Talk:UCLA–USC rivalry

message: UCLA-USC rivalry could also be USC-UCLA rivalry, both are used interchangeably. UCLA-USC has a slight edge in google over USC-UCLA
See also ISBN:1883792274  UCLA vs. USC: 75 Years of the Greatest Rivalry in Sports by Lonnie White
This article covers more than just the football rivalry, although it is the primary rivalry and the single highest point value for a matchup in the Lexus Gauntlet total.
Alphabetical order is UCLA first CHernandez 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I took some information from both the UCLA and USC articles 
Group29 16:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Particularly, the week before the game scheduled Dec 2, 2006, this article could be subject vandalism and non-neutral point of view statements. A list of pranks may be interesting to some, however many go beyond the realm of harmless college stunts. It might be best to stay on the high ground for the article. Someone else could create a list and maintain it on their own web site.
:During the time around the game in 2006 there were a number of vandalism edits. There will most likely be more again in 2007. Group29 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This year the game is scheduled for Dec 6, 2008 so be sure to keep a look out for vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharoah6905 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trying to maintain NPOV and prevent vandalism during game week

message: Put any two big time rival schools in the ESPN commercial where the Trojan costumed kid shows up at the Bruin fan's door and the joke is still funny. It is funny because of the history, each team has broken the other's heart at one time or another. (example: A kid dressed as a buckeye nut showing up at a Michigan fan's door.) The reason that it works best with UCLA and USC is that it is very likely to happen on any given Halloween. Graduates commonly can be found living in the same neighborhoods all around Southern California. That joke just does not work at all if a kid dressed in a San Diego State Aztec costume shows up at that same door.
*The commercial on YouTube
*The commercial on YouTube (alternate)
Group29 19:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trick or treat kid joke

message: Note that the information about the football rivalry could by moved to the Victory Bell article in the interest of space. Group29 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USC Media release for the 2006 game contained the section covering games with the Rose Bowl on the line. Group29 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other UC campuses' news outlets use "Cal" in their nicknames when referring to themselves, they all have specific rules about name usage. But the media outside of Los Angeles certainly does use "Cal", particularly when reporting sporting results in newspaper columns and score tickers. "Southern Cal" exists somewhere in the New York Times or Associated press style guides as an arbitrary newspaper column width fit for scores. Group29 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Football rivalry

message: We need a citation for the reported piped in Jet engine noise played in the Coliseum during the November 20, 1999 game. I looked through the L.A. Times archives and the Pac-10 publications and could not find any information on this. Otherwise this statement does not belong. Group29 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1999 game

message: I am working on this, it is tricky to deduce from the media guides whether the outcome of the game would have affected the conference championship for one or both teams. There are times when one or the other team has lost, and yet gone to the Rose Bowl. Group29 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The USC Media release for the 2006 game contained the section covering games with the Rose Bowl on the line. Group29 18:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rose Bowl on the line

message: The UCLA-USC rivalry encompasses not just sports, but the overall rivalry. The football rivalry is the most notable competition. The Victory Bell article is about the football trophy, and could contain the football series information. Group29 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly merge football series information to the Victory bell article

message: I am not sure of the exact date when the tradition of both schools wearing home Jerseys started. I have seen black and white pictures of games from the middle of the 20th century where UCLA was clearly wearing their white road jerseys in the game. Also, I am not aware if the Article 3 rule about white jerseys was put in place before 1984 when the tradition stopped. Clearly there was a big change for the 1984 game at the Rose Bowl where USC fans were in the end zone, and then 1985 when UCLA fans were in the end zone. Group29 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jerseys

message: At UCLA, the game also is known as "The 'SC Game" and the school is referred to as "'SC' (for Southern California). My personal observation is that no one in the West refers to USC as "Southern Cal", and the USC media guides reflect this by stating that "Southern Cal" is not an acceptable nickname. The Eastern sports media seem to use that nickname regardless. People in the West may find it confusing, as "Cal" is the nickname for the public University of California, specifically Cal-Berkeley. So if anything, "Southern Cal" could be seen as a reference to Cal-Santa Barbara, Cal-Irvine, Cal-San Diego, or Cal-Riverside, or even (!) UCLA. Group29 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other UC campuses' news outlets use "Cal" in their nicknames when referring to themselves, they all have specific rules about name usage. But the media outside of Los Angeles certainly does use "Cal", particularly when reporting sporting results in newspaper columns and score tickers. "Southern Cal" exists somewhere in the New York Times or Associated press style guides as an arbitrary newspaper column width fit for scores. Group29 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: I had read in a college football book published in 1984 that UCLA and Air Force traded a trophy called "The Brass Hat". However, the series ended in 1976 and there is no history of it in the UCLA media guide, nor in the Air Force media guide. 198.203.175.175 20:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCLA- Air Force rivalry? 

