[M T]

Spiny, do you have any further details about what you know or have been told about the review of the script?

FWIW, my understanding is that the script was reviewed and approved in advance by the powers that be at Stanford, Iowa and the Rose Bowl.

Apparently it is now official statement time.
Apparently the Rose Bowl also released a statement complaining about the band. This is what the Merc quotes, though it doesn't seem to be the entire text. Apparently they deny reviewing the script for the show ahead of time,

Given the fine reputations of the schools in these conferences, we have not felt the need to review in any significant detail the planned performances of their representatives,'' the Tournament of Roses said in a statement, adding that it regretted if any spectators were offended.

The halftime performance was not in line with the values of the Rose Bowl Game and we will be reviewing our policies and procedures with regard to future band performances.

The paragraph before the quoted part from the Mercury News:

The script for the show was reviewed by the university but not the Rose Bowl, which has a decades-long relationship with the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences.

I tried to validate Wilner's references to statements by Rose Bowl organizers (the title of the article says "officials" but the body of the article only says "organizers") and by Stanford.
As far as I can find by searching through Google, the various reports that the Rose Bowl officials issued a statement are all traced back to John Wilner's article in the Mercury News. 
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_29352...nford-band
No such statement exists at tournamentofroses.com or at  rosebowlstadium.com  that I could find. 

Likewise, I didn't find an independent source for the Stanford statement. 

Perhaps these statements exist only in the form of email to Wilner and were not otherwise made public?    I think it is significant to understand who issued these statements (who had the authority to be described by Wilner as "Stanford").  Wilner doesn't identify the actual individuals (or office) that made either "statement".

[M T]

Spiny, do you have any further details about what you know or have been told about the review of the script?

FWIW, my understanding is that the script was reviewed and approved in advance by the powers that be at Stanford, Iowa and the Rose Bowl.

Apparently it is now official statement time.
Apparently the Rose Bowl also released a statement complaining about the band. This is what the Merc quotes, though it doesn't seem to be the entire text. Apparently they deny reviewing the script for the show ahead of time,

Given the fine reputations of the schools in these conferences, we have not felt the need to review in any significant detail the planned performances of their representatives,'' the Tournament of Roses said in a statement, adding that it regretted if any spectators were offended.

The halftime performance was not in line with the values of the Rose Bowl Game and we will be reviewing our policies and procedures with regard to future band performances.

The paragraph before the quoted part from the Mercury News:

The script for the show was reviewed by the university but not the Rose Bowl, which has a decades-long relationship with the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences.

I tried to validate Wilner's references to statements by Rose Bowl organizers (the title of the article says "officials" but the body of the article only says "organizers") and by Stanford.
As far as I can find by searching through Google, the various reports that the Rose Bowl officials issued a statement are all traced back to John Wilner's article in the Mercury News. 
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_29352...nford-band
No such statement exists at tournamentofroses.com or at  rosebowlstadium.com  that I could find. 

Likewise, I didn't find an independent source for the Stanford statement. 

Perhaps these statements exist only in the form of email to Wilner and were not otherwise made public?    I think it is significant to understand who issued these statements (who had the authority to be described by Wilner as "Stanford").  Wilner doesn't identify the actual individuals (or office) that made either "statement".