It's kind of funny. The issue is having to play USC/UCLA in the RB and playing Miami in the OB, right?
I guess I have 2 questions:
a - which specific games would the outcome have been different without the homefield advantage?
b - aren't you simply complaining that USC and Miami were good enough to even play in these bowls? If Miami, an indepedent, had simply gone 7-4 every year in the 80s, there'd be no complaint, right? If Oregon had happened to be the class of the PAC-8/10/12 for the last 50 years, there'd be no complaint.
Rose Bowls, including USC/UCLA since....let's say 1963, when it was a 1 vs 2 matchup with a close result. Which of these games (USC/UCLA wins) would have been different if the game was held in Chicago or Denver or Havana:
1963: 1 USC over 2 Wisconsin by 5
1965: 5 UCLA over 1 MSU by 2
1968: 1 USC over UR Indiana by 11
1969: 5 USC over 7 Michigan by 7
1972: 1 USC over 3 OSU by 25
1974: 5 USC over 3 OSU by 1
1975: 11 UCLA over 1 OSU by 13
1976: 3 USC over 2 Michigan by 8
1978: 3 USC over 5 Michigan by 7
1979: 3 USC over 1 OSU by 1
1982: 5 UCLA over 19 Michigan by 10
1983: UR UCLA over 4 Illinois by 36
1984: 18 USC over 6 OSU by 3
1985: 13 UCLA over 4 Iowa by 17
1989: 12 USC over 3 Michigan by 7
1995: 17 USC over 3 N'Western by 9
2003: 1 USC over 4 Michigan by 14
2006: 8 USC over 3 Michigan by 14
2007: 6 USC over 13 Illinois by 32
2008: 5 USC over 6 Penn St by 14
2016: 9 USC over 5 Penn St by 3
I'm really afraid that a couple of mid-70s upsets is the root of this ongoing narrative about fairness.
Let's cross out the non-upsets.
Then let's cross out the not-close upsets (by more than one possession).
What's left?
1965, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1989, and 2016. Seven games in 57 years. How many of them were due to the location of the game? Half? 2/3? 3/4? This is what we're arguing about here?