message: Why is it that there is a record of the football series but not of the basketball series?  I think this is a somewhat biased view of the rivalry as college football and basketball are equally popular.  Also, this page extensively covers USC pregame traditions but not UCLA traditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.253.224 (talk) 19:04, April 9, 2007
:It's not biased, we just don't have that many editors interested in that aspect. Same with the school unbalance; there are probably more USC-affiliated editors than UCLA's. ALTON .ıl 07:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CONQUEST! is just one event during the Troy week festivities, and did not really need a whole section. More information is available via the link. To answer the question about why the football record is there, but not the basketball record is because no one has done the work. Speaking from experience, it takes a while to compile the table and information from the media guides and check facts. It is widely regarded that the football rivalry is the #1 most important competition between the two schools and the Lexus Gauntlet points reflect that. USC has the advantage in the rivalry for being first and also for being one of the best in the nation in college football before UCLA was established. Basketball is important, and is the #2 rivalry, but it does not have the same level of national attention as the football rivalry.  Group29 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Basketball Series

message: Although I wouldn't challenge the fact that the rivalry between UCLA and USC is among the most storied in the U.S., I do not think it is fair call it "one-of-a-kind" without some pretty good evidence.  While both schools are located within the same city, I do not consider this grounds to deem it "one-of-a-kind" as there are other literal cross-town rivalries (Columbia and Fordham, for example).  Further, there are also physically closer rivals, notably UNC and Duke.  Unless someone can think of a compelling reason to call his rivalry "one-of-a-kind", I call it NPOV. Coreyander 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "one-of-a-kind"

message: I hate to replace one undocumented "fact" with another, but it is certainly true that the DB-DT football games have been played regularly since the 1950s and were probably also played in the 1930s. The alternative would be to remove the date entirely. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 22:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally put the eighties date since that is my earliest recollection, and it had been an established tradition, but I had no idea how far back it went. And I would agree, there must be some sort of record kept in the Daily Bruin and Daily Trojan offices. Somewhere there are two trophies with the Band Bowl scores going back to the fifties. I believe that the first trophy ran out of date squares and my understanding is both are in posession of the UCLA Band. A very nasty incident in 2000 with mass instrument theft of the UCLA band instruments and anti-semitic vandalism of the ones that were returned killed off the Band bowl. (Anti-Defamation League has some blurbs about it) Group29 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Bruin-Daily Trojan football and "Band Bowl"  

message: The date for UCLA seems to get altered more than any other single fact.
In 1881 the California state legislature authorized the establishment in Los Angeles of a normal school for the education of teachers, which was named the Los Angeles State Normal School shortly after its creation. In 1919 the school became the second campus of the University of California and was renamed the Southern Branch of the University of California. The name was changed in 1927 to the University of California at Los Angeles, and a comma replaced the word "at" in 1953. The campus has been located in the Westwood area since September 1929, having moved from its previous site on Vermont Avenue near downtown Los Angeles. Group29 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the UCLA article, and if there needs to be a discussion about this particular fact and the way it is portrayed, it should be carried on there. Since the formation of this article, it has been noted in the main article that the institution was established in 1881. Group29 (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding date for UCLA

message: * My photo shows the scoreboard that reads UCLA 7 USC 0, taken from Mrs. Carroll's section. :) Ucla90024 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos from last game

message: I removed this sentence:  "(Note: USC as a private university funding its own program and title 9 constraints, doesn't have mens soccer, gymnastics, and softball)."  This is extremely misleading and implies that because USC is a private university, Title IX applies differently than it does at UCLA, a public university. This is not true. It would only be true if USC received no money at all from the federal government, including no scholarship aid for students and no federal research grants. This is obviously not the case. --Crunch (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  USC and Title IX 

