Talk:2011 UCLA Bruins football team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

  • 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]
Unless there is a source that contradicts what is in LAT, we should assume it is correct. Anything else would border on original research.—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/30/ucla-granted-bowl-waiver-from-ncaa/ is consistent with what is in LAT.—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, didn't know a "regular season" includes the post season game and that NBC Sports can read the minds of the NCAA committee. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Champions[edit]

  • Winning or losing to USC during the season had nothing to do with UCLA Bruins winning the South Championship. USC's post season ban by the NCAA was the reason the Trojans were not the South Division Champions regardless the margin of victory. It was correctly stated at the USC article lead paragraph "Due to being on probation with the NCAA, the Trojans could not win the Pac-12 South Division title, participate in the conference championship game or play in a bowl game." The margin of victory would not have changed it. Ucla90024 (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2012 (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[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_UCLA_Bruins_football_team&oldid=1196600355"