Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject College football: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:20, 25 December 2017 editJweiss11 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers610,314 edits →Cbl62 flouting consensus on schedule tables: move comment to proper place← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:52, 23 January 2025 edit undoJweiss11 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers610,314 edits →2025 season articles: ping Dogloverr16 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |search=yes }} {{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-11-22/WikiProject report|writer=]|
{{WikiProject College football}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive <#>
|indexhere=no
}}
{{to do|collapsed=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2010-11-22/WikiProject report|writer=]|
|day=22|month=November|year=2010}} |day=22|month=November|year=2010}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 19 |counter = 27
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(45d) |algo = old(45d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=1 |units=month }}
{{Shortcut|WT:CFB}} {{Shortcut|WT:CFB}}
{{to do|collapsed=yes}}
{{WikiProject College football|class=project|importance=top}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive <#>
|indexhere=no
}}

== Northern Arizona Lumberjacks navbox ==

Any objection to a significant change to ]? The school's name has changed several times in its history. According to the school's website there have been five names (http://library.nau.edu/speccoll/exhibits/first100/Trivia/namechange.html)


== CFDW information is incorrect ==
Here's what I would propose for the navbox, but obviously looking for input / concurrence:
* 1899-1924 Northern Arizona Normal
* 1925-1928 Northern Arizona State Teachers
* 1929-1944 Arizona State Teachers (Flagstaff)
* 1945-1965 Arizona State College (Flagstaff)
* 1966 & on Northern Arizona


I just spent some time editing the ] article and finding contemporary sources from Newspapers.com. I was primarily interested in the previously unknown ] where many of the games were played, rather than at ]. But I also discovered many errors in the games themselves.
] (]) 06:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


This article was previously sourced only to the page on the now defunct ] website.
:Ocfootballknut, do you know when the "Lumberjacks" fight name was adopted? Does it go all the way back to 1899? ] (]) 07:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
::What is the exact change to the display?—] (]) 11:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Bagumba, the display wouldn't changed, but the historical season links would reflect former school/team names. ] (]) 02:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
::::Apparently, both the football team and the nickname go back to . I agree that the seasons before 1966 should have the proper names, with redirects for the anachronisms like "1915 Northern Arizona". ] (]) 03:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, all. Sorry I didn't respond sooner ... I forgot where I had put this question !!] (]) 05:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Several of the games had incorrect dates and scores. CFDW also lists a 16–6 game vs. ] that was in fact .
== ] ==


I know that this CFDW site was referenced heavily in the past, perhaps before we had better regulations against using ] sources. Now that ] is available via the ], we should endeavor to cite contemporary reliable sources instead. Is there a way to tell how many CFDW references still exist? How many of our early season articles are sourced only to CFDW?
Thoughts? The games have been pretty fierce the past few years but - well, that's what happens when two good football teams regularly meet. ] (]) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:It's a nice Christmas-themed article, if nothing else. ] (]) 17:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:And it appears that's all it is. A google search is bringing up absolutely nothing to support that this a rivalry. Send the article to the paper shredder. ] (]) 17:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:: My initial reaction was skeptical, but see article from CBS Sports ranking MSU-OSU as the #1 modern college football rivalry. There's also . ] (]) 18:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
:::If this rivalry is notable, someone needs to expand it... otherwise, delete it! ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 23:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Hope you don't mind me commenting here, but I could not resist! Nice decision. As coauthor of extensive academic study of sports rivalries, this one (MSU v. OSU) does not make the cut. We use a system where a team's fans allocate 100 'rivalry points' across their team's opponents. This one saw a grand total of 4.25/200 points allocated. That is, MSU fans allocated 4/100 rivalry points to OSU, who reciprocated with just 0.25/100 rivalry points to MSU. This research is from the Know Rivalry project, with this specific data at http://knowrivalry.com/team/michigan_st/ The research is also the subject of a discussion stream below on this Misplaced Pages talk page. ] (]) 18:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


] (]) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
== Bear Bryant's 1950 championship with Kentucky ==


:You can type "College Football Data Warehouse" or other variations into the search bar to find the references. ] (]) 20:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
There's been a constant back-and-forth for over a year in the infobox of ] on whether or not to include Kentucky's 1950 championship. Opposer(s) say the NCAA doesn't recognize the 1950 title by Kentucky. Yet the university claims it, and usually that's what we go by, ]. So the question is: in coaching infoboxes, do we include championships recognized by the NCAA, or those claimed by the university? This could also extend to coaching tables. ] (]) 17:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:I say only if we recognize ]'s nonsensical AFCA title?] (]) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
::I can't say much about 1950 Kentucky in particular. Looks like they beat Oklahoma, the easy choice for #1, leaving no top teams undefeated. However, it seems to me one should go with those recognized by the NCAA at least/at first, and preferably both the school and the NCAA. Though it probably recognizes a few too many, for purposes of avoiding OR we had to use the NCAA with the ]. As to why preferably both, one can think of several examples where what the NCAA recognizes clashes with what the school and fans recognize; does Galen Hall deserve a national title on his resume for 1984? Does Edgar Wingard deserve one on his for 1908? or Dan McGugin for 1921 and 1922? Vandy should probably claim 1941. The Florida football page regularly has its unclaimed titles removed as illegitimate, and any titles of a certain age (e. g. 1908, not 1950) not given to a northern team are highly suspect. ] (]) 21:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:::I always found it odd that we emphasize national championships claimed by universities over officially recognized ones, as it seems like a blatant disregard for the fact that universities are ]. ] (]) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
::::You're disregarding the fact that universities only claim a national championship if someone else awards them one, which means that there's always a secondary source as well. As ridiculous as many see Oklahoma State's claimed NC for 1945, they were awarded it by the AFCA, a secondary source. ] (]) 23:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} So far no one has answered the original question, so I'll repeat it: in coaching infoboxes, do we include championships recognized by the NCAA, or those claimed by the university? ] (]) 23:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
:I vote those by the university, because those are really the only "official" championships in FBS. ] (]) 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
* I don't know what rule, if any, has been applied to coach infoboxes, but I have tried to impose some discipline on such claims in season article infoboxes. My view there is that the best way to handle the "national champion" claim is to (a) limit the designation to NCAA-recognized selectors, and (b) be specific about selectors so that a weak claim can be distinguished from a strong one. Compare ] with ] or ] with ] or ] with ]. While such detail can't be replicated in a coaching chart, perhaps we could add an explanatory footnote in coaching charts where "national champion" claims are not clear-cut. ] (]) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:: In the case of 1950 Kentucky, the result would be the same since Sagarin (who picked Kentucky) is an NCAA-recognized selector. ] (]) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:::This is a prime example of hitching the ox cart before we put anything on there. I was indirectly answering the original question. If a school has a nat'l title claim, and a recognized claim regardless of how bogus some of them are, we should be consistent across the board and list it as such without qualifiers. If a school doesn't recognize it such as the several that Oklahoma doesn't then it shouldn't be recognized here. The only way it should be noted with a caveat would be vacated titles such as 04 SC or 89 Mississippi College.] (]) 00:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:::: I didn't follow the whole ox cart/hitching analogy, but I assume you are not suggesting that we let individual schools be the sole arbiters of national championship claims. Misplaced Pages is intended to be an objective resource that does not merely regurgitate a school's objective claim to be #1. We need an independent and objective method of assessing such claims, and limiting the claims to NCAA-recognized selectors seems like the best course in terms both of independence and objectivity. ] (]) 19:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::::: I can see how you could have misinterpreted what I meant. I meant to say "recognized AND claimed." if[REDACTED] consensus says to list it as a nat'l title then list it across the board. If it shouldn't be listed on the UK pages then, no it shouldn't be listed even on the coach page. ONLY when it has been taken away would I suggest a notification about it.] (]) 19:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::What exactly are we using to determine which selectors are "recognized" by the NCAA? The NCAA record book lists every random joe in his basement with a computer, while is much more selective. ] (]) 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::: I was referring to the official NCAA record book. I am unclear on the list you linked; I've only seen it recently and don't know when, how, why, or by whom it was created. ] (]) 01:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}I agree with the list but then we are already out of whack with it. ], inluding the ] who "won" based upon said Sagrin ratings.] (]) 01:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:Well, it wouldn't surprise me if there was no "official" NCAA-recognized list of selectors. Or that they'd even care to have one. I lost faith in the NCAA's record keeping while working on ] (see note b on that article). Ultimately it'll have to come down to our judgement. The record book is extremely inclusive with its champion selectors; I have yet to see a single case of a school claiming a championship from a selector that isn't included in the NCAA record book. ] (]) 04:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:: There is a reason why it was known as the "mythical national championship" in the days before the playoffs. The best we can do is to make sure that such claims are clear as to which selectors the claim is based on. ] (]) 05:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Well the edit warring on ] rages on. Do we have a consensus to include 1950 in the infobox or no? I say include. ] (]) 05:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
::::I say include as an SEC title, exclude as a national title. I can only appeal to past experience with other coaches and internal consistency, and not any particular knowledge about the 1950 Wildcats, so I am open to changing my opinion. First and foremost, and despite the Cats beating them, the NCAA recognizes the Sooners as champion, and that seems our only hope for an objective source on the matter. That should settle it. It is not even recognized by the NCAA. Though, even if it was by some minor selector, I think one should best leave it out. It would be absurd to include national championships in, say, McGugin's infobox. ] (]) 07:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Here's another one for you: how many national championships should ] be credited with? ] (]) 08:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::That one is more difficult. I say just give him 1960. His HOF profile mentions the 1960 championship, and I suspect Ole Miss fans would do so as well. Again I can be swayed, but hard to imagine an argument for Miss over Syracuse in 1959, or for Miss over USC in 1962. ] (]) 08:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::What about assistants? Jimbo Fisher has Saban's '03 title in his infobox. ] (]) 19:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not a fan, but the facts are he was on the coaching staff and therefore was part of the team. Hell, we put national championships in the infoboxes of players who were redshirting the season their team won it. ] (]) 20:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


