bowl", not the "Rose Bowl Game". The "official" name may be "Rose Bowl Game", according to rosebowl.com, but that doesn't mean we should call the article that. James Earl Carter, Jr. redirects to Jimmy Carter, and Samuel Langhorne Clemens redirects to Mark Twain. Furthermore, "Rose Bowl Game" introduces ambiguity, because "Rose" could be treated as an adjective modifying "Bowl Game", which doesn't reflect common usage. A move would also make it consistent with Orange Bowl (game) and Cotton Bowl (game). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I'd support it. --Falcorian | Talk 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd oppose such a move. Parenthensis should be avoided in titles whenever possible. As the proper, official name of the game is "Rose Bowl Game", and as there's already an article about the stadium with the name "Rose Bowl" (so we can't use the common name "Rose Bowl"), the article should be at the proper name. Matt Yeager 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any policy/guideline page suggesting general opposition to parenthesis. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) seems to suggest that they are perfectly acceptable. If two things in the vast majority of cases go by the same name, it does not make sense to me to rename one of them to an obscure and rarely used title. Compare 123,000 to 6,830,000. Note also that the official name of the thing covered by the article Rose Bowl (stadium) is actually Rose Bowl Stadium, which incidentally gets 30,000 hits.

Before reading this, I have no recollectoin of ever hearing the game referred to as the "Rose Bowl Game", except with the purpose of disambiguation in a manner like "Rose Bowl, the game"; not unlike that represented by "Rose Bowl (game)". And I've been following the Rose Bowl ever since my university entered the Big Ten. "Rose Bowl" is what the stadium is called, and it's what the game is called. Name two or three ESPN analysts that use "Rose Bowl Game" to describe it in their columns. See [1], [2], [3], [4].

I don't disagree that sometimes, the official name should be used over the commonly used name. Penn State redirects to Pennsylvania State University. But the usage is relatively even—if google searches are any measure, Penn State is only twice as common as Pennsylvania State University, not over 50 times more common.--Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The only thing more I have to say, I think, is just that at least SOME people refer to it as the "Rose Bowl Game"... nobody refers to it as the "Rose Bowl (game)". Since we can't use "Rose Bowl", we might as well use a slightly used name (that actually does exist and actually is used)instead of one invented out of thin air. Right? Matt Yeager 07:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons cited above, including just "Rose Bowl Game" is less than a tenth as common as just "Rose Bowl", Rose Bowl (game) would also be more consistent with Orange Bowl (game), and more historically accurate, as during most of its history it was just "Rose Bowl". 24.18.215.132 23:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think merge is the correct action (they're exactly the same). It seems we should just delete The Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi and redirect here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination

It is a very well written article, not perfect, but it definitely meets the requirements for a good article. Bornagain4 02:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, but I think it's still underwritten. When I took a look earlier it lacked the 2004 RB (which resulted in a split-national title) and instead spent time on the far less relavent '03 or '05 RBs (while the Cal contoversy was notable at the time, it will be forgotten faster than a split-championship). In recent history the '02, '04 and '06 were the most relevant due to their championship implications. Maybe a section should be made on discussing the significant games, sub-divided into "Championship Implications" and "Other significant games" (like the 1943 RB). A lot of other trivia, like USC going the most times, is a little too integrated. Try to make it less like an essay, and more like reference material. I've added a few bits on the 2004, including a photo I took during the '04 game and included in the card stunt article. I think this is definitely on the way to GA status, but needs a little more "cooking" ;-) --Bobak 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I failed it, No references, needs some copyediting and a expansion. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh... "Failed" it? I guess that's what summer is for: making up those classes :-P --Bobak 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heaven's sakes, no. I love this article, and I've written a lot of stuff in it, but no, it's not there yet. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Rose Bowl

Is the 2006 Rose Bowl the only time that two Heisman trophy winners (Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart) have ever lined up on the same team in a college football game? I can't find any other instances of a player who won the Heisman as a junior and then returned for his senior year and a team mate then wining it in the succeeding year, so I assume it must be. Legis 09:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true. It was the only time in history. The 2005 Orange Bowl was the first time two Heisman-holding players (Leinart and OU's Jason White) faced each other, and the 2006 RB was the first time two Heisman-holding players were in the same backfield. The only previous back-to-back Heisman winners were Army's Mr. Inside-Mr. Outside combo of "Doc" Blanchard (won 1945) and Glenn Davis ('46), but they never played together while both possessed the trophy. --Bobak 17:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Army did not play in bowl games during this era, which is why Blanchard and Davis never played together as Heisman-holders.Clubiguana 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chariot Races rationale

I added a citation needed for the gap in Rose Bowl Games between 1902 and 1916. Although most works I have read imply that the 1902 blowout was the reason the Tournament ditched football, none explicitly give the reason. I think that saying the blowout temporarily ended football is a hasty assumption.49giantsharks 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An appropriate citation has been addedClubiguana 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Arizona sentence

Please discuss the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion the following phrase:

The only member of the Pac-10 or the Big Ten to have never appeared in the Rose Bowl is the University of Arizona.

