Talk:Southern California Crosstown Cup

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

Request for expansion tag

The article is pretty descriptive. It is a prize awarded in two college sports rivalries. The main articles would be UCLA-USC rivalry and Cal-Stanford rivalry, which would cover the sports competition. The external link covers the specifics, and I am not sure how much could be lifted without copyright issues. Group29 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cal/Stanford discontinued

It appears that the Cal/Stanford Lexus Gauntlet competition has gone dormant. The web site no longer shows a Cal/Stanford north link, and the old link only shows results from the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Group29 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Since Cal was losing, the school didn't want to participate. It takes two schools to have a game. When Lexus put out, UCLA does not want to continue and the program terminated. Only USC is interested in counting the scores. Pedro Moura, a USC student on the Daily Trojan, does a disservice by put out such information. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got an ESPN source saying that the competition is still on, even if a less formal structure...Fox Sports West notes it, too. These are clearly
      WP:RS-appropriate. I'm going to undo your reversion. — Scientizzle 03:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Program ended

Program ended when Lexus terminated sponsor ship. Cal after losing also ended the program. Only alum Pedro Moura and USC counting the results. There is no participation from UCLA Athletics. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the cited
reliable sources say[4][5]...if you can find a source that says "there is no participation from UCLA Athletics" that would be worth discussing. — Scientizzle 14:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Continuing to remove content without engaging here is not constructive. If you don't think the sources cited count as reliable, go to
WP:RFC or at least Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Find a source that states that UCLA no longer participates formally or informally and cite it, please. — Scientizzle 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Seeing as the user Ucla90024 continues to remove content that merits inclusion, I've returned it to the article and included two more sources. USC reporting that it won: http://www.usctrojans.com/genrel/043012aaa.html and a Bruin fan site reporting that it lost: http://www.bruinsnation.com/2012/5/1/2991099/UCLA-USC-Gauntlet-Trophy-Fire-Dan-Guerrero-Gene-Block — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.63.30 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And since this was an issue for some reason, I'll include another link, which is UCLA officially mentioning it themselves when they won: https://twitter.com/UCLAAthletics/status/330107951366930432 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embowaf (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So great that Southern Cal would not even mention it on its poster (Just "Crosstown Cup"). UCLA calls the game "So Cal BMW Crosstown Cup" as listed on its poster. Crosstown Cup belongs to the Cubs and the White Sox, see Cubs and White Sox fans discuss Crosstown Cup. Ucla90024 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what you're talking about... If you mean the release, then no, they're both identical. What poster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embowaf (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Sponsor

I'm in the process of rewriting this article to fit with the new sponsor.

I think it's time to look at the cal/stanford section and debate what should be done with it. With the new sponsor, it's becoming increasingly out of place...

Embowaf (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standing

  • Standing means the standing at this time, not the past or the future. Just like a win that was vacated is not a win and never will. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mhmm, well done. Totally irrelevant, but that's becoming a pattern with you. Somehow, you're missing the point that the official site is the official site and you can't just make things up. If the official site hasn't yet been updated, but you know something has changed, such as last night when I saw USC win the Cross Country match, or last season when I saw ucla lose out of the NCAA tennis tournament, making it impossible for them to win back the points needed to win, updating wikipedia before an official announcement is made is fine. That's what I did last year, when USC won the 2014 Gauntlet, and you kept reverting it. That's what I did last night when USC won it's first 10 points. I updated it to 20-10 UCLA, because the only announcements that had been made at that point were UCLA Athletics posting on twitter, plus the knowledge of a USC win. Later that night, the official site was updated to say USC was ahead 10-0, which is not unreasonable, since the "20" ucla points were in series that were incomplete. They certainly weren't locked down, and not just on a "there might be more games" basis like postseason. Both those sports still have scheduled matches. Cross Country, on the other hand, will not change. The 10 points are USC's and USC's alone, and that won't change. That was the best possible interpretation of the official site available last night. There is no more authoritative source than the official site. There has never been any official rule on how to show the score when a series in a sport is incomplete. Traditionally, they've usually awarded half points for a first win, and the next half for a second, except in baseball, where they usually update it with a third. But that's just what the athletics site say. Due to the nature of the scoring system, a "current score" is sort of deceptive anyway since points can go away and come back, and the "point value" of a single match actually can change as postseason/in season tournament matches get added to the schedule. A few moments ago, the site was updated to show a 10-10 score. This is also a potentially valid score, since it implies 5 points in volleyball and 5 in water polo. There is a chance that USC could win all the points back, or that ucla could win more, but at the moment, there is one scheduled game remaining for each event. Regardless of whatever you happen to think, or ucla's twitter says, there's an official site once again that provides an official score. Both schools designated it as such, and we're going to go ahead and use that. Embowaf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring Structure

Since you obviously need to be explain things out in more space that a comment can provide, I'll do so here.

The scoring structure has not changed. Both schools still compete in 19 sports against each other. Neither school cancelled Sand Volleyball. A match was possible, prior to the NCAA selection. It makes NO sense to change the scoring structure without some sort of official announcement that sand volleyball won't be included in the future. At the end of this season, we can make a footnote or something. But next season, it's likely they will play each other in all 19 sports. Or not. Who knows. But there's no justification for changing that. ESPECIALLY when you don't know for sure that there WON'T be sand volleyball points. It's possible that the Pac-12 invitational, which USC won, will count as a conference tournament. The rules are somewhat ambiguous.

IN ADDITION, you once again reverted a legitimate score update for no reason. USC finished ahead of ucla in men's golf. That happened. Therefore, USC get's 10 more points. It's clear the official site is frequently slow at updating. That doesn't change the universe.

You need to stop continuously putting your non-objective slant on this page, which you have been doing for years now.

Embowaf (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total Points

  • The total points to win is 95 points per the official site [6], which now reads "NEXT EVENT: NO MORE EVENTS". The total points is 85+95=180 points. Ucla90024 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, you show a complete lack of understanding for how this works. I'm going to fix the article. If you continue to edit it, I'm going to report you. The competition is not clinched. Neither school, nor the official site has claimed this. The points for women's tennis and for baseball are not settled yet. Additional matchups are possible. And, FOR THE THIRD TIME, the scoring structure has NOT changed. STOP CHANGING THAT. There was no head to head match in sand volleyball, but that doesn't mean they're going to never have one again, nor does it mean that they will not use conference finish to award points. The site, ignoring the lack of sand volleyball DOES still say that 100 points are needed to clinch. Embowaf (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change title to Southern California Crosstown Cup

Since the SoCal BMW sponsorship of this Crosstown Cup ended after the 2015-2016 season (and it is now 2021), the title of the article should be changed to simply "Southern California Crosstown Cup". The article discusses the sponsorship of the competition starting with Lexus in 2001-2009 and BMW in 2014-2016, but also the periods of no sponsorship, such as currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricSobel (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll change it soon if there are no objections. Embowaf (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023-2024 Score

https://uclabruins.com/news/2024/5/16/bruin-athletics-ucla-wins-crosstown-cup-over-usc-in-record-fashion

UCLA reports the score as 120-70, but that's incorrect. They're showing a 1-0 UCLA lead in women's golf which is missing this head to head: https://uclabruins.com/news/2024/2/5/womens-golf-no-4-womens-golf-concludes-therese-hession-regional-challenge

The correct score is 115-75. Embowaf (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_California_Crosstown_Cup&oldid=1225070262"