::College Football Data Warehouse went defunct around 2015 or 2016. Prior to that, I had sent David DeLassus probably 100 emails over the years with error corrections. Note that https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/ and many media guides also have a lot of errors, particularly concerning the late 1800s and early 1900s. I've reached out to sports infomation directors at various schools about correcting their errors with varying degrees of repsonsiveness. Recently, I discoved ], who was head coach at Butler and Wisconsin in the early 1890s, and is completely omitted or misattributed in media guides for both schools. Corrobation with contemporary sources is always best. We have a growing collection of media guide errors at ]. ] (]) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
== Schedule tables: State Abbreviations vs spelled out ==
* From my ten-plus years working on season articles, I found that all of the major sources for older game results (], ] (CFDW), and school media guieds) have some errors (I would estimate at less than one percent overall for Sports Reference and CFDW, a bit higher for some of the media guides). On balance, my assessment is that CFDW had fewer errors than Sports Reference. I found both to be reliable but not perfect. ] (who ran CFDW for many years) is/was a meticulous researcher, and his work is invaluable for many of the historically-but-not-currentley-significant programs whose results have never been compiled elsewhere. (Becuase of DeLassus' reliability, many newspapers and other publications relied on CFDW as their go-to source for historic game results. I hope that Misplaced Pages is now becoming that "go-to" source.) My best advice: Use one or the other to construct the initial skeleton for an article's schedule/results, but where available we should include citations to newspaper articles with actual game results as our best practice to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our content. ] (]) 22:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


:] lists a game vs. the crew of the ].
What does everybody think of and several others like it. Is there a policy we've been violating or an editor putting their own editorial preference in the schedule tables. {{Ping|jweiss11}} {{Ping|Corkythehornetfan}} {{Ping|Lizardthewizard}} {{Ping|Bagumba}}. Do any of you know?] (]) 18:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
: as well as another undated one vs. Seattle High School.
: ] states that postal abbreviations for states "should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text", but I don't think that a schedule chart qualifies as "normal text". ] (]) 18:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:.
::{{ec}}Ping doesn't work when you add it into an old message. The Ping ''must'' be accompanied by a new signature/timestamp. And {{u|Colonies Chris}} is pretty much the only one I ever see making these edits, and I'm pretty sure he was responsible for someone bringing up this topic at least once before. Is spelling out state names specified in the MOS? ] (]) 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Its been a while. I'm a bit rusty.] (]) 19:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC) :Do we have a standard for including "practice games" in team articles? ] (]) 18:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:] also says abbreviations are OK in tables if space is tight. But space doesn't seem that tight here.—] (]) 19:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
::I agree with Bagumba. Plus, I've never been a fan of abbreviating the states in the first place(!) and more recently I have been spelling out the months in the tables. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 23:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
: The schedule tables are crowded already, and we should be looking for ways to make them less dense, especially avoiding modifications that force the text within cells to crawl to a second row. A schedule table where the cells don't crawl is far more readable. One thing Colonies Chris has been doing to ameliorate this problem is to eliminate the state altogether when the site is a major city like ] where the article title does not include a state (e.g., diff). However, the conversion of state postal codes into full state names has, in many cases, forced the "Site" cell to push into a second row. See ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. Both of the policies cited (MOS:POSTABBR and MOS:ABBR) say that use of abbreviations are fine in these situations. ] (]) 14:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
::The standard formatting for the table is city with the state code, even for cities like ], where the state is not the article title, which should include the state code for tabular consistency. {{Ping|Colonies Chris}} we need to finally all get on the same page here. Can you please join this discussion? Thanks, ] (]) 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
::] sched table is wrapping on my phone, even with FL being used. Perhaps the wrapping solution is just to carriage return the city and state onto a separate line.—] (]) 01:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
::::First of all, I'd like to clarify that expanding state abbreviations isn't the main purpose of my recent changes, it's just one part of a larger set of improvements, which includes: removing piping on stadium names so that redirects can work as intended; replacing the use of the {{tl|alternative links}} template by redirects (creating appropriate redirects when necessary, e.g. ] --> Pioneer Bowl): as mentioned above, removing the state entirely from well-known cities (per ]); replacing piped links to subsections by appropriate redirects (e.g. ] --> ] (a new redirect); replacing hyphens by endashes where appropriate (e.g. ] --> ]); and many other minor fixes.
::::The general WP attitude to abbreviations is that there are a few (such as US, UK, NATO, EU, etc) which are always acceptable; the rest are OK to use when space is limited. That isn't the case here. It's pretty much meaningless to say that a change has forced a table entry onto two lines, as that depends entirely on your current window width. Make it wider, and you'll be back to one line; make it narrower and the entire table will be forced below the infobox and use the full width, resulting in all entries appearing on a single line. With my usual window width, I sometimes find that the 'Opponent ' column breaks over two lines, and I haven't touched those at all, nor has anyone complained about them. I don't see that 'tabular consistency' is an issue here; it's really not likely that a reader will find the occasional absence of a superfluous state code from a major city to be an obstacle to understanding. ] (]) 09:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in MOS that requires or even suggests removing State altogether from major cities. In addition to just having consistency, there is value to keeping them. In a roster, it shows if a program gets the majority of its players from a single state or are more of a national program ata aglacnce for the reader (may only apply to basketball as I don’t know if football shows hometown), it shows if a program only schedules within its state in an easily scannable format, etc. I don’t have a strong opinion on spelled out vs. abbreviation, but for college basketball articles I have been undoing these edits because project consensus has been for these to be present in infoboxes and templates and there is no guideline contradicting this. If you have “Baton Rogue, Louisiana” in a schedule table then you aren’t actually helping crowding of the table to put “New Orleans” and drop “Louisiana” so that argument makes no sense. ] (]) 15:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


::As for practice games, if you can find contemporary newspaper reports, I would include them in the schedule table and season or game summary detail sections, but if such a game is not counted in the team's official records (as in its media guide), for now I would note the game a practice game with a parenthical "practice" after the score, and not inlude the decision in the team's won–loss record. We may want to build some sort of standarized various for practice games into the table templates. For the 1905 Washington team, the game on October 4 against USS Chicago is listed in the media guide and counted in the team's official record, so I would treat that as a normal regular season game. The game played against Seattle High School, prior to that, probably in late September, is not mentioned in the media guide, and should be treated as a practice game. ] (]) 21:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
{{re|UCO2009bluejay|Cbl62|Lizardthewizard|Corkythehornetfan|Jweiss11}} These changes are still happening. You are invited to discuss this (among other things) at ].—] (]) 16:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:::This would appear to be an instance of the modern Media Guide being wrong.
:::Page 89 of the ''Tyee'' 1907 yearbook (which for some reason contains the 1905 season...) shows the ]'s first game as Whitman with no mention of either of the earlier games.
:::*https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/uwdocs/id/24090/rec/16
:::*https://gohuskies.com/sports/2020/3/5/uw-football-historical-stats-rosters.aspx
:::*https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/sidearm.nextgen.sites/washington.sidearmsports.com/documents/2020/3/26/1905_recap.pdf
:::The Seattle P-I also on the day of the event. ] (]) 22:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: that's missing from the ] and ] articles and the but present in the and seemingly in contemporary newspaper reports. ] (]) 03:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The most recent Idaho football media guide, from 2018, that I can find doesn't list this November 15, 1902 game either; see page 161 at https://govandals.com/documents/2018/7/30/2018_Football_Media_Guide.pdf. Note that the ''Spokemans Review'' article states "Today's contest, being not a championship game..." Usually the verbiage "championship game" from this era means more or less what we mean to be a conference game now. But neither school's media guide records the game at all. Perhaps this should be noted as a "practice" game? ] (]) 04:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


Quick comment, which I believe is consistent with the above replies. I've created multiple articles about the earliest seasons of ]. I've found multiple instances of the school's media guide and CFDW differing from contemporary newspaper accounts. This ranges from minor differences in scoring, to different overall records depending on which games of the season are considered to have been varsity contests. The approach I've taken is to list both what "modern" sources say, and what contemporary sources said—a couple examples are ] and ]. I've also seen "practice games" end up in varsity records as late as ]. ] (]) 00:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think this is a clear case where the relevant project consensus should have the authority to maintain the use of state codes in the tables. Their use does not violate any overarching Misplaced Pages-wide style. Colonies Chris should cease his editing on this point, and ideally, rever-se the changes he has made. Do others agree with me? ] (]) 21:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:* Regarding practice games, University of Chicago began its seasons in 1890s-1900s with several practice games against local high schools. Sources have included these as part of the team's annual records. If it were up to me, these games should not count but that's original research, so I have not removed them. ] (]) 01:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::Realistically, the only things I fully object to are a) shifting in spite of consensus when editors have asked to discuss b) I have a problem with changing<nowiki>]</nowiki> or <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>].</nowiki> as that would look odd with <nowiki>]</nowiki> c) Stadium links such as Florida Citrus Bowl per ] that doesn't mean I endorse changing all FCB links to Camping World Stadium. JW had an issue with Tewapack about that a while back. I would be willing to support consensus but will fight vigorously against issue B.] (]) 01:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I agree with that approach. Early New Hampshire teams had a number of matchups against non-college opponents—including high schools, athletic associations, and crews of US naval ships from a nearby shipyard—that remain part of their official record per the school's Media Guide. ] (]) 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


===Denny Field===
'''Archived ANI discussion''' is ]. Basically, the close was that any changes to states in tables via AWB require consensus.—] (]) 12:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
As for "Denny Field" at the University of Washington, the first reference I can find on newspapers.com is in 1907. This article from August 1901 discusses "Athletic park" and a potential on-campus alternative for football at Washington: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-post-intelligencer/159875152/. PK-WIKI, I see you redirected ] to ], which was built in 1994. Did you find a source to indicate the the Athletic Park of 1901 was on the same site? Confusingly, the ] also played at an "Athletic Park", better known as ] in St. Louis! ] (]) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:Bagumba, thanks for the update. Looks like an admin has stepped in here to put an end to the problematic ending. Now who wants to go and restore the state codes to the hundreds of schedule tables that Colonies Chris changed? :) ] (]) 20:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


:Yes, the Athletic Park was at the same location as current-day ] (or within a half-block or so, if not the exact site).
== Princeton season articles ==
:I started a discussion on this at ] with some preliminary sources.
:Per the sources I added today most of the 1901 games were played at Athletic Park, but in one game on October 6th UW which I take to mean ]. I'm guessing that many/most of the games prior to the mid-1900s were played at either Athletic Park or ]. But Misplaced Pages currently locates almost all of the post-1895 games to Denny Field, which should be researched/corrected. Perhaps they had a rudimentary field and practice site on campus circa 1895, which was later expanded with bleachers as documented in your clipping. Perhaps also later named in memoriam of a Denny (] 1899, ] 1903). ] (]) 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:The ] played their home games at ], except for their very first game vs. ] to end the season at ]. A stadium that seems to have been in the eventual ] area and is mentioned at ]. ] (]) 17:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


===1904 Arkansas Cardinals football team===
There is a requested move discussion underway at ] to rename two dozen 19th century Princeton football season articles. ] (]) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
While we are on the topic of descrepancies between conteporary coverage versus modern-day media guides and encyclopedias, ] is really a head scratcher. I brought this up a few months ago here, but didn't get any input. Please see: ]. Would love to some other eyes on this one. Thanks, ] (]) 05:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


== General manager ==
==converting college infobox to pro infobox==
What is the consensus on converting college football navboxes to pro football navboxes after a player has graduated or is no longer a member of a college football team, but has either not pursued a professional career or just never got signed by a pro team? I feel strongly that all college football players who are no longer college football players should have their navboxes converted to a pro football navbox. The only exception I can think of is if a player medically retires or retires from football for any reason sometime during their college football career. But anyone that has completed their college football careers, whether they graduate, declare early for the draft, or have exhausted their college eligibility should have their college navboxes converted to a pro football navbox. ] (]) 00:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
:Fully support. Basketball uses one template for all levels, ], and avoids this conversion exercise altogether. Perhaps consensus can change for football as well.—] (]) 00:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
::If a player has never signed a professional contract, or otherwise pursued a professional football carer, then there is no need to convert to the pro football player infobox. This issue most prominently affects old-time players (], ], etc.) many of whom played before the NFL even existed. As for modern day players, if they haven't signed professionally, I say leave it alone. If they ever do pursue a pro career later, it can always be changed at that time. The issue of having different college and pro football infoboxes is a whole separate issue. ] (]) 06:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
:::I think it should be converted to the pro infobox, mainly because it shows the "undrafted year." Otherwise, they are essentially identical infoboxes. I think the "undrafted year" is pertinent enough to warrant the conversion to the pro infobox. As stated above, the only exception would be for those that retired from football for one reason or another in the middle of their college careers. I think those should keep the college infobox, but everyone else that has graduated, declared early for the draft, and or exhausted their college eligibility should have their infoboxes converted to the pro infobox, regardless of whether they pursue a professional career or not. ] (]) 08:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


GMs may become a thing in college sports. gives a detailed scope of ]'s responsibilities. Might be worth a WP page at some point or expansion of ]. —] (]) 04:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record, this discussion is about infoboxes. I know you guys know that, just clarifying since people keep saying navbox. ] (]) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
:yeah sorry, I meant infoboxes, not navboxes. ] (]) 08:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
::I'd be all for having a single infobox as Bagumba suggested. But if not, then I say maintain the current convention. The infobox is meant to highlight important aspects of a player's career; if a player is notable solely for their college career, like ] or ], then it makes more sense to use the college infobox since it contains fields that cater to them, like bowl games and major. ] (]) 17:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support, but change name to Infobox football biography''' – I completely agree that it would be easier to just use one infobox. I'm pinging {{U|Jweiss11}} since he major editor for this WikiProject and I think his input would be valuable. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 02:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::Corky, so you're suggesting that we merge ] with ]. What about ]? ] (]) 03:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Jweiss11}} Not sure what {{U|Edday1051}} has in mind... he's the proposer... but that could easily be merged as well. I'm just supporting one infobox for all. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Edday1051 never actually proposed a merge. He was talking about when the NFL infobox should be used as opposed to the college infobox. ] (]) 03:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Oops, thanks. I read Bagumba's comments and figured this is what it was about... I still support a merge, though, if it were to happen {{wink}} ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


:Seems like a more directly involved, football-specific athletic director better suited for the NIL and transfer portal (basically free agency) era. It probably does warrant an expansion if this becomes a thing moving forward. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
== Notability of college football seasons ==
===First thread===
Hello there, I'd like to start a discussion about this project's standards for creating single season football team articles. The project's page says: "Single seasons can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage (see ])*. In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable. Seasons can also be grouped together into articles, depending on available content and interest." ].


== Two stand-alone articles for Georgia Tech games worth assessing ==
Misplaced Pages's notability standard for single sports seasons says: "Team season articles should consist '''mainly of well-sourced prose''', not just statistics and lists of players. Misplaced Pages is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." (emphasis in original) and "In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." ].


] has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion ]. An article for this past week's ] was also just created and has been tagged for notablity. Thoughts on that one? ] (]) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
And yet there are single season articles for Nicholls State from ] to ].** All have the bare minimum of prose, just the intro sentence, the coach, the field, the conference, and the season record. The only sources used for these articles are media guides and foxsports.com listing of schedules. There are zero reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the season. By the standards of this project and the guidelines of Misplaced Pages, none of these articles should exist. Of course, Nicholls State is just an example. I'm sure there many more like it.
:My view is the ] article is far from being ready and should be placed in Draft unless/until the creator(s) build it out. That said, whether an 8-overtime game, by itself, warrants its own article will be a point of contention. I would say no, as I feel that adding sharp/focused content to relevant articles (such as ] and the articles about the teams) is more helpful to readers than making them go to an independent article where they need to read through what will end up being an epic-like account of the game. ] (]) 02:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hard agree on UGA-GT being draftified. The only substantive content in the entire body of the article is under "Controversies" and it looks to me like ''SEVEN'' of the article's eleven citations are used just to support the fact that the game went into eight overtimes. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 02:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|Butters.From.SouthPark}} would you have any concerns/opposition to draftifying the UGA–GT article for now? It's not ready for mainspace in its current state and hasn't been edited constructively in three days apart from the scoring summary. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 20:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:No concerns ] (]) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Now, I know this project has a fetish with creating season articles. ]. And I'm not expecting many articles to be deleted as a result of this. But maybe the project can come to a consensus to stop creating such articles and use actual policy guidelines in deletion discussions. Perhaps the project can work on merging the ones that exist into groups of seasons - provided that there are reliable, independent, significant coverage of the group of seasons.
::Moved to ]. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|Jweiss11|Dmoore5556}} Unrelated to Georgia Tech, but we have another pop-up single game article for ] that includes some questionable lines neutrality-wise. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|Tejano512}} I would recommend you hold off on creating articles on standalone games as the vast majority of games are not worthy of their own articles. These articles have to pass ], and at present they do not. I think this article is best suited to redirect to ] (which, funnily enough, isn't even the rivalry page that's linked in the lead). ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:Resurrection of one the most storied rivalries in college sports. I'd say it's fairly significant and/or about as significant as a bowl game. ] (]) 22:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: * Routine says "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."
::@] Maybe, but what you say isn't relevant in this case. It comes down to what the sources say, and it is far, far too soon to make any sort of determination as to the long-term impact of this game from the perspective of outside sources (plus, the game itself was fairly mundane, so basically all of the "notability" being ascribed to the game is purely based on circumstance and pre-game hype, which is getting off on the wrong foot as far as I'm concerned). ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 22:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Follow-up note for anyone interested in participating: the deletion discussion for ] can be seen ''']'''. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Approval required for CFB schedule template edit to accommodate CFP seeding parameter ==
: ** Most of the more recent ones aren't any better, just longer. The only sources are about the coach changing.


]
The project has done amazing work, congratulations. And I am completely in favor of season articles for programs that receive significant coverage. But I think it has gone a bit too far in this regard. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 19:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
:I have to agree here. Not all team seasons are created equally. Why not have single season articles only for FBS teams? Or for teams currently in FBS? I don't know why we're creating season articles for the ] when programs like Ole Miss only have half their seasons accounted for. ] (]) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
::Simply put, ], and ]. Long version if it can pass notability, and can be well structured include it. If it doesn't we need to discuss it. I really don't care if Nicholls has a season and Ole Miss doesn't (yet!) as long as we do it right. By no means am I or the editor who created it, saying that NSU is MORE important than Ole Miss. But frankly somebody wanted to make it. But I am tired of all of the "basic cookie cutter (blah blah bare minimum stuff)" and declaring "Mission Accomplished." Waiting for an editor in 2067 to fill it out with stuff we easily could have done but didn't in haste to crank out something.] (]) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
:::While I'm personally not a fan of WP:NOHURRY (since it somewhat defeats the purpose of the article importance rating system), I do agree that quality should take precedence over quantity. Which is the main reason I haven't taken part in the season articles campaign. I'm never satisfied with the "bare minimum." This bare minimum approach has resulted in countless AfDs of team season articles over the past couple years. ] (]) 01:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::::NOHURRY is an essay and NOTCOMPULSORY has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is notability. "if it can pass notability" Exactly. Single season articles are NOT presumed to be notable. So, reliable, independent, significant coverage is needed to prove a season is notable. That means the coverage has to be added to the article at its creation. (BTW, Lizard, loved the LSP reference. My pee-wee football coach constantly told us we couldn't beat the sisters, but we never got the chance to prove him wrong.) -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::There's no current policy or guideline that says the sources that prove notability have to already be in the article. Per ]: "{{tq|If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page}}".—] (]) 09:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::There is a current policy that is directly on topic for this discussion about the notability of articles, which is the ] that people arguing against my points ignore. Season articles are not presumed to be notable. Notability can only be shown, it can't be simply talked about. And it is shown by reliable, independent, significant coverage. If I brought a particular page to AfD by challenging its notability, then that notability must be proven by showing the sources. You don't get to just say I think its notable, we have time to improve it, other articles exist, etc. Those arguments are just excuses to create and then abandon non-notable, stats-based articles. Which is exactly what has happened here. On your quote about editing policy, first it is not about the notability of the article. It's just a pretty milque-toast prescription to avoid bad deletions. Second, that is a very big "if" and it can't just assumed to be true. Just above that sentence, a listing of reasons for deletions says "#8 Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." That's the point I'm trying to make. To say again, I'm not looking to delete scores of articles, and agree that national power FBS teams deserve all their seasons to have articles and maybe even all FBS teams. What I am arguing is that the season creation project has gone way overboard, has completely ignored clear policy, and should be reigned in. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 11:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::::My contention was that your 18 November statement of "{{tq|That means the coverage has to be added to the article at its creation.}}" is incorrect. I did not state that seasons are inherently notable. There is no question a lot of AfDs could be avoided if the sources that demonstrate notability were already in the article; however, there is no current requirement for that to happen. Blindly nominating those types of articles for deletion would not be in the spirit of ]. They should be nominated if research finds them to be non-notable. Of course, anyone who regularly mass creates non-notable articles risks being hit with a ].—] (]) 13:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::::NCAA Division I football team season articles are notable. It's been taken to AfD, and it's been proved notable ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] and ] again. Media coverage of the games these teams play basically always exists, whether it's currently in the articles or not. The only exceptions I can think of are season articles for sub-NCAA D-I teams, or historical seasons for extremely small and obscure colleges. And, when cases like these have come along (like ] and ]), the members of this project have had no problem deleting or merging those types of articles as warranted. Also, I would say that ] is well out-of-date, does not represent the project's current line of thinking on this issue (i.e. encouraging the creation of "group" season articles like ], which have been all but exorcised from the encyclopedia within the past year or two), and is badly in need of revision. ] (]) 14:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


I have made all the changes necessary to incorporate seed= and oppseed= parameters. Example in the edit request. This would clean up a lot of confusion and follow college basketball norm. Thanks ] (]) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{outdent|8}} {{U|Bagumba}}, I'm not talking about blindly nominating articles for deletion, but getting this project to acknowledge policy ]. Not inherently notable means that research should be done to prove they are notable before creation, not creation first and then requiring research to prove they are not notable. Of course people are mass creating season articles, so why doesn't this project police their own and stop the problem? -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 18:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


:@] sorry to randomly ping you, but I know you're an admin who is also involved with the project. I think Admanny has an excellent idea here - any way you could help him get it implemented? ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
{{User|Ejgreen77}}, I'm not talking about current FBS teams' seasons. I think seasons of historic programs and those in FCS and lower should be taken case by case. Lots of these seasons are notable, but before creation, editors should heed this policy: "Team season articles should consist '''mainly of well-sourced prose''', not just statistics and lists of players. Misplaced Pages is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." Starting with the team page and then working out to groups of seasons and then single season articles should be the standard practice, not creating every season and waiting for a[REDACTED] gnome to go around adding significant coverage to show notability. While not neccessarily disagreeing on any keep decision you link to, I do note that ] was never mentioned in any of them. ''Routine coverage'' always exists of all football seasons, but that doesn't count for anything in determining notability. There are hundreds of articles on sub FCS, historic programs, and small and obscure colleges. That's the problem. Here's an example, ], chosen as a important program . The ''team'' article is cookie-cutter prose, lot of stats, and only three sources: the branding guide, NCAA record book, and an NFL draft listing. There is not even a single line of text explaining why the program was shut down in 1964. What is the point of creating over 50 season articles for this program just because they won a national championship in 1928? I'm curious as to your suggested revisions to the project's essay WP:CFBSEASON. Is the project moving single season articles to groups of seasons articles, and groups of season articles to team pages? -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 18:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
:I fully agree that several of the programs listed ] under "Historically important programs" are suspect. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of criteria for inclusion there other than people's personal feelings about the importance of the program. In terms of routine coverage, please see this: ]. As far as CFBSEASON, I would revise it to say that NCAA D-I seasons (FBS & FCS) are notable. Sub-NCAA D-I (NCAA D-II & D-III, NAIA, etc.) seasons are notable only for national championship teams. That would bring it up to date for what the reality is on how we are doing things on the project today. ] (]) 18:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::Great, sounds good, and I agree. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::: I agree that there are a number of programs included as historically significant that probably don't warrant that title, but the Detroit Titans are ''not'' such a case. Aside from being recognized by Parke Davis as the co-national champion for 1928 (see ]), they were a major program for decades, with ] and ] serving as head coaches for many years (] was also a player and AD for many years), a number of All-Americans (including CFHOF inductee ]), ] leading the NCAA in rushing in 1940, ] going on to a lengthy NFL career, and the program's membership in a major conference (the ]) and conference championships in 1949, 1953, and 1955. I have done the research and can verify that the Detroit Titans football teams did receive substantial, non-trivial coverage before the program was disbanded in the early 1960s. ] (]) 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
*'''Forget AGF this is extortion because he wants his 1992 external link.''' It may be a valid conversation but the pretext matters .] (]) 23:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::Oh my word. You've got to be kidding me. {{re|Jweiss11}} makes a joke and I respond and now it's extorsion. Get over yourself. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
:::I'd still say FCS is a stretch. Nicholls is FCS. If you can find non-routine sources and write significant prose for ] I'd consider changing my mind. ] (]) 23:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Finding the sources is one thing, but accessing them may be another matter entirely. A quick search of newspapers.com turned up what look like many articles from 1983 in Louisiana papers about Nicholls State football, but they're all paywalled (and at the level that the ] can't access). I suspect this is the case with pre-2000s seasons for a lot of teams; plenty of media coverage, but most of it's in sources that are hard to get at these days. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 00:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Sources for the ] (This one is the same article, it stretched to two pages. ) ] (]) 02:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Only the first two look beyond ], and barely. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 01:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::::::Right, and most of them are from local papers. You could probably find similar coverage of upper division high schools in the state. ] (]) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
*I fear this whole thread is my fault. Pretty sure I was the one to add the "historically important programs" with the intention of adding those neglected, former major and maybe a few minor programs. There was no FBS and/or FCS in those days, but that seems analogous. If they happen to be Division III or NAIA or something obscure today, I would emphasize that they are under the "historically important" section because of their history. Say NYU doesn't even have a football team today. There were some recent AfDs for those in the Minnesota section, which was one of the hardest ones to do. I was motivated to create articles for Hamline and Carleton because according to some research about the ], both are some of the very oldest football teams. ] (]) 16:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::It isn't on my part. The problem isn't just former great powers with defunct or small division teams today. Those are probably a minority of the questionable seasons created. Sorry Chico State, but the Wildcats have always played in Division II type conferences and were never a national football power. I did get interested in this issue due to Hamline and Carleton's first season articles. I'm a Carleton football grad, which is how I noticed the article in the first place. I was very curious about why there was template full of red-linked season articles for Hamline, a Division III school with a one sentence tautology for a ] article.
::The List article you linked is a perfect example of the right way to document the minor points of early collegiate football. That info is truly notable and the form it is presented in provides a ton of knowledge without clicking on tons of links. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 16:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