Usually we do not exclude relevant sourced info Alex Bakharev 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's factual, sourced, notable (only one of 21 schools) and relevant (in the participation section). AUTiger » talk 17:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons cited by AUTiger. ~ João Do Rio 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Can't say it better than AUTiger, it's relevant information. Keep it. Alexdragon 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remove All three of these users are ASU fans...enough said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.108.205.80 (talk • contribs) 23 June 2007 21:16 (GMT).

Incorrect. I have no affiliation with, loyalty to, or preference for either Arizona or Arizona State. AUTiger, I presume, is an Auburn fan. Alex Bakharev is from Russia and is not affiliated with either school. Alexdragon, so far, is the only ASU fan involved here. And it's probably a safe bet that you are one of Beardownaz9's numerous sockpuppets. ~ João Do Rio 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

When I tagged the unsigned comment, I didn't bother to mention I have no concern with either Arizona or ASU because it should be pretty self-evident (AU and SEC fan). I am college football fan and member of the college football WikiProject, have the Rose Bowl (and pretty much all other bowls) on my watchlist and was just tired of the slow revert war over this issue. AUTiger » talk 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am an ASU fan and student. Unlike the person reverting the Rose Bowl sentence, you don't see me constantly posting biased information on my rival school's pages. I added this information to this page (only this page) because I felt it was relevant, I even cited it. So what if I'm an ASU fan? what if AUTiger added it? What would be your argument? ~ Alexdragon 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

...what ever dude, you are one of the ring leaders in all this vandalism started back in Jan '07. Just go to Sparky's Pigskin forum at Devilsdigest.com. You'll have to go back to Page 23 titled "Wikipedia Gold". I'll bet you a million bucks you are user member "___". The original thread was deleted, which was much worse than the thread on Page 23. I think you need to be blocked from making edits to Wikipedia.

Yeah it's not weird that you go through 23 pages of messages to find some "proof". If you go back and read my posts, all I did was say that the sentence is always being removed, and how to prevent vandalism to ASU's pages. Learn to read pal. You can also check my history by selecting on my "contributions" tab, you'll find no vandalism there. If you want to continue this conversation use my user page, this discussion section wasn't meant for smack talk.~ Alexdragon 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't the place to fight out college rivalries. I would strongly suggest that you find a way to express the subject matter in a way that doesn't sound like a knock on Arizona. For example, instead of prose, create a table showing how many appearances and wins each team has. That communicates the information in a more useful fashion and it isn't singling out one school or another. --BigDT 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT, but I also think the sentence should remain. I wrote a lot of the SEC Championship Game page (including the two parts mentioned next) and it has a similar sentence mentioning the 4 teams that have never played in the SEC Champ game, but it also has a table that breaks down the numbers. Check it out. I think it would be a fine compromise if people still object to the sentence. Seancp 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that, out of 21 schools, only one hasn't been there is a solid fact (and one that gets mentioned occasionally in the media when they're looking for odd facts); but I agree that maybe it can be phrased in a way that doesn't exactly accuse the Wildcats, however the sentence didn't seem bad --although it shouldn't be it's own paragraph, it should be worked into a part of another. The sentence shouldn't need to wikilink the conferences. --Bobak 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Per BigDT's suggestion, I've added tables ranked by appearances; the first, all Big10 and Pac10 schools and the second, every other DIFBS school that's played the Rose. For now, I left the statement, but if everyone is satisfied by the table it can be removed. AUTiger » talk 02:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Navy, Tulane, & SMU?

The table featuring "Other Division I FBS schools by appearance" doesn't include Navy (1 appearance, 0 wins, 1 tie), Tulane (1 appearance, 0 wins, 0 ties) or Southern Methodist (1 appearance, 0 wins, 0 ties). Could someone fix this? The list currently includes only Divison 1 schools who are in BCS conferences (and Notre Dame).

Done. AUTiger » talk 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)