message: In reading the NCAA report, it is not clear that the 2004 victory over UCLA is vacated. A Student-athlete was given money to purchase a car in December 2004. While the NCAA report clearly states that USC vacates the 2005 Orange Bowl win and BCS, it does not state that USC must vacate the UCLA game played on December 4th. No specific date is given for the auto purchase, to which the penalty is tied. It does appear that USC vacates the 2005 victory. It also appears that it is not official until the appeals process is concluded. Group29 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ESPN reported they went 14-1 in the span of the vacated wins. 2 from 2004 and 12 from 2005 plus the loss to Texas. This is what I went by. Bcspro (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

text: No further comment and my source confirms ESPN so I changed it back. Bcspro (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to the ruling document. http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/100610_usc_full_report.pdf. It is hosted in other places as well. That should be added to the reflist, because the wire service article is using it as the reference. The phrase in question is this one on page 57: 5. Pursuant to NCAA Bylaws 19.5.2.2-(e)-(2) and 31.2.2.3-(b), the institution will vacate all wins in which student-athlete 1 competed while ineligible, beginning in December 2004. The only game played in December was the 2004 UCLA-USC game. The whole ineligibility hinges on the auto purchase. And the question is did "student-athlete 1" get the Chevy Impala before or after the game? And did he participate in this game? Student-athlete 1 is not specifically named in the ruling document. Other sources have clearly linked Reggie Bush to the Impala in question. That should be in the reflist. If it remains ambiguous between the NCAA and USC, then USC vacates the win. Also, if the appeal (http://www.usctrojans.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/061010aak.html) fails, and does not specifically clarify which games are forfeit, then again USC vacates the wins. USC and all of their 2004 and 2005 opponents soon will publish their fall football media guides. These are the official school records of wins and losses. Ultimately, the media guide published information will be the historical record of the final ruling. For example, in 1977 UCLA forfeited games for an ineligible player. The UCLA media guide states that fact. The Cal media guide also states that fact. Both guides list it as a win for UCLA/loss for Cal, but both with a footnote: †indicates games later forfeited/*UCLA forfeited due to an ineligible player. It is not clear yet if the USC forfeits will stand, and which particular games are forfeit. The media guide entries should be in the reflist. Some research would reveal, for example, which games did Reggie Bush play. That should be referenced as well. Group29 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: USC's media guide shows the series record intact at 45-28-7, USC (now would be 46-28-7), and then mentions the two vacancies.  UCLA's media guide (from 2011, so very post sanctions) AGREES with this, not even mentioning the vacancies (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/ucla/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/2011-media-guide-full.pdf) and therefore it should show the correct record at 46-28-7.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.253.17 (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacated USC football victories 

message: In an effort to cleanup the pop culture section in the article, I added references that provide context to the pre-existing Sports Illustrated reference to the rivalry.  The  edits were removed without an explanation. The edits explain the oversight in allowing the picture in SI, and what the reaction was by SI and the press.  This is an improvement over a simple bullet like "The rivalry was seen on XYZ", where the common reaction is "So what?". It serves to address some of the points in WP:POPCULTURE:
#Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? (SI regretted the oversight)
#Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference? (Coverage outside of Los Angeles)
The SI issue also happened to be the top-selling swimsuit issue ever, I'm sure not related to this, but worth mentioning to put context into how many people saw the issue and didnt notice this at first until a newspaper caught it.  A picture was also added of the cover of SI issue, which I believe is allowed under WP:FAIRUSE: "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)" In any event, we can separate the inclusion of the additional text from the inclusion of the photo.
Since there was no explanation for the removal, I'll be bold and add the content back, but will tag it with  until there is consensus.  Please discuss any concerns here in the meantime.—Bagumba (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Illustrated picture 

message: * Per Ted Miller's November 11, 2011 ESPN article What do we call UCLA?, quoting Pac-12 Conference spokesman Dave Hirsch, USC can not claim the 2011 title. "USC can say it finished "first," if it beats UCLA. And the Bruins can call themselves "champions" even if it loses (the last regular season game to USC)" Ucla90024 (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Pac-12 spokesman is Dave Hirsch and he spoke for the Conference: "USC can not own that title. USC can say that it finished first, but not champion. Our division champions participate in the championship game, so UCLA will be considered champion, or co-champions should it finish tied with ASU." Ucla90024 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hirsch spoke for the Conference, no one else can, not even Matt Hinton. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And who played in the first two "Championship" games? BTW, each player was given an IPad for his participation in the "Championship" game. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A "champion" does not have to petition the NCAA in order to be bowl eligible. In so doing, UCLA admitted that they were not supposed to be in the conference championship game and that their 6-6 regular season record is what should be considered in determining their bowl eligibility. The conference sent the runner-up in 2011. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend. A champion has a better win-loss record.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.66.11 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous section Group29 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: South Division title 2011