:Pinging {{ping|Dissident93}} and {{ping|Frietjes}} as they last edited the template this calendar year Thanks ] (]) 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
===Cbl62 weighs in===
As the initiator of the season article campaign, this is a topic I would normally weigh in on more thoroughly, but I am traveling for a month in South America without reliable access to Internet except on rare occasions, of which this is one. My views as follows:
* We should at a minimum have a presmumption of notability for all historic seasons of Division I FBS football programs. As Ejgreen noted, the basis for such a presumption has been established in multiple AfDs.
* Below the FBS level, there are many current and historical programs where season articles make sense. However, I am not sure that a presumption of notability is warranted for lower levels, including FCS. In such cases, the article creators should take the time to ensure that there is adequate, non-trivial coverage to support the creation of the articles.
* I concur in Lizard's comments about the lack of complete runs for top level programs, including many Power Five schools. If people are looking for ways to contribute, I would suggest picking a Power Five team to complete.
* I agree that WP:CFBSEASON is outdated and needs revision.
* As for the concerns raised about the mass creation of "half ass" season articles, I also sympathize. Many seem to think that one sentence of prose with a schedule table is adequate. In keeping with the notion that Wikpedia is not a stat book, we should be more focused on ''prose'' than regurgitating a schedule table that is already available on many other web pages. IMO a recommended minimum for article creation should include the following basic information set forth in ''prose'': (i) the team's record for that season (including conference record where applicable), (ii) the name of the head coach and the year of his tenure in that position, (iii) where the team finished in national rankings, if applicable, (iv) where the team ranked in its conference, if applicable, and (v) the results of any bowl game, where applicable. At the next level of importance (not essential to article creation but nice to see), I would rank (vi) identities of players winning major awards, including Heisman and All-America, (vii) where available, the team's statistical leaders in rushing/passing/scoring (readily available on SR/College Football for the past 60 years for most programs), (viii) identity of team captain(s), and (ix) totals of points scored and points allowed.
Those are my general thoughts. ] (]) 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
:Again, I'll just stipulate that all FBS season articles are notable. For historic, FCS and lower, this is well and good, and I agree with Cbl62's general thoughts, ... but. Everyone in this thread fails to even mention actual WP policy, ]. It states explicity and emphatically that seasons articles should consist '''mainly of well-sourced prose'''. If articles hit all nine of the above points (that is they are nationally ranked, played in a bowl game, and have major individual awards in addition to statistics), then an article should be mainly prose. And luckily, all of those nine things can usually be sourced fairly easily. But, the WP policy requires them to ''be'' well-sourced, meaning they have citations, not just that the citations exist. The other point I would like to see discussed is a guideline to work from team article to group-of-seasons articles to season articles. Of course, there are some seasons that could get an article right away, such as the ]. But in general, and to prevent someone from creating articles for 74 seasons of ] (which doesn't even have a team page!!!), I would make the following suggestion for CFBSEASON: require the team's article to be at least of start quality before groups of seasons articles are created. And require several groups-of-seasons articles to be start quality before every season in the program's history is created. Sound reasonable? -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:Here's another procedural idea. Create a "List of X football seasons" article before creating all the season articles. If you want to see a great example of how season articles should look, head over to ]. A couple of random seasons, ], ], and ]. It looks like they have a great resource to draw from, , but they used the resource really well to write prose. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::In response to Mnnlaxer's above points:
::* As Bagumba noted above, there is no requirement that articles be fully sourced before they are created. Nor is there any policy basis for a rule that several articles in a similar class must reach "Start" level before others can be created. I would favor an attempt to establish "recommended" elements for article creation, but I see no reason to alter Misplaced Pages policy to create new restrictions on article creation.
::* As for WP:NSEASONS, bear in mind that NSPORTS (of which NSEASONS is part) is an inclusive standard intended to identify topics where a presumption of notability is appropriate. Topics that don't meet the NSPORTS standards may still have articles if WP:GNG is satisfied. My suggestion is and has been that a presumption of notability is warranted for all historic seasons played by programs at the FBS level and that lower level programs can still support season articles so long as GNG is satisfied.
::* NSEASONS applies to all college sports, not just college football. Most college sports in the US (field hockey, lacrosse, water polo, cross country, tennis, golf, soccer, etc.) don't receive sufficient coverage to warrant the same systematic approach with single season articles. However, college football is in an entirely different league when it comes to coverage (indeed, even for the first four or five decades of the NFL's existence, college football received more extensive coverage than the NFL), and season articles for college football seasons are ''far'' more likely to pass WP:GNG than any other college sport.
::* As for ], I previously ran a couple test cases and found the articles to be borderline, but within the realm of reason, when it comes to WP:GNG. See, e.g., ] where I did some quick, preliminary investigation and found press coverage that appears sufficient to pass WP:GNG, some of which was added to the article. Rather than attacking ], I'm inclined to applaud their diligence in spending several months creating articles that go beyond mere one-sentence stubs and which fill out a realm of college football that has not previously received this type of systematic, comprehensive, and encyclopedic treatment. ] (]) 10:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
::::Fair enough. My suggestions are just that, a rule of thumb rather than a policy. I disagree about Chico State, but I apologized to Ocfootballknut. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 16:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, can't resist. The 1953 Chico State refs are all ] coverage. Very unlikely it would pass WP:GNG. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 07:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Agree to disagree. ] (]) 12:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
===Don't you think it's time===
It has been a couple weeks since I threw down the notability gauntlet and since the discussion stopped, nobody's done nothing to revisit ]. I won't participate in that discussion, but my hope is that it comes more in line with encyclopedia-wide ] standards. (College football is great and all, but it's not so special that it gets to decide its own rules). In general, I would hope the season content is encouraged to start in the program article, move to coach-era based articles, and only then make single season articles. And the over-riding principal is to avoid articles that aren't mostly well-sourced prose. It's a perfect time to do it, everyone's pumped up but there aren't great games for a while. So, go to it boys.


::Thank you to {{ping|Dissident93}} for approving the request! I have gone through every team in the playoff's schedule to implement the new seed and oppseed parameters. Works perfectly! {{ping|PCN02WPS}}, I am alright with removing rankings from the bracket now. Side note: {{ping|TheGoodGeneral 1}}, I see your efforts to "standardize" how seeding would look in the schedule tables, thank you for that, just letting you know this is a thing now. Thanks ] (]) 01:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and it's not just a season article issue. ] are the most non-noteworthy people you could find on wikipedia. None of them besides ] and ] should have articles. Keep the names and records on the list article, but 20 articles that say "X was an American football coach. He was the head football coach at Faber College in Springfield, ???. He held that position for Y seasons, from Z until ZZ. His coaching record for the Blutos was A–B–C. This ranks him #Zero at College in total wins and #Nobody at the school in winning percentage." What exactly is the point? ({{re|Paulmcdonald}}) -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 04:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Glad to see it works without issue. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|PCN02WPS}} I pinged the wrong person my bad! ] (]) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Info on D-III football == == Standalone CFP first round articles ==


