This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to
University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
How many references does it need? Let's not go overboard. There were no reasons given for the waiver. The school requested and NCAA granted. It was based on the record of the regular season. Had the Bruins not played in the Championship game, they would have a 6-6 record. Chris Foster reports on his view on the reason. The real reason remains that USC can not participate in any post season games.
Ucla90024 (
talk)
01:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
If there was another bowl eligible team in Pac-12, they would have had precedence over UCLA. Three references is not
WP:CITEKILL, and all are needed unless one source explains the background. Is there a source that supports it was because of the regular season record?—
Bagumba (
talk)
01:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
UCLA's release is the official one. Any other sources are just speculation. Picking over UCLA had there been another team available is just another speculation. You don't know if a game organizer would do that.
Ucla90024 (
talk)
02:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
UCLA press release is not
independent, and LA Times is a reliable third party, which are the preferred sources in WP. I didn't interpret Foster's article as speculation. If you still feel strongly that it is an opinion and not a fact, I would suggest as a compromise to
attribute the statement to the LA Times.—
Bagumba (
talk)
03:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
LA Times is extremely bias toward USC. It really doesn't make any difference why NCAA grant waivers. The fact remains it was granted. The biggest reason is $. Actually UCLA would lose money for going to a bowl game. They need UCLA more than UCLA need them. There was a media report that UCLA would not ask for a waiver.
Ucla90024 (
talk)
03:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)reply
It makes no sense to mention the score in the lead on UCLA's football page; the game in not significant game to winning the Division title. Even if UCLA lost by 1000 points, the Bruins would be the South Division Champions. But the 11/9 score was significant because it took away USC from the BCS title game. Huge difference.
Ucla90024 (
talk)
00:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Wrong. Had UCLA won that game then they would have finished FIRST in the South Division. Because UCLA lost that game, USC was allowed to claim the title of finishing first in the South, according to a release by PAC-12 Commissioner Larry Scott. The paragraph begins with Nov. 25, then skips any mention of UCLA's game the next day on Nov. 26, but proceeds to discuss every subsequent game, except the historic 50-0 loss to USC. 50-0 was the largest margin in the rivalry in 80 years, and for you to scrub all memory of it from this lead is the sort of REVISIONISM worthy of the "
Ministry of Truth."--
Kingofthai87 (
talk)
01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
You continue to omit any and every reference to the historic 50-0 loss to USC, which led to the firing of the Bruins head coach in the aftermath of the loss and allowed USC to claim "first place" in the South Division, despite not being eligible for post-season play.--
Kingofthai87 (
talk)
19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Ted Miller of ESPN.com reported " ... from Pac-12 spokesman Dave Hirsch on whether USC can claim the South championship: "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)
22:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2011 UCLA Bruins football team. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: