Talk:USC Trojans football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USC Trojans football article.
Article policies
football
College football Portal

USC Trojans football is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Subjective Language

The statement "In the case of USC, few dispute nine of the national championship it claims to have won." is subjective and not encyclopedic. Use of "most" and "few" type words are leading and have no place in Wikipedia. Who are most people? Fact: Only consensus champions are disputed by few. USC has six national championships that few will dispute.

Too funny! In one sentence, "few" "has no place in Wikipedia", yet you use it twice in other sentences! Z1perlster (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications

All of those who have been arguing that AP polls, etc. can not determine the national champion need to keep in mind that the BCS is just as independent from the NCAA as anything else is, and the BCS national championship is just as unofficial as any other. appzter 01:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. Go to the NCAA football championship page. You can read about how it has been necessary in the past to determine who is "national champion" through consensus due to no official playoff system. For years, the AP and UPI/ESPN/USA Today polls were the best way to judge. However, since 1998 the BCS has been in effect, and while it may not be affiliated with the NCAA, it is clearly not only the best way to judge, but the one agreed to by every Division I-A team, including USC. If USC did not agree to it, they wouldn't be playing in the Rose Bowl in 2006. They did, and they are, so trying to claim a poll which is no longer necessary is still a true determinant of the national champion is illogical. Any number of publications could publish their own national champions; one could say Penn State was the champ this year. Would that mean PSU should be called "national champion" in Wikipedia? No. You could say they were deemed national champ by such and such a publication, as I have done for the AP, but to explicitly call them the champions is disingenuous and frankly, wrong. 71.224.92.104 03:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As has been stated over and over, the NCAA does not sanction any national football champions in FBS (I-A). It does, however, list national champions determined by various polls and ranking systems. Of those, the AP poll is certainly among the most prestigious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1perlster (talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, appzter is not wrong. If one peruses the NCAA's "records book" (available as a .pdf on their site) it lists the so-called consensus national champions. Thus USC has two straight, and fell just short of their third straight. ProfessorFokker 08:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles won

OK, lets' try and work this out:
1) I've added a link to the article regarding the Div. I-A championship, which covers the various selectors and winners; there's no need to identify all the different claimants here, when they're listed on the other page. The first sentence in the version I changed seems a bit too colloquial, and perhaps condescending ("This can be a bit confusing"), for an encyclopedic article.
2) The NCAA doesn't determine the champion(s), but does, in its annual record book (which I noted in the text as a source) recognize various claimants. Stating what "most historians" believe is too vague and unsourced a reference to include here.
3) The Dickinson System was not a poll, so suggesting that is plainly incorrect. Starting an article explaining that selector (the most widely respected one for most of the 1930s) would be a good way to cover its status as a major selector.
4) I included links (which were deleted repeatedly) to articles in the Washington Post and Times explaining the rationale behind the 1939 title; simply deleting the links does not make for a better version, and the last line of the version I changed ("USC never even claimed that title until 2004") struck me as being decidedly sarcastic in tone.
5) Deleting mentions of other major selectors (FWAA, NFF) in 1974 and 2003 seems to be an effort to downplay the level of recognition of those titles. Again, the link to the main article (see #1) covers questions of other claimants to those titles.
6) Ultimately, there's no way to demonstrably disprove the claim of 11 titles, as there's no determinant universally regarded as "official." It's clear that there were years when USC was selected but that the university itself doesn't recognize as legitimate claimants, and to some extent it's simply a question of what each university recognizes individually. If USC recognized all 16, then I'd have much bigger problem with their view. MisfitToys 23:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

you make some good points. but again i think you are acting the same way an sc p.r. department guy would be acting as far as your changes. i will just deal with the listings now. i agree the dickinson "system" was not a poll. but that's what it is called. all i am adding here is explantions in the five years that sc was not either undisputed or consensus national champions. i am not trying to take anything away from them but just becuase the sc p.r. department says something is fact, doesnt make it a fact. most sports historians in fact were astounded by this sudden claim in 2004 about a 1939 championship. the five championships -- 1928, 1939, 1974, 1978 and 2003 -- deserve to have explanations. if someone is looking at they deserve, they deserve to know the other schools who are generally acknowledged to have either won or shared these championships. i am going to change right now just the listings. as for mentioning the football writers asso and the national football foundation in 1974 and 2003, by that time the only polls that were considered part of the selection picture were upi and ap. if your theory is correct -- would sc have held a big celebration in 2003 if they had simply won the football writers association poll -- i dont think so. i am also not going to list all the polls that lsu won -- just the bcs. the same with 1974 and 1978 - i am not going to mention all the polls that oklahoma or alabama won those years. the same with the consensus years -- there is no need to talk about the other schools that claimed to have won a title. they dont belong there. but with these five years it is proper -- if you want to act like you are providing facts and trying to give the whole picture -- to mention the other schools.
First, please sign your posts. Furthermore, stop reverting the changes without an agreement here. The other claimants to the titles are noted on the main page for national champions, and are unnecessary here. The 2003 title had numerous groups on both sides (notably, many of the coaches in the BCS poll resented being contractually required to vote for LSU, even though they believed USC to be better), and the BCS is/was no more a final authority than any other selector. If necessary, we can go through Wikipedia:Resolving disputes to sort this out. But don't simply change the article before this is resolved. MisfitToys 01:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
you are amazing -- you tell me -- "don't simply change the article before this is resolved." WHAT ARE YOU DOING?? the same thing!!! YOU are changing the article before its resolved!! why can you do it but others cannot. please show me any articles where any coaches SAY they resented being required to vote for lsu. there might be some. i would be interested in seeing it. were any coaches required to take part in the poll or did they do it voluntarily? did they know the rules before they signed up or was it suddenly told to them? was pete carroll one of the coaches who was part of this? did anyone object to the rule before they signed? what is your problem with putting the other claiments for the five years where there are legitimate questions. you seem to want to push any challanges aside. i say lets -- in these five cases -- put them in there. why do you want to censor this out?
First, once I referred the dispute to the discussion page, all alterations to the disputed section MUST stop per Wikipedia guidelines. I've been reverting back to my version because Wikipedia rules in these situations require me to do so. You can't simply keep changing my version until this is resolved. For an anonymous user to cavalierly ignore Wikipedia rules (again, SIGN YOUR POSTS) is a major breach of conduct. As for the coaches' voting in 2003, see Bowl Championship Series#2003-04 season, as well as [1], [2] and [3]. As I've noted repeatedly, other claimants are noted on the main championship page. I've also added a propsed compromise to your talk page. MisfitToys 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been reading this "discussion" (it is very amusing) and must say I agree with the most recent entry. Nothing in the entry as it reads now is "pov." It is fair. I cannot figure out why MisfitToys seems that have a problem with it. We need to make these entries balanced - not one sided views presented by fans. The way the article reads now -- Jan. 9, 2006 -- is very straighforward. It discusses SC's national championships and it says that the school claims 11 titles. But it DOES NOT ignore the fact that some of them are disputed. MisfitToys entry simply did not include anything to suggest that two of the national championships are disputed. I hope MisfitToys will no longer try to limit information. I hope MisfitToys doesnt write the entry about the 2000 electcion -- he will simply say "George Bush was elected."
I have to disagree; the reference to "most historians" is strongly POV with no sourcing, and obviously biased to refute USC's claim. My version did note that five of the titles were shared (which is a far less POV term than "disputed"). Regarding the 1939 title - at the time, there were only two contemporary selectors (the AP poll and the Dickinson System); one selected Texas A&M, while the other selected USC, making their claim at the time essentially equal. All other selectors (the historical polls) have been retroactive, although they have tended to favor TA&M. (And you would also do well to sign your posts; I have no way of knowing whether these remarks are coming from the same person, particularly if they're both from anon users.) MisfitToys 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
amazing again.....first you attack me for using the accurate term "most historians." you say i have "NO SOURCING." -- then later in YOUR comments YOU SAY that the "historial polls" (that is the term YOU USED) have "tended to favor TA&M (Texas A and M)." gee it sounds to me that you are now agreeing with -- all i say is that "most historians consider texas a & m to have won the national championship this year" -- now lets talk about spin. in your remarks above you say these other polls have "tended to favor TA&M." why not be up front. THEY HAVE ALL FAVORED TEXAS A AND M. not one other favored usc. why did you say they "tended" to favor texas a and m. lets give sc the credit it deserves. i only list TWO titles as disputed -- 1928 and 1939. i also say "few dispute nine of the championships." the word "dispute" may not be the best word. i will change that to "challenge." and one more point that is very illustrative of this situation -- IF THE DICKINSON POLL WAS "ESSENTAILLY EQUAL" WHY DID IT TAKE SC MORE THAN 60 YEARS TO CLAIM THIS AS A CHAMPIONSHIP? it wasn't viewed this way. you make it sound like the dickinson award is equal to what the ap award has become since the bcs system came about. it never was. we are looking for accuracy here -- not the spin that sc supporters want.
What I objected to was the vague term "most historians" (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Examples without noting to whom you're referring. (And I used the term on the Talk page rather than in the actual article - big difference.) The new version I suggested includes other major claimants to the several standardly contested titles. ("Challenge", IMO, is no better than "dispute", in that it suggests an confrontation rather than merely a difference of opinion.) By USC's own description, the lack of recognition for the '39 team was a bad oversight on their part; the Dickinson System, and accompanying trophy, was clearly the most highly regarded selector from its 1926 inception until the AP poll began in 1936. From then until its discontinuation in 1940, they seem to have been equally well regarded. (Also note that not everyone picked TA&M; a couple of selectors, the contemporary Litkenhous System and the modern Sagarin Ratings, chose Cornell). I'm looking into the reasons for its discontinuation (perhaps Dickinson retired or died?); as I've noted, Michigan recognizes its 1932 team as national champions based solely on the Dickinson selection as well. For reference, I'm adding my previously suggested compromise below. MisfitToys 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite all this talk, why does it say USC has 7 national championships under the awards section of the box at the top right of the page? This goes against everything said in the article, is there a way to change it? 64.136.178.113 (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

At this moment in time: The decision of the WikiProject that governs college football articles (consisting of a body of users who work on college football articles and trying to form consensus), was that the infobox on the right should have only wire titles. There is currently a live discussion on whether the description on that line should be converted from a mere "national titles" to "wire national titles". Everyone who is interested in voicing an opinion is welcome to join the discussion here at this LINK. --Bobak (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
USC claims a total of 11 national championships (see that article for a more detailed explanation of the 
various selectors), although not all are undisputed. The NCAA does not conduct a playoff in Division 
1-A football but informally recognizes determination of champions by major selectors. In 2004, USC began 
recognizing its 1939 team as national champions after consulting historical records and determining that the 
Dickinson System qualified as a major selector along with the AP [4] [5]; from 1926-1940, the Dickinson 
System was the only selector to award a championship trophy. In each of the eleven seasons, USC was chosen 
by at least one of the two most prominent contemporary selectors. Selections of pre-1941 champions, with the 
exceptions of the AP poll (begun in 1936) and various mathematical ratings systems, were made in later years 
through polls of historians and researchers.

Here are the years USC claims as having won a major share of the national championship:

*1928 - Dickinson System; shared with Georgia Tech (College Football Researchers Assn., Helms Athletic 
Foundation, National Championship Foundation)
*1931 - Undisputed champions
*1932 - Consensus champions (CFRA, HAF, NCF); shared with Michigan (Dickinson)
*1939 - Dickinson System; shared with Texas A&M (AP, CFRA, HAF, NCF)
*1962 - Consensus champions
*1967 - Consensus champions
*1972 - Undisputed champions
*1974 - UPI, Football Writers Assn., NCF-tie, National Football Foundation; shared with 
Oklahoma (AP, CFRA, NCF-tie)
*1978 - UPI, NCF-tie; shared with Alabama (AP, CFRA, FWAA, NCF-tie, NFF)
*2003 - AP, FWAA; shared with LSU (BCS, NFF)
*2004 - Undisputed champions

USC teams have also been selected as national champions in five other years (1929, 1933, 1976, 1979, 
2002) by various nationally published ratings systems. These ratings systems are not generally viewed as 
major selectors of the national championship. USC does not claim to have won titles in any of these years.

