Talk:Rose Bowl Game

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could someone fix the MVP table? 

message: 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). --Spangineeres (háblame) 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, I'd support it. --Falcorian | Talk 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2006 Rose Bowl

message: By defeating California, USC goes to the Rose Bowl. 67.188.172.165 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USC to Rose Bowl

message: 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)
replies: text: An appropriate citation has been addedClubiguana 03:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chariot Races rationale 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Navy, Tulane, & SMU? 

message: :Image:RoseBowlLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RoseBowlLogo.jpg

message: There is no reference listed in the article as being the source of the MVPs - is there actually one that can be used for verification?  Unfortunately, the official Rose Bowl site does not list MVPs.  I have noticed conflicts with a CBS list, which does not list the defensive MVPs in 2005 and 2006.  In turn, that list conflicts with one at MSNBC, which lists a defensive MVP in 2006, but not in 2005. Z1perlster (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2008 Rose Bowl Program, 2008 Rose Bowl. Accessed January 26, 2008. Added in line ref. Group29 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for MVPs? 

message: Neither conference has a championship game, so co-champions are possible.  Tiebreakers are used to determine which team goes to the Rose Bowl when two or even three teams share the conference championship.  Z1perlster (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I added the refs to the tiebreaker rules. Group29 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the Rose Bowl will host the Big Ten and Pacific-10 conference champions" - not exactly 

message: An article for the 1940 Rose Bowl has just been created, but it needs expanding and expert attention. --JulesN Talk 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Group29 (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1940 Rose Bowl]] 

message: * Thank you for the change. Unfortunately, lot of the links are messed up. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rose Bowl Game

message: Shouldn't the games played between 1902 though 1922 be moved from "xxx Rose Bowl" to "xxxx Tournament East-West football game"? Other bowl games with naming rights don't move when the sponsor changes (ie. Mobil Cotton Bowl Classic and SBC Cotton Bowl Classic games still go by "xxxx Cotton Bowl Classic") only when the actual name of the bowl game changes (Capital One Bowl games before 2003 are titled "xxxx Florida Citrus Bowl" or "xxxx Tangerine Bowl"). NThomas (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game pages from 1902-1922 need to be moved... 

message: I put a quick mention of the Tournament of Roses Parade in lead, as I think this is a reasonably associated with the game itself, and better illustrates what "America's New Year Celebration", encompasses.  Its also important to know that there is a major parade the same day to understand why the 1942 game was moved to Duke. --Zfish118 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also an entry in "See Also". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rose Parade

message: Superbowl has nothing to do with Rose Bowl. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superbowl {([ not ])} 

message: *Why people question about it? It is the "Granddaddy of them all", about to celebrate its 100 years. It has the highest TV ratings of all bowl games and largest crowd. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone really consider it nearly as prestigious as the BCS National Championship Game? I don't see why a bowl that precludes any conference other than the Pac-12 and Big 10 could be seen as more prestigious than the game between the best and second best teams. Neither of the best two conferences are even allowed to play in the Rose Bowl. 74.192.58.212 (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are "100" reasons. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess I'll never understand people. To me, a 100 year old rivalry game is still just a rivalry game. I'll never understand how age brings prestige to something like this. 74.192.58.212 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Prestigious

message: The article had mentioned that Oregon State and California had only played in the Rose Bowl as members of "predecessors leagues" to the Pac-12. Aside from the obvious grammatical error, this was an incorrect statement. California has not played in the Rose Bowl since they were a PCC member, but OSU played in the 1965 game as a member of the AAWU. The AAWU is not a "predecessor league to the Pac-12;" it is the Pac-12. By the logic used to make the earlier claim, every team except for Oregon and Stanford would have only played as a predecessor member; all other teams played as members of the Pac-10. The only differences between the AAWU and the Pac-12 are the name and the membership; that is not the case for the PCC and the Pac-12. Nwebster84 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Predecessor leagues"

message: There are references that are dead links in this article that needs to be addressed. Otr500 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Substituted at 04:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Rose Bowl Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907115147/http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/RoseBowl_history.htm to http://www.rosebowlstadium.com/RoseBowl_history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522115924/http://www.sports-venue.info/NCAAF/Bowls/T_Rose_Bowl_Timeline.html to http://www.sports-venue.info/NCAAF/Bowls/T_Rose_Bowl_Timeline.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020041445/http://www.tournamentofroses.com/history/gamescores.asp to http://www.tournamentofroses.com/history/gamescores.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306033551/http://www.bowlprograms.com/rosebowl/?pg=182 to http://www.bowlprograms.com/rosebowl/?pg=182
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Capital One sponsor was just for the 2021 Rose Bowl game. No new sponsor has been selected. See that they have gone back to their standard logo.  Socalphoto (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 Rose Bowl sponsorship