message: The USC 2012 Football media guide says:
*"Troy beat both representatives in the Pac-12 Championship Game, Oregon and UCLA" pg 12, similar on pg 6
*"Despite finishing 2 games behind USC in the standings, UCLA entered the game guaranteed to be the Pac12 South’s representative in the inaugural Pac-12 Championship Game in place of the Trojans." pg 64
*[Conference Finish] "10-2, 7-2, 1st South" "USC banned from Pac-12 Championship Game and post-season bowls because of NCAA penalty" Pg 93
*"USC has captured 38 conference championships" (multiple pages, also in the Pac-12 media guide. This is the full conference championship, Oregon was the 2011)
The UCLA 2012 Football media guide says:
*"Eighth-ranked Oregon topped South Division Champion UCLA in the ﬁrst annual Pac-12 Championship contest." pg 74
*"[Conference Finish] W—6, L—8, T—0; Pct. .429 Pac-12 South Division Champion" pg 137
The Pac-12 Media guide says:
*"[UCLA] 2011 RESULTS (6-8, 5-4 in Pac-12 South, 1st)" pg 25
*"[Lane Kiffin's coaching record] 2011 USC  10-2 7-2 [Place] 1st* * - Ineligible for postseason Pac-12 Football Championship Game" pg 26
*"[USC] 2011 RESULTS (10-2, 7-2 in Pac-12 South, 1st)" pg 27
*"The Ducks were the North Division representative, and with the best overall conference record (8-1), served as hosts of the inaugural game, while the Bruins were the South Division representative. " pg 34
*"The Championship game will match the winner of the North Division vs. the winner of the South Division. "
USC had the best record in the South Division of the Pac-12 in 2011, and a first place finish. But, they were not the South Division champion, and do not claim to be in their media guide. They were not eligible for any further play following their last regular season game. UCLA does make the claim of being South Division Champion in their media guide. The Pac-12 media guide is ambiguous as to the word "champion" in reference to the division winners. The word champion is used many times in the Pac-12 media guide, but not to refer to the winners of the football divisions. Any claims by either team get an asterisk. The asterisk is due to USC's violations and subsequent penalties stemming from playing Reggie Bush in the 2005 season. Group29 (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Media guides

message: As chance would have it, I own a copy of Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged Second Edition Deluxe Color Edition, with a publication date of 1973. The definition of champion is on page 301. (There are no pictures.)
champion, n. [OFr. champion; LL. campio(-onis), a gladiator; from L. campus, a field, place for games.]
#. one who comes forward in defense another or for a cause; one who defends or maintains; a protector or vindicator
#. the victor having acknowledged superiority in certain matters; a winner of first place or first prize in a competition.
#. a valiant fighter.
I am not seeing in any way how definitions 1,2, or 3 in the reference to Webster's dictionary strengthens the position for the anonymous commenter. The Champion article is no help here either. 
The two indisputable facts are:
#. The 2011 USC Trojans won more games than any other team in the South Division
#. They were banned from participating in any of the rewards that come with finishing first because of infractions from their 2005 season. 
In effect, the 2011 USC Trojans were a non-conference opponent with no more rights and privileges than Fresno State. The USC Trojans cannot claim a championship for 2011 because they broke rules, and their athletic department agreed to that.Group29 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Champion

message: This could all be settled with a picture of the 2011 South Division Trophy. Group29 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And who played in the first two "Championship" games? BTW, each player was given an IPad for his participation in the "Championship" game. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A "champion" does not have to petition the NCAA in order to be bowl eligible. In so doing, UCLA admitted that they were not supposed to be in the conference championship game and that their 6-6 regular season record is what should be considered in determining their bowl eligibility. The conference sent the runner-up in 2011. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend. A champion has a better win-loss record.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.66.11 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous section Group29 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: South Division Trophy