[edit] the history of polls, etc

The information about the extensive history of polls and championship selection process belongs on the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article, not this one. Kingturtle 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

it is not the entire explanation -- just a sumary certainly deserves to be here....it helps explain to the reader the whole process -- if you are SO CONCERNED about excessive items then why don't you remove the game-by-game of sc's "non" national championship season results from 2005. why should that be in there. this is quickly becoming an entry that the usc p.r. types are doing everything to present "their view" of usc history. lets keep this fair and balanced.

to answer your question, the game-by-game results of the most recent season of the USC Trojans is there because this is an article about USC Trojans football. this is not an article about the championship selection process. it makes sense that recent USC season information is there. it does not make sense to have a lengthy description of the championship selection process - a short description is fine.

The Cleveland Indians article has the team's uptodate 40-man roster listed there, and that makes sense. the Indians article does not have a lengthy description about the history of how Major League Baseball playoffs work, because that wouldn't make sense. Kingturtle 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. please consider creating a user account. it makes communication a little easier. Kingturtle 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that the 2005 season results will probably be deleted once the 2006 season begins. I agree that the lengthy details for each game are overdoing it. MisfitToys 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

i will add my two cents -- and i disagree again. i think the 2005 results DO deserve to be there (except for the silly remark about george lucus and a childish note about the ucla "big win - i replaced it with a more professional comment which even seems to bother some of the s.c. cheerleaders) -- my point was -- there are many things that can be removed if you are trying to make this item shorter. we have no printing issues here. the national championship segment includes a quick explanation of the process...if people want more they can go to the national championship site. as for the brilliant cleveland indians remark -- if there was controversy about how the baseball playoffs work it would be proper to have a brief summary of the controversy or the process.

anonymous user, could you please stop insulting and baiting other users? could you please add your useful information to the other article that i suggested? could you please create a user account so communication could be easier? Kingturtle 07:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Kingturtle could you please stop removing information from this section. it is all accurate. it is a summary and relevent to the section. why are you acting like a censor. this is not a book....there is just a few extra paragraphs. why are so you determined to remove it. people have a right to read this.

the explanation for how the electoral college is determined and works is not on the George W. Bush article, nor is it on the U.S. presidential election, 2000 article. indeed, the deep explanation is in the electoral college article. the USC Trojans football should not have a long-winded history of the football championship seletion process. it takes the reader way off topic. the information i've taken out belongs in NCAA Division I-A national football championship.
please read the following articles to give yourself a more clear understanding of wikipedia.
sincerely, Kingturtle 08:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll add some notes here (taken from the NCAA football record book) about the Dickinson System, which the anon user is convinced was essentially ignored after 1935: Through 1940, the Dickinson System winner was the only team to receive a trophy as national champions (the Rissler National Trophy through 1930, after which it was replaced by the Knute K. Rockne Intercollegiate Memorial Trophy in memory of the late coach). When the Dickinson System was discontinued after the 1940 season, the University of Minnesota (its last champion) arranged with a local athletic club to sponsor a trophy for the winner of the AP poll; the 1941 AP champion (which turned out to be Minnesota again) was therefore the first to receive a trophy, the Henry L. Williams Trophy (named for Minnesota's coach from 1900-1921). (From 1948-56, Notre Dame alumni sponsored the succeeding trophy, named for former ND president J. Hugh O'Donnell. Other trophies have been given since 1957, but I don't know who sponsored them.) The NCAA's official annual football guides from the period around 1939-1941 make no mention whatsoever of any national champion; the reviews of the past season, in fact, focus almost entirely on trends in strategy and not on game results or conference champions. I think it seems reasonable, therefore, to believe that with only two teams selected as "national champions" by contemporary observers, the one that actually got a trophy might somehow have a sensible claim to a title. MisfitToys 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

we can probably agree on one thing -- the dickinson thing WAS a system -- but it is CALLED a poll. i agree system is better but that is not what it is called. it was called the dickinson poll during the time it was used

Who called it a poll? Perhaps sloppy modern researchers and editors, but I doubt anyone at the time did. MisfitToys 21:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

let's get some discussion going here. state your issues with various edits and your complaints. Kingturtle 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrative business: Kingturtle, when you believe the page no longer needs protection, you would also need to remove it from WP:PP. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
i have not removed the protection yet. that is why i have not removed it from WP:PP. Kingturtle 01:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK; first, I'd like to apologize again (previously posted here and here) for my 4th revert on Saturday; as I noted, I had added and quickly removed a semi-protect, but then reverted again after the anon user reverted immediately. Perhaps I lost count of the reverts, or perhaps I was overly hurried (it was my next-to-last edit of the day before signing off). In retrospect, I probably should have let someone else do the revert. After almost two years in Wikipedia, this is (I believe) my first experience with an edit war like this, and the fact that the difficulty is with an anon user who refuses to either sign his talk posts or take other editors' concerns seriously has made it especially frustrating. (For reference, the Anon user appears to have edited from 69.234.2.145, 170.20.11.116, 69.231.217.0, 69.231.235.205, 69.231.245.74, 69.231.197.110, 69.231.214.23, 69.231.210.119, 69.231.252.110, 69.231.217.18 and 69.231.220.173, and possibly 69.231.47.139.) P.S. There seems to be something of an edit war (in which I am not involved) at the Pete Carroll article involving this user as well.