Hi all, just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that ] has been created by {{u|Tejano512}}. It was redirected by {{u|CoconutOctopus}} shortly afterwards but undone and expanded by Tejano less than 20 minutes later. I was under the impression that we would not be creating standalone articles on first round games - thoughts? Pinging {{ping|Dmoore5556|Jweiss11|PK-WIKI|Zzyzx11}} as all of you commented on ] where I posed that question earlier this year and/or at ] where the details of individual edition CFP articles were discussed. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 01:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey guys, hope you had a great thanksgiving and are enjoying the final games of the season. I just cleaned up the ] article and it had some overly detailed info on D-III NFL draft picks and starting dates of new D-III football programs. I parked the info here: ]. Maybe somebody wants to use it somewhere. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 06:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
: I'm still of the (rather strong) opinion that the first-round (non-bowl) games can and will be adequately covered in the ] article and the articles for the participating teams. ] (]) 01:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. Not sure how to proceed with this though, maybe try a PROD? Open to suggestions. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::: For now, I rolled back the article to the redirect, and left a message on the talk page of Tejano512. ] (]) 01:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Normally, I wouldn't disagree, however I believe there are many reasons why a stand alone article should be considered/is warranted: Nearly unprecedented seasons for many teams, First time CFP expansion creating unique matches (teams barely missed higher seed), Highly covered teams (pre, reg and post season), Extensive media coverage, Prominent players, coaches, staff and fans, etc, First match in history, etc ] (]) 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I believe those aspects can be well covered in the team articles and the ] article. Note that ] is a dedicated article about the playoff, independent of the broader ] article. Having a "grouped" article covering more than a single matchup (game or series) between two teams has work effectively in, for example, baseball—such as ], ], and their National League equivalents. Other editors are welcome to opine as well. ] (]) 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I oppose creating standalone articles for every single CFP first round game. As Dmoore5556 mentioned, there are currently no standalone articles for every single MLB Wild Card Series and Divisional Series game. There are also currently no standalone articles for every single NBA playoff series, every single NHL series, and certainly no standalone articles for every single NFL playoff game. Otherwise, where will it end if these playoffs -- not just the CFP but the other postseasons I mentioned as well -- eventually expand to include additional teams? The only way I would support a separate article on a CFP first round game is if, ''after it is played'', passes criteria #4 of ]: {{tq|A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game.}} This is why some individual NFL playoff games like the ] ''do'' have separate articles, but most other NFL playoff games do not. ] (]) 04:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:] is a relevant guideline: {{tq2|... at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).}} Moreover, ] is not even met at this point.—] (]) 11:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


::I think our best bet is to handle CFP first round games at ] and relevant team season articles, not with stand-alone articles. ] (]) 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== NCAA Color Templates ==
:::Agreed. The CFP first round games should be discussed at ] and relevant team season articles. I also think it may be worth thinking about whether all bowls should have a stand-alone article moving forward with the implementation of a multi-round playoff structure, similar to other sports. - ] (]) 17:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::* Agreed. ] (]) 17:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Mexican college football champions ==
In the labyrinth of NCAA infoboxes, I found at least three different color styles being used across Misplaced Pages. Those are:


Every now and then, we as a project come across a new area to be developed. E.g., ] and ], ], ], etc. ] has created ], the 2024 champion of a Mexican college football competition. It appears well sourced, but I know little about college football in Mexico. Do we have other articles on Mexican college football champions? Is there an applicable list or category? Is this a notable vein of gold that should be mined? Or merely ]? (If nothing else, I've found a new candidate for favorite team mascot: "Borregos Salvajes" = "Savage Sheep") ] (]) 19:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Color box|#005EB8}} 005EB8 in Module:College color/data (mostly from the last three years)<br/>
: To answer your (first) question: no, I believe this to be the first Mexican college football season article on Misplaced Pages, either English or Spanish. American football has a century-old history in Mexico and receives extensive coverage, especially at the collegiate level. The ], located in the gridiron hotbed of ], are ''the'' dominant college team. They even broke away from the ] in the 2010s to create their own league, {{ill|CONADEIP|es|Comisión Nacional Deportiva Estudiantil de Instituciones Privadas (fútbol americano)}}, although they have since returned. ] (]) 20:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
: I'll also add that while the competition is around the DIII/JUCO level, the amount of coverage (at least for this team) is more akin to a high-performing DII or FCS program. ] (]) 02:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== First-round CFP games, bowls? ==
{{Color box|#0064A8}} 0064A8 and {{Color box|#0065A8}} 0065A8 used across various templates.


While in the ] article the first-round bowl games, being played at campus sites, have been collectively noted as "Non-bowl game" and excluded from the Bowl record by conference totals/table, the NCAA is counting those games along with traditional bowls . As we know, the NCAA doesn't sanction the CFP, they are independent entities, but NCAA records are rather comprehensive. Input welcome on whether the first-round games should "count" is welcome. Note that this will also affect the counts and percentages at ]. ] (]) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
: Given that other sources (such as USA Today, ) are also lumping first-round games in with named bowls, I'm going to be ] and update the bowl game article to include CFP first-round games. This will add 4 games, thus 8 teams to the overall counts (3 Big Ten, 2 ACC, 2 SEC, 1 Independent). ] (]) 21:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think they are ''bowl'' games, but they're certainly post-season games with the equal/greater important to the lesser bowls. Article titles can likely stay as-is, stats should be updated as if they were bowl games, and article leads should have {{tpq|"...and post-season playoff games"}} or etc. appended. I imagine that's how the reliable sources will handle it but we should observe as they do. ] (]) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I've updated the infoboxes of ] and ] to include last night's CFP first round game in bowl records. However, ] and ] need to be updated accordingly. We should keep an eye of the articles for progams and coaches of the first round participants. ] (]) 15:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== East-West New Year's Day postseason games, bowls? ==
Which one is supposed to be implemented for which years? When was there a color change? <span style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;">'''<font color="white">]</font>'''</span> ] 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


Relevant to the above topic discussing if first-round playoff games are "bowls".
:{{Ping|Corkythehornetfan}} As our resident expert on color coding, do you have any idea about this?] (]) 02:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Cards84664}} Are you talking about ]? If so, #005EB8 is the color used by the NCAA Divisions I and III and Division II uses #0079C2 {{color box|#0079C2}}. I just didn't have time implementing it throughout all of the navboxes and forgot about it. Not sure when the color change for the NCAA happened, but I'd just go ahead use the module in all of the NCAA templates. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 04:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
:::Yep, navboxes. <span style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;">'''<font color="white">]</font>'''</span> ] 13:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Cards84664}} Then yeah, go ahead and use the Module template. I'm not sure who was inserting those colors when the templates were created and only recently (about two months ago) were the NCAA Division I thru III added to the Module for those templates. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


In 1924, ] and ] were both unbeaten, played to a 20–20 tie, and were .
== Sports rivalry study - propriety as source ==


In two New Year's Day East-West post-season classics in California, Stanford ] unbeaten Notre Dame in Pasadena, while California ] unbeaten Penn in Berkeley.
I'm cross-posting for more eyes a query I received on my Talk page last night. The discussion centers on a set of additions to certain sports rivalry articles (example ). The additions didn't appear to be reliably sourced (as well as a bit spammy) and I undid a series of them in October. Anyhow the posting editor has asked perfectly reasonable questions about it and I figured it made sense to throw the issue open for broader discussion. (IMHO the project doesn't meet ] and ] but maybe I've missed something.) Thanks for any and all comments.


Contemporary newspapers the sharing the top billing, both described as post-season unbeaten vs. unbeaten East-West big games.
<blockquote>
Hi John,


Is our coverage of post-season college football currently lacking due to our modern conception of "Bowls"? That terminology was probably popularized circa ] with the introduction of the Sugar and Orange bowls. Are we missing coverage of other earlier January 1st post-season games? Does the Penn game deserve to be listed at ], ], ], etc.? ] (]) 05:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I am a college student working on an Independent Study centered around sports rivalry research, known as the Know Rivalry Project. The purpose of our research is to gain an understanding of fan perceptions of sports rivalries. A little over a month ago, I created an account and made edits to a series of college football rivalry articles that cracked our top 10 rivalries according to our research. The edits/additions to the posts were removed due to them appearing to be for promotional purposes. Please know that was not the intent of my professor and I. We believe that our research has value, and that it would be interesting to fans reading about the rivalries.


:CC ], which was originally supposed to feature Oregon but was opposed by the PCC in favor of only playing the Rose Bowl. ] scheduling a post-season December 30th game vs. ], which was played. ] (]) 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
We would like to post the additions about our research again, and we have edited the section I would be adding to remove any appearance of the posting being for our personal gain. Again, we just think that fans reading the articles would find the information interesting. Below, is the edited piece that I would be adding. Would you mind reading it for me and letting me know if it would be acceptable? I just don't want to post all of them again and have them be removed, or action taken against my account. I've also included the citation that will be used in the post, as this research is peer-reviewed, and for academic purposes.


== Bowl game articles -- text and links for naming sponsorships ==
Edited post detailing the rivalry research for the Top 10 most intense rivalries, according to our research:


Hello college football editors! Which of these two styles do you prefer, and why, for the lead paragraphs of bowl game articles? Or if neither, what do you suggest? In both of these styles, the short name of the game (e.g. "2025 Rose Bowl") as well as the sponsored name (e.g. "Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential") are mentioned in boldface in the lead paragraph. (1) Mention the sponsored name in the first sentence, after the short name, without a link to the sponsoring company -- like . (2) Mention the sponsored name in the last sentence, with a link to, and very short description of, the sponsoring company -- like . <span style="font-family: cursive;">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></span> 19:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
In a survey of thousands of fans, the versus rivalry was ranked as the in college football, with topping that list. The study was operated by students and faculty at Northern Kentucky University, and measured fans’ perceptions of rivalries by providing survey respondents with 100 “rivalry points” to allocate across their favorite team’s opponents (Tyler & Cobbs, 2017). Specifically in this rivalry, fans allocated of their possible 100 points to , while fans reciprocated with of their 100 rivalry points towards . **By aggregating the mean rivalry points allocated by each team’s fans within a rivalry (200 points maximum sum; in this rivalry), the survey results allow for a comparison of the intensity of rivalry feelings within a matchup and across teams’ opponents.


:I would like to advocate for style (2) myself. One reason is that it makes the lead sentence less messy and more direct. Another reason is that I'm sure some of our readers would like find out at least some minimal information about the sponsoring companies. In the example above, some people won't know what Prudential is, but style (2) tells them in three words -- "financial service company" -- and if they want to find out more they can just click through. (A lot of last year's bowl game articles follow style (2), but we need not feel bound by tradition.) <span style="font-family: cursive;">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></span> 19:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Please forgive the unedited portions, of course I would include the information such as teams involved in any post I make.


:I'll give my thoughts since I was the one that brought this up on Mudwater's talk yesterday - I used to use (2) exclusively but have since switched to (1), as can be seen in my more recent articles (], ], ], etc.). I think it looks cleaner and keeps the boldface stuff in one place, plus that construction is used widely elsewhere for other sports (], ], ], ], etc.). I like having the full name in the first sentence, instead of giving a shortened name and then coming back to the full name at the end, and I don't think we owe it to the sponsors to link and describe their companies (or at least we don't owe it to them any more than the soccer articles do). ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This is the edit to the above for the Top 10 most unbalanced rivalries, according to our research (all the rest will remain the same):


== AfD heads-up ==
By computing the difference in the mean rivalry points allocated by each team’s fans within a rivalry ( in this rivalry), the survey results allow for a comparison of the balance of rivalry feelings within a matchup and across teams’ opponents.


For all that are interested, ] has been nominated for deletion. The nomination is available here: ''']'''. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Finally, here is the citation we will be using:


== 2025 season articles ==
Tyler, B. D., Cobbs, J. (2017). All Rivals Are Not Equal: Clarifying Misrepresentations and Discerning Three Core Properties of Rivalry. Journal of Sport Management, 31 (1), 1-14.


Looks like a bunch of editors have starting creating 2025 season articles already. I thought we had agreed not to create the next season's articles until the current season is over. That's doesn't happen until January 20. Nevertheless, I don't we should start deleting stuff that would just have to be recreated in a few weeks. But if and when you do create 2025 season articles, it would be helpful you could properly categorize any such articles, create any needed categories and standings templates, and properly tag and rate the talk pages for such articles, templates, and categories. By default, FBS team season articles should be set to mid importance. FCS and anything lower should be set to low importance by default. Also, please do not copy over offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox from 2024 to 2025 (ahem, looking at you {{u|Butters.From.SouthPark}}). No one knows what schemes teams are going to running next season. It may be the same thing as this season, particularly if the coaching staff stays the same, but we don't know. Please wait until you have a media guide or some other reliable source, likely not before late next summer, before populating the scheme fields. Thanks, ] (]) 05:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate your help. We would love to add this information about our rivalry research to these articles, and we hope (my professor and I) that you can help us make sure we do so while staying within the Misplaced Pages rules. Thanks!


] (]) 05:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)</blockquote> :{{u|Motdattan}}, heads up here regarding the offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox. Thanks, ] (]) 04:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 12:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ::Got it. Will delete them from now. I get the point that they may not run the same scheme even though the staff doesn't change. ] (]) 21:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{tq|I thought we had agreed not to create the next season's articles until the current season is over.}} That's my recollection as well, and we should not be creating season articles way in advance. However, I think it's fine once the "regular season" is over at the end of November. Especially with the new playoff system prolonging the season all the way out to January 20 (the championship game), I don't see a need to wait until January 21 to start creating 2025 season articles. That said, any 2025 season article will be vulnerable to deletion or draftification if it lacks appropriate sourcing. So any articles created should be supported by the best sourcing available. And if good sourcing is not available, probably best to create the article as a draft until the sourcing becomes available. ] (]) 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've seen this site before. I don't think there's reason to believe it's ''not'' reliable. But there's ] concerns. A google search of "Know Rivarly project" brings up very little (if any) results for it being discussed in reliable secondary sources. So at the moment they seem to be relatively obscure; we're not talking ] here. I say either leave these edits out, or limit them to maybe one or two sentences instead of dedicating a whole section. ] (]) 14:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


::Reminder to {{u|Motdattan}} and anyone else, when you create articles like ], please remember to properly tag the talk page with appropriate project banners. Failure to do so may lead to unfamiliar editors tagging the wrong project at ]. {{u|Dclemens1971}}, note that college football season articles like this should be tagged for this project, WikiProject College football, not ]. Thanks, ] (]) 19:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
First, thank you for being so thorough regarding sources. That is great to see on the back end of Misplaced Pages and makes me think about reconsidering criticism of my students' frequent use of Misplaced Pages as their source (though they could/should seek original sources, as I'm sure you would encourage as well). As you may have guessed, this is LukenA4's professor composing this reply with him (student). I (NKU professor) am replying in the hope that we can clear up a potential miscommunication regarding the Know Rivalry research data and results. The study is NOT a student's independent study. A small part of his (LukenA4)'s independent study is to make the project's results publicly available. The study itself was undertaken over the course of a couple years to gather data via survey from over 10,000 sports fans. The study's method and academic findings have been published or is in-press (accepted for forthcoming publication) in several peer-reviewed research journals, including Journal of Sport Management (2017, v. 31, issue 1, pg. 1-14), Soccer & Society (doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2017.1399609), and Sport Marketing Quarterly (two articles in forthcoming December edition, one of which used the 'rivalry points' method as an independent variable in demand estimations of sports games). LukenA4 sourced his posts with the citation for the Journal of Sport Management article because that peer-reviewed publication explains in depth the methodology undertaken for the study, while also offering the academic findings regarding three core qualities of rivalry itself. Beyond these peer-reviewed publications, the findings specific to teams have been featured in over 30 media stories (secondary sources) including the Wall Street Journal, Slate, Fox Sports and even Tell Me Something I Don't Know (TMSIDK) by Freakonomics coauthor Stephen Dubner. The full list of these secondary features is available at knowrivalry.com/media/ We fully understand and appreciate your scrutiny for this type of work, but hopefully this information alleviates many of your concerns about the quality and broader dissemination of the work. Lastly, please note there is no monetary promotional purpose here. Know Rivalry has no revenue purpose and is strictly academic (no advertising on the site) for dissemination of data for use by other researchers or the general public. Actually, this line of research started when a faculty colleague of mine and I were frustrated with the lack of cross-sectional, empirical quantitative research focused on rivalry. Hence, we designed and started the Know Rivalry Project and have sought to include students in the research journey where possible/appropriate. Thank you for considering our work to add to the knowledge surrounding this fun and often-debated topic!
:::Thanks for clarification. I am indeed not aware of every possible banner available in Rater. ] (]) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I can do that. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


{{u|Butters.From.SouthPark}}, please note the above about not copying over offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox from 2024 to 2025. Thanks, ] (]) 02:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
] (]) 21:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
:{{u|Dogloverr16}}, heads up to you as well. Thanks, ] (]) 02:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. There are people here who try to keep things close to sources, and make sure that the sources are sound - it's Misplaced Pages's policy after all - but there are so many pages that it's pretty easy for junk to work its way in, and (sometimes) stay for a good long while. Nature of the beast I guess. As to this project, I have to observe that Misplaced Pages really isn't intended as a vehicle for publicity or "spreading knowledge" or anything like that - really what we try to do is to summarize things that other, established, reliable sources have ''already said'' about a subject, things that are already knocking about and warrant mention here. The comment above may help illustrate the problem in this case. Just assuming for a moment that the underlying research is sound, and peer-reviewed, and undertaken by competent practitioners and all the rest - well, it's still obscure. I know it's been covered in a lot of places but really it's kind of a one-off item in each case, a kind of "look at how our fans think of fans". It just strikes me as, I dunno, spotty. And again Misplaced Pages isn't the place to leverage the viewership into an expanded audience; indeed if a student's purpose is to publicize something that seems under-publicized - well, Misplaced Pages's precisely the wrong place for that. The entries here come ''after'' that's been done, not before it. Now - all that being said, that's just me talking, and with your explanation, I hope other editors will weigh in and we'll see what the consensus is. Thanks for the note! (Oh PS. You really need to create your own account. They frown on multiple uses of the same account here and as harsh as it may seem, your student's account may wind up blocked for even an innocent transgression.) Let's see what others say. ] (]) 22:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


