Rose Bowl: USC 38, Penn St. 24 (Final)

[Wingate1217]

ucla is 5-7 in the Rose Bowl. USC is 24-7.

During the McKay/JRob1 era, USC was 8-3
During the Tollner/Smith/JRob2/H***ett eras, USC was 3-2
During the Carroll era, USC is 4-1

There is a correlation between being great (McKay/JRob1/Carroll) and winning. There is a correlation between not being great (ucla/Tollner/Smith/JRob2/H***ett) and losing.

It is interesting to note that during 1947-1967 the records were reversed....
Big Ten's record was 16-5.......

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

You maybe right but the numbers say otherwise. During the time period Washington is 7-2 in the Rose Bowl......

Well that only goes to show that the 'home' field advantage doesn't matter in the outcome of the Rose Bowl...

 

[reagdog]

and Pac-10 fans wouldn't cling so tightly to it if they weren't winning.

Who is "clinging tightly" to it? It has always been played in CA for like 95 years!!!! It wouldn't be the "Rose Bowl" if it were played anywhere else. If you want a good bowl game in the midwest, then figure out a way to create a new bowl game.

 

[buckeyesin07]

you assume the big ten team would want any part of that. I don't think it's any accident that your league ends its season much earlier than anyone else

You're saying that the Big Ten purposely "ends its season much earlier than anyone else" because of the weather? Really? Wow.

 

[Gatorubet]

Ole Miss just took out Tech playing in a Texas bowl venue, which is supposed to give the advantage to Tech...

Georgia owned UF for a decade in Jaxsonville. OWNED Florida. Now that we are on a run, you hear out of Athens how it is a Gator home game, how it is too close to G-ville. During the 70s and 80s when they had better teams than us, nobody gave a shit about it being in Jacksonville. Now that we have better talent, it is all about the venue location.

So I guess I think about that whenever this comes up.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Ole Miss just took out Tech playing in a Texas bowl venue, which is supposed to give the advantage to Tech...

Georgia owned UF for a decade in Jaxsonville. OWNED Florida. Now that we are on a run, you hear out of Athens how it is a Gator home game, how it is too close to G-ville. During the 70s and 80s when they had better teams than us, nobody gave a [censored] about it being in Jacksonville. Now that we have better talent, it is all about the venue location.

So I guess I think about that whenever this comes up.

No one here is saying that the "away team" in a bowl game never wins. But someone doubting that teams from the South and the West aren't given an advantage by where bowl games are played seems pretty hard to believe.

 

[reagdog]

No one here is saying that the "away team" in a bowl game never wins. But someone doubting that teams from the South and the West aren't given an advantage by where bowl games are played seems pretty hard to believe.

The location of the bowl game might be a factor sometimes, but maybe it's just that the teams from the west and south are better a majority of the time?

 

[Wingate1217]

Well that only goes to show that the 'home' field advantage doesn't matter in the outcome of the Rose Bowl...

I am not making an assertion either way just throwing the numbers out there. And if you read my post I state that I do not consider Washington a home team and the teams that they did play were not the home team either. When Washington played in the Rose Bowl it was considered a neutral field......

By the way the other neutral games other than Washington the Pac Ten was 1-4.....

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

I am not making an assertion either way just throwing the numbers out there. And if you read my post I state that I do not consider Washington a home team and the teams that they did play were not the home team either. When Washington played in the Rose Bowl it was considered a neutral field......

By the way the other neutral games other than Washington the Pac Ten was 1-4.....

I understand your post. But Washington being a neutral team and having the 7-2 record undermines the argument that only those who have the 'home' field advantage can consistently outperform the opposition in bowl games.

 

[Wingate1217]

I understand your post. But Washington being a neutral team and having the 7-2 record undermines the argument that only those who have the 'home' field advantage can consistently outperform the opposition in bowl games.

I agree to a point but remember the rest of the league was 1-4 during this time span. A neutral field seems to hold much more of a promise for the otherwise visiting team (in this case the Big Ten) according to the records for the last 50 years. The statistic do not say that a visiting team can't win (because they have in the past) it just seems to support the theory that the "home team" has an advantage based on the 21-10 record of the PAC-10 "home team" in the Rose Bowl......

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

I agree to a point but remember the rest of the league was 1-4 during this time span. A neutral field seems to hold much more of a promise for the otherwise visiting team (in this case the Big Ten) according to the records for the last 50 years. The statistic do not say that a visiting team can't win (because they have in the past) it just seems to support the theory that the "home team" has an advantage based on the 21-10 record of the PAC-10 "home team" in the Rose Bowl......

Well like I said, that 21-10 record is mostly compiled by SC, and quite frankly, SC has been a better team than whomever the B10 representatives have been for the past few years. Can anyone honestly argue that PC"s rose bowl record is due to the fact that SC is playing near home? And that goes for the other great SC eras as well.

 

[reagdog]

I agree to a point but remember the rest of the league was 1-4 during this time span. A neutral field seems to hold much more of a promise for the otherwise visiting team (in this case the Big Ten) according to the records for the last 50 years. The statistic do not say that a visiting team can't win (because they have in the past) it just seems to support the theory that the "home team" has an advantage based on the 21-10 record of the PAC-10 "home team" in the Rose Bowl......

We can probably debate this all day, but the one thing that is for sure - the Rose Bowl isn't changing locations. Everyone in the Pac-10 is hoping they can dethrone USC because we are sick of them winning everything every year just like the Big10 is sick of seeing USC in that game.

That's why you should let us (ASU) have Corey Adams! You should also tell scUM to give back Craig Roh and Taylor Lewan. Midwest is killing us!

 

[jwinslow]

 

[Wingate1217]

Well like I said, that 21-10 record is mostly compiled by SC, and quite frankly, SC has been a better team than whomever the B10 representatives have been for the past few years. Can anyone honestly argue that PC"s rose bowl record is due to the fact that SC is playing near home? And that goes for the other great SC eras as well.

Here is SC Bowl record for the last 50 years.....and the results indicate otherwise.....

Home Field 16-7
Neutral Field 3-4
Visitors 2-2

Overall 21-13

They "appears" that there is a 50-50 chance that a team could beat 'SC on a neutral or on their "own home field" based on the records.......

 

[WaitingforKickoff]

Here is SC Bowl record for the last 50 years.....and the results indicate otherwise.....

Home Field 16-7
Neutral Field 3-4
Visitors 2-2

Overall 21-13

They "appears" that there is a 50-50 chance that a team could beat 'SC on a neutral or on their "own home field" based on the records.......

Maybe the reason SC has a better Rose Bowl record is because only their best teams get to play in the Rose while the mediocre teams get to play in other bowls. You have presented a good argument, I'm just trying to show that it's not simple to establish causation.