Secondly - and this is a point on which Anon seems determined to ignore - I have been reverting the section in question to a version of which I was not the principal writer, but which I only sought to correct regarding bias; it is also not the version that I am proposing. (The awards section was started by IanMcGreene on October 2, and was expanded/edited by 167.106.255.101 and 63.239.69.1. I added the first nine additional years on December 23, to augment the existing statement of 11 titles and the 2003-04 entries.) The edit war began on January 7, when Anon added some notes to the years which I found overly critical of the 1928 and 1939 titles, particularly the vague references to "most historians". My own suggested version, which I initially posted at User talk:69.231.210.119 on January 9, appears above on this page (the indented box); I believe it is an even more generous compromise than the last version prior to Saturday's edit war. I've been reverting the section in question since then, not out of a desire to have my "own version" used, but out of an attempt to engage Anon in a useful discussion on the talk pages. Anon has, thus far, not commented on my proposed compromise. Since referring the debate to the talk page on January 7, I believe I've made no substantial edits to the section involved, but have only reverted Anon's edits to the pre-debate version.

Next - Anon accuses me (and anyone else who reverts Anon's work) of being "sc p.r. people" who don't want the facts stated, saying in his edit remarks that "these are all facts". I would respond that facts are sometimes written in a way that makes them more of an argument than a factual presentation. Anon seems to believe that a fair and balanced article is achieved by having one "pro-USC" argument and one "anti-USC" argument. I believe, instead, that arguments either pro- or anti- are unnecessary in this instance, and that the article is best served by an initial reference to the situation (not all titles are undisputed), along with a note to see the relevant article for an explanation of the selection processes, and by presenting the pertinent facts on both sides. The notation of which specific selectors (and not merely referring to "most historians") chose which team in each year tends to favor Georgia Tech in 1928 and Texas A&M in 1939 due to the number of selectors; the notation that the Dickinson System was the only selector to award a championship trophy in either year, and that the historical selections were made retroactively by non-observers of the teams, tends to favor USC. Arguing, or suggesting, that one side or the other is "right" is really not our job. The reader has the facts with which to make their own evaluation. As for the suggestion that I'm unfairly favoring USC's version, I'd point out the University of Michigan article, which was featured on January 11; that article stated that UM has won 11 national championships - a count that includes the 1932 Dickinson championship (see also the Michigan Wolverines article), the only one won by Michigan, while USC has been chosen by all the historical selectors. I have no problem whatsoever with those articles attributing the 1932 title to Michigan, since they got a trophy that year and USC didn't. I saw no reason to add any comments or qualifications regarding UM's number of titles won. I believe this shows that Anon is particularly fixated on USC's claims, and is uninterested in directly correlated cases for other teams.

Anon has also derisively noted that USC didn't even start recognizing its 1939 team as national champions until 2004, so I decided to look through USC's football media guides, which began in 1938, to check USC's track record in this area (the Amateur Athletic Foundation's research library, which I frequent, has them among its collection). The 1938-39 guides include a note in coach Howard Jones' bio that states: "His 1928 and 1931 Trojan teams were awarded the unofficial national championship under the Dickinson Rating System. His 1932 Trojan team was undefeated and was also generally acclaimed unofficial national champions." There are also notations next to his year-by-year record indicating these as national championship seasons, along with his 1909 Yale team. His bio in the 1940 guide adds the 1939 team in both places. After his death, there is no mention of any USC national championships in the guides for 1941 through 1962 (for that matter, there is no reference even to conference championships until the 1953 guide). After the 1962 championship season, the 1963 guide makes appropriate comments on that title but makes no reference to any titles won in the past. The 1964 guide makes precisely two references to the 1962 title, one in an article reviewing the school's athletic heritage and the other in coach John McKay's bio, but there is no mention of previous titles. The guides from 1965-1968 likewise make no mention of any pre-1962 titles. The 1969 guide is the first in which an attempt is made to ennumerate USC's titles; it notes 4 (1928, 1931, 1962 and 1967), but omits both the 1939 title and the 1932 team (which was chosen in all the retroactive historians' polls). I suspect that by this time, public recollection of the Howard Jones era was fading, and USC was getting more inquiries as to which teams had been champions; USC's research was probably limited, and somewhat spotty. The 1974 guide is the first in which the 1932 team is counted, so apparently USC decided as some point in that year that they had overlooked at least one team for several years.

Another brief note - Anon's phrasing is that the claims on the 1928 and 1939 titles are "controversial"; I certainly wouldn't call the 1928 title controversial, as I've never seen a reference book that didn't list both USC and Georgia Tech as co-champions that year. As for the 1939 title, it's evident that some eyebrows were raised when USC reclaimed that title in 2004 (I say "reclaimed" due to the info from the 1940 USC media guide), but I think that was more a result of modern observers' unfamiliarity with early 20th-century selectors than one of actual disapproval, and I wouldn't characterize the claim as being truly controversial. One more thing, just noticed: Howard Jones' bio at the College Football Hall of Fame's website [6] states that he won four national championships at USC, which obviously counts both 1928 and 1939. I suspect the Hall of Fame would not be characterized as "SC p.r. guys."

As I've noted previously, I didn't believe that noting the other claimants to each title was necessary, but I compromised on that point and included them in my suggested revision above, along with the selectors involved (which I believe is better than Anon's vague blanket reference to historians' views). Again, I don't think it's our job to decide which claims are valid and which aren't. Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to cover a lot of ground at once. MisfitToys 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

if we don't hear back from the anon user in 24 hours, we will revert back to the MisfitToys edit. but keep in mind, the anon user will always have a chance in TALK to express his/her opinion - and that could alter future edits. Kingturtle 00:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

hello -- i saw your the time limit you put on my response. i am busy right now...i have strong areas of disagreement in parts of MisfitToys' posting....i will reply in the next 24 hours...but you have heard from me. also one question -- who is the judge and jury in this case? is kingturtle the one who will make the decision??..thank you

i am doing my best to have the decision be made by misfittoys and the anon user. i hope that a compromise can be made. if not, i will recommend this for arbitration, and have the arbitration committee take on the issue. Kingturtle 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

hi there -- let me add a few thoughts.....i thank misfittoys for taking time to spell out his thoughts.....i do not feel that a balanced article is achieved by having pro and con arguments UNLESS that is pertinent to the story. and if we are talking about national championships that does exist. perhaps we can start by both agreeing that there is no dispute that this part of the article is accurate.

