Talk:1965 Rose Bowl

1967 Rose Bowl "Controversy"
There are several things wrong about the following paragraph:

"This would lead to another controversy just two years later in which an 8–2 USC team that had lost to UCLA would get voted in ahead of the 9–1 Bruins. Many felt this 1966 vote was to "make up for" the 1964 vote, especially since the coach of Oregon State in 1964 was Tommy Prothro and he was then the coach of UCLA in 1966."

First, in 1966, USC got voted in, when they were 8-1. They lost their season finale to Notre Dame to fall to 8-2. USC was the conference champion by a half game over Oregon State and UCLA, which did not play one another. The vote was 7-1 in favor of USC. The only team that voted for UCLA was UCLA itself. The only uproar was at UCLA, which chose to ignore the fact that the conference champion was almost invariably determined by winning percentage in conference and chose to ignore the fact that there was a third one-loss team in the AAWU in 1966 (Oregon State) with an identical conference record as UCLA and who also voted for USC. In the off-season after the vote, UCLA successfully pushed the AAWU to change how the AAWU determined the conference champion, such that they could have represented the conference at the Rose Bowl in 1966, but the change occurred after the season.

In the end, the only team to blame for UCLA not representing the conference at the 1967 Rose Bowl is UCLA, as UCLA was instrumental in destroying the Pacific Coast Conference and then refused to schedule Oregon, Oregon State, or Washington State until 1967, despite the fact that the Cougars joined the AAWU in 1962 and the Oregon schools joined in 1964. If UCLA had scheduled and defeated Oregon State in 1966, the Bruins would have won the conference and represented the AAWU in the Rose Bowl. Instead, they cowardly chose to avoid playing the Beavers and finished one-half game behind the Trojans. Then, rather than silently accepting their mistake and moving on, they keep dredging up this vote as a "grave injustice."

Ultimately, the paragraph is incorrect as written, is not supported by any link, and is biased. I believe that it should be deleted. Please let me know, if anyone disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkyisdashiznit (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)