message: The way the page currently reads: 
'UCLA vs. USC Football Manager's Bowl - UCLA and USC football equipment managers compete in a flag football contest the week leading up to the actual football game. In 2011, the UCLA managers beat the USC managers in triple overtime. The USC managers have won the previous 4 match-ups.'
What needs updated:
The UCLA managers won again in 2012 by a score of 36-31.
Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed1ywJz_eWI
Highlights of the game (final scoreboard is at 5:22) 
Suggested changes:
'UCLA vs. USC Football Manager's Bowl - UCLA and USC football equipment managers compete in a flag football contest the week leading up to the actual football game. In 2012, the UCLA managers beat the USC managers by a score of 36 to 31. The UCLA managers have won the previous 2 match-ups.'
Hurder (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 15 January 2013 

message: * How can football victories counted when they are vacated by the NCAA for violations? They are properly noted. vacate = to make legally void.Ucla90024 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Victories

message: I edited the first paragraph of the page which was discussing why the rivalry is so heated within the greater Los Angeles area.
The original(and current - since my edit was undone) read "The close proximity of both alumni, students, and the likelihood of encountering each other and interacting on a daily basis make this one of the most intense college rivalries in the United States."
I modified that sentence to include people whom are neither students or alumni of either USC or UCLA.
Perhaps the person who undid my edit is not familiar with the unique dynamics of the rivalry with which those of us who live in southern California are familiar.  We have not had a professional football team in the area for the last 20 years, so USC and UCLA fill that gap. 
I am not a student of either school, nor am I an alumnus, and neither are most of the people I know who call themselves either USC or UCLA fans. 
These people who I described as "unaffiliated with either school" in my edit are true fans and there loyalty runs deep.  
For example, I was watching the game earlier tonight and a friend expressed support for UCLA.  I responded by saying "Fight On" and my friend hinted that he might kill me.
I also crafted a little poem and said it out loud "Roses are red and violets are blue.  USC will win and UCLA will lose." 
I got cheers from the USC fans and the UCLA people were upset.
This rivalry is huge in L.A. and it transcends the respective university communities.  People who have not and will never obtain a college degree have strong support for their team, be it USC and UCLA.  This rivalry is truly big, and my edit should be reinstated. 71.103.10.69 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: An interaction with your friends is woefully insufficient evidence to support material in an encyclopedia article.  Please find some reliable sources that support your claims. ElKevbo (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Multiply that interaction by 1,000,000 and you will have some idea how important this rivalry is among non-affiliated fans in the Los Angeles area.  We are a community of 10,000,000 and the USC-UCLA rivalry divides us into "enemy camps", setting brother vs. brother just like the U.S. Civil War.  You need to prove your credentials to speak authoritatively about this rivalry.  Since you have no firsthand knowledge about the fault lines generated by these two teams meeting head to head your edit is invalid on it's face, and has been reversed by someone who is knowledgeable - myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haresandhounds (talk • contribs) 03:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As ElKevbo stated, edits on Wikipedia need to be verifiable, and cannot be based off original research based on our own first-hand experiences. —Bagumba (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm mistaken, the only non-alumni mentioned in your cited source are the bar and local business owners so I'm not sure how this source supports your assertion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left the text in the article, but tagged it as OR while this is discussed further.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the fans of this rivalry? 

message: From the 2019 USC Media Guide, pages 190-193 (+ indicates game at the LA Coliseum)
*+1948--vs. UCLA, USC won 20-13, KLAC-TV, local
*+1949--vs. UCLA, USC won 21-7, KECA-TV, local
*+1950--vs. UCLA, USC lost 39-0, KTTV-TV, local
*+1952--vs. UCLA, USC won 14-12, NBC, national
*+1953--vs. UCLA, USC lost 13-0, NBC, national
*+1955--vs. UCLA, USC lost 17-7, NBC, national
*+1956--vs. UCLA, USC won 10-7, NBC, national
*+1964--vs. UCLA, USC won 34-13, NBC, regional
*+1966--vs. UCLA, USC lost 14-7, ABC, national
*+1967--vs. UCLA, USC won 21-20, ABC, national, 19.3
*+1968--vs. UCLA, USC won 28-16, ABC, national
*+1969--vs. UCLA, USC won 14-12, ABC, national
*+1970--vs. UCLA, USC lost 45-20, ABC, national
*+1971--vs. UCLA, USC tied 7-7, ABC, national
*+1972--vs. UCLA, USC won 24-7, ABC, national
*+1973--vs. UCLA, USC won 23-13, ABC, national, 19.9
*+1974--vs. UCLA, USC won 34-9, ABC, national
*+1975--vs. UCLA, USC lost 25-22, ABC, national, 14.8
*+1976--vs. UCLA, USC won 24-14, ABC, national, 18.1
*+1977--vs. UCLA, USC won 29-27, ABC, national, 18.0
*+1978--vs. UCLA, USC won 17-10, ABC, national, 13.3
*+1979--vs. UCLA, USC won 49-14, KABC-TV, local
*+1980--vs. UCLA, USC lost 20-17, ABC, national, 15.3
*+1981--vs. UCLA, USC won 22-21, ABC, national, 15.5
* 1982--vs. UCLA, USC lost 20-19, ABC, regional, 11.6
* 1984--vs. UCLA, USC lost 29-10, CBS, national, 6.3
* 1986--vs. UCLA, USC lost 45-25, Prime Ticket, local
*+1987--vs. UCLA, USC won 17-13, ABC, national, 4.4
* 1988--vs. UCLA, USC won 31-22, ABC, national, 8.4
*+1989--vs. UCLA, USC tied 10-10, ABC, split national, 4.1
* 1990--vs. UCLA, USC won 45-42, ABC, split national, 5.2
* 1992--vs. UCLA, USC lost 38-37, ESPN, national, 3.7
*+1993--vs. UCLA, USC lost 27-21, ABC, regional, 7.4
* 1994--vs. UCLA, USC lost 31-19, ABC, regional, 9.3
*+1995--vs. UCLA, USC lost 24-20, ABC, regional, 7.6
* 1996--vs. UCLA, USC lost 48-41 (2OT), ABC, regional, 7.0
*+1997--vs. UCLA, USC lost 31-24, ABC, regional, 5.5
* 1998--vs. UCLA, USC lost 34-17, ABC, regional, 7.4
*+1999--vs. UCLA, USC won 17-7, ABC, regional, 4.7
* 2000--vs. UCLA, USC won 38-35, FOX Sports Net West 2, local
*+2001--vs. UCLA, USC won 27-0, FOX Sports Net, national
* 2002--vs. UCLA, USC won 52-21, ABC, regional, 5.5
*+2003--vs. UCLA, USC won 47-22, ABC, regional, 5.6
* 2004--vs. UCLA, USC won 29-24++, ABC, national, 4.9
*+2005--vs. UCLA, USC won 66-19++, ABC, national, 6.4
* 2006--vs. UCLA, USC lost 13-9, ABC, national, 7.3
*+2007--vs. UCLA, USC won 24-7, ABC, national, 3.2
* 2008--vs. UCLA, USC won 28-7, ABC, national, 2.5
*+2009--vs. UCLA, USC won 28-7, FSN, national, 0.9
* 2010--vs. UCLA, USC won 28-14, FSN national, 0.8
* 2011--vs. UCLA, USC won 50-0, FSN national, 0.8
* 2012--vs. UCLA, USC lost 38-28, FOX national, 2.4
*+2013--vs. UCLA, USC lost 35-14, ABC, national, 2.1
* 2014--vs. UCLA, USC lost 38-20, ABC, national, 2.9
*+2015--vs. UCLA, USC won 40-21, ABC/ESPN2, national, 2.6
* 2016--vs. UCLA, USC won 36-14, ESPN, national, 1.4
*+2017--vs. UCLA, USC won 28-23, ABC, national, 4,130,125
* 2018--vs. UCLA, USC lost 34-27, FOX, 1,983,000
Group29 (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: TV

message: The current entries are in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. A ref link to the web site http://ucla-usc.com/ is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source. The homework is to go to UCLABruins.com and USCTrojans.com, and put references to the specific media guides for each sport, with years included. For example: 2021 USC Baseball Record book and 2021 UCLA Baseball Information Guide. A quick glance in these examples shows that UCLA has 145-263 record against USC (page 87), But USC has a 263-144 record against UCLA (page 41). In this example there is a judgement call, who has the better record keeping (USC in this example because UCLA's only go back to 1955 as noted in their media guide).  Group29 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Section removed, per above. Refs added in specific rivalry section relevant to the time, with reliable source (Media guides). More refs in each rivalry section would be helpful. Restoring the section would not. Group29 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Head to Head records by sport