USC claims a total of 11 national championships, although not all are universally recognized. Since the NCAA does not conduct a playoff in Division 1-A football, there is no official national champion. The NCAA does have a list of polls, computer systems and others that are often used to attempt to determine National Champions. Because there is no playoff there are often disputes over who really has won the National Championship. Some years there are undisputed champions (where one school is ranked number one in all the polls), other years there are consensus champions (when one school clearly has been ranked number one in most of the polls) and some years there are split or shared championships (where two or more schools are ranked number one in major polls) In the case of USC few challenge nine of the national championship it claims to have won. Two of the championships -- 1928 and 1939 -- have been challenged by some sports historians. In both cases USC bases its claim on winning the Dickinson Poll, a system devised by a University of Illinois professor.

i cannot see anything in this portion that can even remotely be challenged. i believe misfittoys has a problem with a brief explanation of the polling system --

Some years there are undisputed champions (where one school is ranked number one in all the polls), other years there are consensus champions (when one school clearly has been ranked number one in most of the polls) and some years there are split or shared championships (where two or more schools are ranked number one in major polls)

i do not think this is lengthy at all. i also dont think it is improper to have a brief explanation of the system.

now comes the part where there is a dispute --

In both these years, Dickinson was the only poll or system to rank the Trojans number one. Other schools view the Dickinson Poll differently. Notre Dame, which won the Dickinson Poll in 1938, does not claim a National Championship for that year. For more than 60 years USC did not list 1939 as a National Championship year. But in 2004, USC began recognizing the 1939 team as national champions after consulting historical records and determining that the Dickinson qualified as a major selector. One ratings expert however questioned the school's decision calling Dickinson "archaic."

based on what misfittoys has found -- i think it is incorrect to say for "more than 60 years" -- that should be changed. i also think we should make a mention of michigan recgonizing the dickinson poll.

i also think that even though the term "most historians" is accurate -- i think that it can be changed to "many historians"

one of the things that has bothered me is that flippent way things have been taken out of my entry by just saying "it doesnt belong here." if we are talking about usc national championships and there is a dispute -- where better to mention this??? if we want an encyclopedia to be accurate it must include issues where there are differing views.

here is my suggestion for a comprimise on that last portion --

In both these years, Dickinson was the only poll or system to rank the Trojans number one. Other schools view the Dickinson Poll differently. Notre Dame, which won the Dickinson Poll in 1938, does not claim a National Championship for that year. Michigan, on the other hand, does claim the National Championship when it won the Dickinson Poll in 1932. For many years USC did not list 1939 as a National Championship year. But in 2004, USC began recognizing the 1939 team as national champions after the school determined that it qualifed.

i would like to add the last line --

One ratings expert however questioned the school's decision calling Dickinson "archaic."

i do think this reference is proper and presents a balance to usc's "determination."

again the goal here is to be fair and balanced. i do feel that many of these sports sites are very one sided and, yes, often read like they have been written by someone on the p.r. staff. i also added some balance to a very pro john wooden site too. so this doesnt have have to do with any personal feelings i have.

OK; I'll begin with your first section, which while generally accurate is also (IMO) not necessary in its entirety here. As Kingturtle pointed out above (under The history of polls, etc), most of this material is generic to the subject of national titles and isn't specific to USC; this is why I believe that directing readers to the appropriate article is sufficient, without the long explanation. (If you include it here, you'd really have to include it in the article for every team with a disputed title; there's no reason for that kind of duplication.) You also use the phrasing Two of the championships... have been challenged by some sports historians; I would disagree with the use of the word "challenged", as it suggests that USC has claimed these titles in some unorthodox or illegitimate fashion, or that its claims are unwarranted. In response, I offer the following facts: The 1928 USC team has been listed among the national champions in every NCAA annual football guide (the 1928 Georgia Tech team, by comparison, was not listed until the 1980s); the NCAA guides used the Dickinson System as the sole standard for 1924-1935 until the 1988 guide, when it began listing the other historical selectors as well. From 1988, the guides have included a notation that the Dickinson System, from 1926-1940 (covering both 1928 and 1939), was "emblematic of the national championship," a characterization that is not attached to any of the other ratings systems in use during the era. The annual ESPN Sports Almanac includes the Dickinson champions among its listings; it is the only mathematical system they include. Along with my previously noted link to the College Football Hall of Fame site (which recognizes both USC titles), I think these three sources (NCAA official guides, ESPN, HoF) constitute a reasonable concurrence with USC's claims. I also think that referring to the Dickinson System simply by identifying its creator, without noting its level of national recognition, unfairly diminishes the legitimacy of the claims.
Next, your statement that In both these years, Dickinson was the only poll or system to rank the Trojans number one; it is, however, also true that in 1928, there was only one other selector (the Houlgate System), and that in both years, no other selector awarded a trophy. The 1928 Georgia Tech team was selected at the time by Houlgate, but received no trophy; its other selectors came in the 1930s (Boand System, Poling System) and from the 1940s on, generally at the rate of about one per decade. The 1939 Texas A&M team was recognized at the time by the AP poll and five ratings systems, none of which were as prominent as Dickinson or awarded a trophy. The fact that later selectors came to disagree with the Dickinson System's choices in those two years does not invalidate USC's titles, any more than if twenty years from now - if everyone believed that USC was really a better team in 2003 - LSU's title could somehow be regarded as baseless (or vice versa).
Next, your proposal of: For many years USC did not list 1939 as a National Championship year. But in 2004, USC began recognizing the 1939 team as national champions after the school determined that it qualifed. I would revise that slightly to Since at least 1969, USC had not listed the 1939 team among its national championships. But in 2004, USC once again began recognizing that national championship after the school reviewed its historical records.
As for the issues around Notre Dame and Michigan, I think those are better suited for the main article on national championships, or an article on the System itself. In reference to your version stating that other schools view the Dickinson Poll differently, you agree that Michigan is in line with USC, but your suggestion that it's just USC and Michigan is misleading - Notre Dame is the only school which fails to include a Dickinson title among its championships (actually, even this isn't entirely true; see my note below on the titles ND claims); besides Michigan and USC, other schools which claim a Dickinson title even though it isn't the consensus view are Dartmouth (1925) [7], Stanford (1926) see "team records" PDF link near the bottom of this page and SMU (1935) [8], so it's apparently ND which is out of step with everyone else on this point. The other 10 of Dickinson's 17 selections are consensus choices, so it seems to have agreed with other selectors about as often as the AP poll and the College Football Researchers Ass'n agreed (37 of 57 years when they both made selections). My proposed version includes links to the articles explaining USC's 2004 decision; I would find a reference to one unnamed "ratings expert" (actually a graduate student whose own ratings system has been used in the BCS selections) to be potentially misleading as well, and the relevant quote is in the Washington Times link I included. Besides, another expert whose system was also used in the BCS was quoted as saying that "he doesn't have a problem with USC laying claim for a piece of the title that season." I don't think it's advisable to include one view without the other.
Maybe it would be a good idea, rather than going directly to the Arbitration Committee (which seems to me a far bigger deal than this needs to be), to try Wikipedia:Third opinion or (better yet) Wikipedia:Requests for comment (though there doesn't seem to be an existing page for requests in this area; the Media, art and literature page does include some popular culture subjects, which seems to be the closest). We each seem to be arriving at our own proposed version, and maybe other editors might choose between the two or suggest other compromises. In this regard, I'd be interested to know if Kingturtle thinks either option would be either advisable or useful. MisfitToys 23:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

i am to remove the protection from this page. i hope that the differences can continue to be hashed out in this talk section rather than in the article. Kingturtle 16:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a little more regarding which titles Notre Dame claims. I previously mentioned the AAF library, and they have many of the programs from the annual USC-ND game, from both venues. I've been looking through the ones published by ND to see what their record is in claiming the 1938 Dickinson title, among others. I can't find any listing of national champions in the programs through 1981; the next one available, 1987, separately notes that ND had won seven AP titles, three UPI titles (erroneous; they had won two), three FWAA titles and four NFF-HoF titles. The program then notes that ND had "qualified as a national champion" in 17 seasons; they are listed, along with the selectors and any co-champions, without any attempt to distinguish the consensus champions from the group. The 1938 Dickinson title is included. Following the 1988 championship season, the 1989 program adds it to the various totals, again making no distinction of the consensus selections among its 18 champions. The 1991 program notes that ND had won 11 consensus titles (1924-29-30-43-46-47-49-66-73-77-88), but also notes all 18 championship seasons (adding 1919-20-27-38-53-64-67). The only later program available is from 2001, which is identical to the 1991 program except that in the interim ND seems to have located a 19th champion - the 1970 selection by Matthews Grid Ratings. The 2001 program, unlike the previous ones, does not include descriptions of the various selectors. So it seems that the question of how many champions ND claims doesn't really have a clear answer; they claim 11 consensus titles, but also note 19 champions of some level. The material in the 2001 program is essentially identical to what's currently on the ND website [9]. It would be interesting to know whether the ND community generally regards not only the 1938 team, but also the 1919, 1953 and 1964 teams (those chosen by the more prominent selectors) as true national champions. ND doesn't say that they weren't champions, only that they weren't consensus choices. MisfitToys 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

two things -- i am so glad you are keeping track of all my ip addresses -- i am glad you feel it is so important to add any new ip's that my dsl system comes up with -- grow up.

If you'd simply register for an account (as I and others have urged you to do), it wouldn't be necessary. As it stands, it is. This is the only way to easily keep track of your work on this article, and to distinguish it from the work of other anon users. MisfitToys 22:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

now after looking at this following language --

USC's stance, however, is in keeping with that of most other schools which won the Dickinson title; only Notre Dame, which won the Dickinson crown in 1938, does not claim a major national title for that year

i am going to change it and tell you why. of all the years that dickinson was in effect there were only three instances where a school was ONLY named in the dickinson and nowhere else. go to the ncaa page - http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html - and you will see. the years are 1928, 1938, and 1939 -- two years for sc and one year for notre dame. the year michigan won it is also named in the park davis poll/system.....so when you write that paragraph above it is very misleading. its like saying "the only major candidate who did not immediately concede the 2000 election to george bush was al gore." gore of course was the ONLY other major candidate. in this case notre dame is the ONLY other school that is in this position -- of having ONLY been named by dickinson -- and notre dame has chosen not to list this as a championship.

i hope that explains my position and why i am changing this. tell me your thoughts

Actually, I'm not sure ND doesn't claim the 1938 title; as I noted above, they only state that it wasn't a consensus title. (ND doesn't give a single total when asked how many titles they've won; they note both the 11 consensus titles and the larger total of 19.) Even on this point, ND's definition of consensus differs from that used by the NCAA; the NCAA lists ND's 1964 title among the consensus champions in its record book, although ND doesn't (FYI, the NCAA only lists consensus champions back to 1950). But I'm quite sure ND regards the 1964 team, and also the 1919 and 1953 teams, as legitimate champions - albeit not consensus choices - as I recall that several years ago ND fans lamented that the 1990s would be their first decade without a title since the 1900s, a statement that can only be true if the 1919 and 1953 teams are included in the count. If those three teams are regarded as legitimate champions by ND, I'm sure the 1938 team is as well.
Also, I can't reasonably accept the inclusion of the quote you re-inserted; as I stated above, you can't include the quote disagreeing with USC's position without also including the one from the same article (by an expert with the same credentials) supporting USC's decision. Anyway, I think this dispute is going to have to be resolved by a third party, by one of the means I suggested earlier; it's becoming evident that there's not really any version that both of us would find satisfactory. MisfitToys 01:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure ND doesn't claim the 1938 title; please dont tell me you are serious -- after all this time you are not sure???? nd does not claim this as a national championship -- they claim 11 national championships. and i dont really care what you heard ND fans lamented. i am sure some sc fans are lamenting things too.....just doesnt matter....what DOES matter are three issues here -- otherwise we are pretty much in agreement --
1)it doesnt matter that dickinson gave a trophy. when you put that in there it implies that dickinson was the only legitimate poll or system for that period which is very misleading. that must go. the only reason to keep that in there is too try to give a positive spin to dickinson.....as it is...there is neither a positive or negative spin to it.
2)the point on sc in 1928 and 1939 -- the reason there is controversy is that dickinson was the ONLY poll it won.....the only other time that occured -- a school winning only dickinson and no other poll - (according the ncaa page) is notre dame in 1938. your line that USC's stance, however, is in keeping with that of most other schools which won the Dickinson title; only Notre Dame, which won the Dickinson crown in 1938, does not claim a major national title for that year implies that there are many other schools in this situation and they agree with sc....in fact only notre dame is in that situation and they do NOT consider it a national championship
3) as this whole idea of years when sc did or did not call 1939 a championship -- please tell me your exact thoughts on that one.
4) i am trying to give some balance in adding this quote. one pro and one con -- the way you have it now it says -- in 2004, USC once again began recognizing the 1939 team as national champions after it determined that it qualified. this is like saying that president bush determined he has the right to wiretap AND NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE -- you need to put in there that some disagree. i have put a brief dissenting view. there is a brief mention that sc determined that it is a championship and then a brief mention that there is a ratings expert who calls the system archaic. i think that is fair and balanced. i will revert back (except for that since 1969 part) -- i dont think we want anything that can is spin or misleading
I am entirely serious about how many titles ND claims; as I noted, when asked how many titles they have won, they give two numbers - 11 consensus titles and 19 overall titles (as I noted, they define the term "consensus" differently than the NCAA does; the NCAA requires only selection by ONE top-level contemporary selector, not by a majority, and also ignores retroactive selectors completely).
Regarding point #1, the NCAA itself describes the Dickinson System as having been "emblematic of the national championship" from 1926 to 1940, which is about as definitive a statement as possible (what do you think it means?). It occurs to me that even if the NCAA issued a statement which declared unequivocally that the Dickinson winners were true national champions, you would find a reason to dismiss it. When you state that it "doesn't matter" that the DS awarded a trophy, you're deliberately skewing the facts to support your own position. Dickinson was the most widely accepted selector (far more so than any other mathematical system) during the years 1926-35, when there were no polls, and shared that position from 1936-40.
Regarding point #2, several disputes: First, if you want to be as complete as possible, the 1928 USC team was also selected by the Sagarin Rating system, so Dickinson wasn't their only selector. Next, your suggestion that being selected by Parke Davis somehow validated the Dickinson titles won by Dartmouth and Michigan borders on the ludicrous; Davis was nowhere near as well-regarded as Dickinson, so much so that his system was discontinued after only one year (1933; all his other selections were retroactive). The fact that he particularly liked selecting multiple champions (several times choosing three for one year, suggesting either indecisiveness or lack of clarity in his formulas), along with the fact that he often selected teams which no one else did (over 20 times), probably doomed his system. Had his choices not been published in something as widely read as the 1934 Spalding Football Guide, it's possible no one would remember them at all.
As to #3, it's evident that USC claimed the title into the 1940s, but since the university didn't provide official lists of its champions until 1969, there's no way of knowing when, how or why they lost track of the 1939 title (though they obviously mislaid the 1932 title as well for a few years afterward). After athletic director Bill Hunter retired in 1957, I doubt there was anyone still around who had been associated with the 1939 team, so lack of personal recollection probably played a major part. As I noted, USC didn't even start enumerating its conference titles until the 1950s, and that's far easier. The trophy awarded to the Dickinson winner seems, like today's rivalry trophies, to have been surrendered after each season - i.e. the winner didn't keep to keep the trophy permanently, so USC didn't have a trophy in its possession as a reminder of the title. And even though the official lists of champions didn't include the 1939 team from 1969 until 2004, the players on that team didn't realize that it wasn't being included in the lists until USC started displaying championship banners at the Coliseum, sometime after the stadium's 1994 renovation (probably after the Raiders moved out).
As to #4, I don't for an instant believe that you're trying to be balanced. Your insistence on including the quote regarding the Dickinson System as being "archaic" is evidence of this; I believe that there's no way you can include that quote without: 1) Identifying the person who said it (Kenneth Massey), and noting that he operates a statistical system of his own; 2) Noting that he referred to the Dickinson System as being "archaic" only in comparison to modern systems like his own, in that Dickinson had to do his computations on paper, without the benefit of computers; and (most importantly) 3) Also including the quote from Richard Billingsley (an expert equally well-regarded with Massey), who believes USC's action was justifiable. You want to include all the criticism of USC, but leave out all the supportive evidence such as the reference to it being the only presenter of a trophy - and that, to me, is clear evidence of bias on your part. As I said earlier, I believe our differences here are too great to be resolved without someone else making the decision; each of us insists on including text that the other finds completely unacceptable. MisfitToys 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Why do you insist on inserting political commentary in your argument?

This debate is moot. The article only refers to what USC claims. It doesn't matter whether the claims meet a certain criteria or not. It is what the university claims. The claim may be wrong but the point isn't to defend the claim, only to report it. This long debate can be removed.Sanjay merchant 07:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone with a solid history want to expand the early history?

C'mon now... having a category titled "1920s-1970s" for USC football is embarrassing. The Thundering Herd and the McKay/Robinson(I) years deserve large sections in and of themselves. I will have to remember to bring my Mal Florence book on pre-80s USC football (probably the best work on that period) and one of my USC Football Media Guides (which were updated, shorter versions of Mal Florence's work by himself and others after he passed away). If anyone has a media guide, it's a great source for adding information (assuming you don't pull a cp vio) --Bobak 21:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've broken up the periods but much more detail is neededSanjay merchant 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I simply added the subheadings because the section was particularly long and needed subdividing. MisfitToys 20:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The NB notice at the top

Can't this be eliminated by simply turning the "USC Trojans" page into a disambiguation page rather than redirecting here? That note is trying to do the job of a diambiguation page but it's only cluttering things up. Someone with more experience help me here.Sanjay merchant 08:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree it is distracting at the top. This note strikes me as an attempt to police USC's trademarks, which is not our responsibility to do. Johntex\talk 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the Bible of USC football, online and free

2005 USC Football Media Guide I've had a hard copy for the last several years, it's everything you'd ever want to know --including an adaptiation of Mal Florence's excellent history book. Produced before the 2005 season, accept no substitutes ('cept for more recent editions). It is particularly great because it's a giant press release intended to help supply news stories, articles and anyone else looking for the facts. You can also use some pictures under fair use, as discussed under Wikipedia:Publicity photos (remember, this is a scan of a published book and does not techically count as a website as used in that discussion). --Bobak 17:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaches

I'll leave the bickering over how many titles to others. But shouldn't there be a section devoted to the program's head coaches?--Buckboard 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles need expansion

Hello, there are two Trojan-related articles that desperately need expansion: 2005 USC Trojans football team (how'd that season work out, anyway?) and 2006 USC Trojans football team. Come on now, its October and USC is undefeated and ranked second, and our article on the season is effectively still a stub. Let's expand these articles! Johntex\talk 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again on number of titles

I'll note here that on the ABC broadcast of the Rose Bowl, they noted both teams as having 11 national championships, and felt no need to get into details of who the selectors were or the various rationales. ABC Sports ought to count as a reasonably reliable source, I think. MisfitToys 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You should consider wading into the extensive discussion over on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Infobox_National_Championships. It's a pretty safe claimed title #. --Bobak 23:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"I'll note here that on the ABC broadcast of the Rose Bowl, they noted both teams as having 11 national championships, and felt no need to get into details of who the selectors were or the various rationales. ABC Sports ought to count as a reasonably reliable source, I think." Not necessarily. Often times networks make whatever claims they see fit to make the matchup they are televising seem like a more marquee matchup. For instance; if the BCS poll ranks a team as #8 but the AP ranks them as #4, they'll go with the higher ranking in order to make it seem like a more important game than one on another network. In the same way they'll claim a team has 78 NCs in order to play up how historical the team and/or matchup is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cities with Multiple I-A Teams?

I am not sure if L.A. is the only "major" city with more than one I-A team in the same conference. The San Francisco Bay Area has the Pac-10's Stanford Cardinal and UC-Berkeley Bears (as well as the WAC's San Jose State.) North Carolina's Research Triangle region has several ACC teams.. NC State, North Carolina, Duke and Wake Forest. And, for that matter, Salt Lake City boasts two Mountain West Conference schools: BYU and UtahTimothy Horrigan (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with those examples (they're all located in different cities --which is why the USC-UCLA rivalry is sometimes called the crosstown rivalry). I've been to the BYU campus, and Provo is definitely a separate entity from SLC. Still, there is a problem differentiation that needs to be made with the cities of Houston, which has rivals Rice and Houston, and Miami, with Miami and FIU. I've added some language to qualify. --Bobak (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Anderson

When did quarterback Don Anderson play for USC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.89.126 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The best place for that information is the freely available Media Guide available in PDF form here --it should have all USC lettermen and when they played. Check out "Section 9 - All-Time Letterwinners and Coaches" at this link. --Bobak (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Interlocking University of Southern California logo.png

Image:Interlocking University of Southern California logo.png 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) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article location

It's very rare I see a college football team article with "University of" in the title. It's simply unnecessary. This page should be consistent with basically all other similar articles, and be located at Southern California Trojans football or USC Trojans football. Anyone want to do it?►Chris NelsonHolla! 09:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan of other promgrams' pages reveals this pattern: Michigan Wolverines football, Ohio State Buckeyes football, Washington Huskies football, LSU Tigers football, Florida State Seminoles football, Nebraska Cornhuskers football, Oregon Ducks football, Texas Longhorns football...It appears that Southern California Trojans football would fit this pattern best. If there's no disagreement, I'll move the article. — Scientizzle 18:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer USC Trojans football, as those associated with the university commonly refer to it as USC rather than Southern California (it would also conform with the main article USC Trojans), but agree that the article should be moved. MisfitToys (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That'd be fine--LSU is LSU Tigers football. I'll do it tomorrow if there's no further objections. Cool? — Scientizzle 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
USC Trojans football sounds fine. Definitely not "Southern California Trojans football", that shows no knowledge of how the team refers to itself. Next thing you know people will propose "Southern Cal football", heh. --Bobak (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should someone mention the violations with Reggie Bush and how the NCAA is being so lenient on USC (who are just saying "we didn't know"), while punishing other schools like Alabama for not keeping closer watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.232.229 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone should mention that this is not the place for jealous wannabes to be whining. Z1perlster (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bowl wins inconsistency, bowl appearances problem

"The Trojans have played in 45 bowl games–placing them fourth nationally– winning 30 of these appearances."

The table lists 31 USC bowl wins.

Using the NCAA record book, and considering USC's win in the 2008 Rose Bowl, its bowl record is 30-16, meaning that USC has appeared in 46 bowls. Z1perlster (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The table includes the Poi Bowl in 1936, which was technically a regular-season game - much like the Oregon game in 1985, which was called the Mirage Bowl; the 1986 opener against Illinois, originally to be played in Moscow, was to be called the Glasnost Bowl before the planning fell apart. MisfitToys (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT (sorry for redundancy): Comparing the two, the problem the 1936 Poi Bowl. I remember that was added only recently, likely by someone researching that article. The College Football Data Warehouse calls it a College Division/Minor Bowl Game, USC's own official records list it as simply a regular game at the end of the season, despite being listed as January 1. I'll add a footnote to it noting that it is "not counted as a bowl by USC or the NCAA". I would differentiate it from the Glasnost Bowl or Mirage Bowl (I wrote those articles) in that this was a post-season game where the other two were pre-season like the BCA Classic or Kickoff Classic. --Bobak (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted 1-win from the infobox, but kept the bowl game in the season list (since its sort-of a post-season game) along with a footnote detailing why it is not included in the bowl total. --Bobak (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Bowl games section still stated "The Trojans have played in 45 bowl games". I'm correcting it to 46, not considering the Poi Bowl to count in this usage of the term. Z1perlster (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, please feel free to contribute :-) --Bobak (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)