== All-South independent football teams ==
____________


{{u|Papichulo52}} recently created a series of 27 articles for "All-South" independent teams, all-star teams for major independents in the South for the years 1968 to 1994. Most of these articles have been tagged with ], and yesterday, {{u|Reywas92}} PROD'd one of them, ]. I obejctived to the PROD because this subject isn't obivously non-notable, and these articles should be adjudicated together, either in discussion here and, perhaps, at AfD. Note that we have analogs for these articles at ], ], ], plus the many articles for all-conference teams. {{u|Gjs238}}, {{u|GhostInTheMachine}}, and {{u|Hey man im josh}} each did a bunch of cleanup on these articles, but they still need some work. And more importantly, what does everyone thing about notability here? Thanks, ] (]) 02:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC) First, thanks for your very prompt reply and allow me to quickly demonstrate one manner in which this research is applicable--above on this page in a different stream is a discussion of IF Michigan State vs. Ohio State is a rivalry worthy of note; according to MSU and OSU fans in our study, you rightly concluded it is not (MSU fans allocate 4/100 rivalry pts to OSU, whose fans recipricate with 0.25/100 rivalry pts). Second, I apologize for the transgression in etiquette and you’ll see I now have my own account, Cobbsj1 and the coauthor of the rivalry studies in question, as you recommended. Perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of Misplaced Pages. You seem to be suggesting that not only must the topics listed in Misplaced Pages be well publicized and of the public interest, but also the information included in entries must be well publicized enough to show up in a Google search, for instance (per Lizard reply on 11/30). However, that is not how I interpret the mission statement of the Wikimedia foundation, “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.” Accordingly, I see your point as related to the bar of public prominence needed for Misplaced Pages topics/pages, but we are not seeking a Misplaced Pages page for Know Rivalry, nor do we think it has earned such designation. We are simply trying to disseminate empirically-based educational content regarding a topic (sports rivalries) popular enough to maintain several different Misplaced Pages entries. The fact that our cross-sectional rivalry research is on such a topic that garners enough attention for many different Misplaced Pages entries does not—in my opinion—make our research “spammy” or “spotty” (though please note that I appreciate the frank dialog). On the contrary, we have taken great pains to collect data from all these different fan bases in a manner suitable for academic peer-reviewed acceptance, and then analyze it by dyads (individual rivalries) across thousands of possible team vs. team combinations. Do we have distinct data from different fan groups across many different rivalries? Yes. Has some of the media coverage focused on specific teams of most interest to the outlet’s readers? Yes, but I do not see how these factors make the research spam or spotty. While I understand your concern for publishing obscure content (which I’m still not convinced this qualifies as such), it seems somewhat strange to me that you would not welcome empirical, academic research results legitimized by multiple peer-reviewed journals and covered by media outlets such as WSJ as acceptable content within Misplaced Pages pages dedicated to that exact topic. In some ways, such resistance and insistence on wide dissemination of information as a qualification for inclusion on pages reinforces the skepticism of the use of Misplaced Pages as a reference source (i.e., wide dissemination by secondary sources in today’s digital world does not necessarily qualify information as legitimate). If the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to inform users of the most widely disseminated information about the most noteworthy topics, then I am not sure how its purpose differs from that of search engines, apart from compositional format. That being said, I remain encouraged by the source investigation you have demonstrated, though I respectfully question the preliminary judgment here. Lastly, I hope this response is not taken as overly argumentative. I have rather enjoyed the back-and-forth of frank discussion and consideration, and appreciate your willingness to engage and consider the issue in the framework of Misplaced Pages’s purpose as an informational platform for public. ] (]) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Cobbsj1}} I found your work online at http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/pdf/10.1123/jsm.2015-0371 (though there's no rule that sources can't be ]). A cursory glance indicates this has been vetted in academic circles, and seems reliable. However, my objection to the proposed edits is that a specific ranking is ] for specific rivalry articles unless they are well publicized. This is not to discount the quality of your work. However, since editorial oversight on Misplaced Pages is based on crowdsourcing, basing content on popular viewpoints is the objective approach taken on this site. Consequently, this is not the place to ].—] (]) 08:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


: My indirect input is the series of articles appear to lack context. They could likely benefit from an "anchor" article that explains the All-South independent teams—what entity bestowed the honor, how were players selected (e.g. a poll of media/coaches/other players), was this only at the University level or did it also include Small College players, did the composition of the "team" change over time (it appears that Special Teams were added at some point), and such. And perhaps a bit of "so what"—did the honor raise the profile of seniors heading to the NFL draft, or might it have raised the profile of underclassmen heading into the next season's Heisman consideration, or ? Clearly someone(s) put a chunk of work into 27 different articles, but a lot of it comes across as a wall of mostly non-notable names. ] (]) 04:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== Presentor name added to lede of bowl games ==
:: The same criticism could be applied to the All-Eastern teams (88 articles), largely created by {{u|Cbl62}} and {{u|Cumberland Mills}}. ] (]) 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I would support consolidating them all at a new article ] to match ]. Could also do ] rather than an article for each conference? This would be an "anchor" article that explains the concept of regional teams, and would also allow minor regions/conferences to be easily added without the overhead of a new article or risk of deletion. Would also consolidate a bunch of references and boilerplate, as I imagine many of the selectors are ranking multiple regions in the same article.
:Also, IMO articles like ] should be retitled to ].
:I also think we are missing a lot of history on pre-conference regional team rankings. Some articles like ] exist, but regional newspaper rankings of teams and regional "mythical" championships were extremely common in the pre-conference era. Tables like ] collect the teams and standings, but not the sportswriter rankings. Is there a place for regional rankings at articles like ], or is that supposed to be national? Should they live at a new article?
:] (]) 04:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


::PK, I'm pretty sure the common names of the all-conference teams generally take the form of "All-Big Eight Conference", not "Big Eight All-Conference". The phrase "College Football All-Region Teams", if used, should certainly not be capitalized. Same for "College Football All-Conference Teams". Those early regional rankings certainly seem apt for inclusion in the prose of team season and national season articles. Not sure they belong in standings tables. Probably too fragmented to be standardized for that sort of thing. ] (]) 06:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|Roberto221}}
::Ideally, there'd be ] pages like ] and ]. However, are there sources that deal with this at a high-level? Otherwise, is it ]? There's existing pages like ], which at the very least serve as navigation to all the conference's year-specific pages. In basketball, pages like ] enumerate <u>every years'</u> teams, not merely links to year-specific pages. However, the size of football teams (off+def+special teams) seems to make it unwieldy to combine each years' selection onto a single page (also discussed at {{section link|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_16#Help_needed:_All-SEC_and_All-Pac-12_teams}}).—] (]) 08:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Roberto221 ] or formal name to the first sentence of 20+ bowl game articles. Examples:
::I think that's a good idea to consolidate each of the regional teams rather than each one having its own article. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
* I created All-East team articles for the period ending in 1979. During that time, All-East teams were a big deal because the major Eastern teams (Penn State, Syracuse, Pitt, Army, Temple, Rutgers, etc.) were not members of conferences, and there weres no all-conference teams to cover an entire region of major college football. The All-East selections became less notable after the 1970s, as the ] was formed and the eastern majors began to join the Big East or other conferences like the ACC and Big 10. I have doubts about the notability of All-East teams post-1979, but the All-East teams of the 20th century at least through the 1970s received extensive coverage and pass our notability standards. (I don't have the time to look into the All-South independent teams at the moment, but unlike the East, the South was historically dominated by major conferences (SEC and Southern Conference), so I'm less confident in the notability of this grouping. ] (]) 05:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== Research help - head coach of a defunct program ==
* is now "The '''Rose Bowl Game''', officially the '''Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual''' for sponsorship purposes, is an annual..."
* is now "The '''Orange Bowl''', officially the '''Capital One Orange Bowl''' for sponsorship purposes, is an annual..."
* is now "The '''Heart of Dallas Bowl''', officially the '''Zaxby's Heart of Dallas Bowl''' for sponsorship purposes, is an..."
* etc


I am working on a rewrite of ]'s article, which originally claimed (via navbox and category) that he was the head coach of the football program at the now-defunct ] for one season in 1900. This would have been during his first year as president of the school, but I haven't been able to find any indication that this was the case on Newspapers.com, in , or in Google searches in general. The creator of the navbox template, {{tl|Parsons Wildcats football coach navbox}}, is retired and did not include any sourcing in the navbox, and Hinitt's name was added later by {{u|Bigredlance}}, who hasn't edited in about a year. I might have just overlooked it somewhere, but if anyone has some time to spare and wants to help me out, I would welcome some assistance! ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 20:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
While sponsorship info might belong in the lede paragraph and does help to support the infobox "| sponsors =" parameter (if cited), co-opting the very first sentence of the ] with the ''current'' sponsor for bowl games with 50+ years of tradition is overkill in my view. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


:The 1967 football media guide provides some help: . Page 44, in particular, has a historical sketch that discusses the pre-1909 squads. Hinitt is not mentioned. ] ] 21:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, I know it's sacrilegious. I even hate the fact that some bowls have "sold" their soul for corporate dollars (Gator Bowl = TaxSlayer Bowl, Hall of Fame Bowl = Outback Bowl, etc.) But sponsors are paying big bucks to "slap" their name on the bowls and for some bowls, it's a large part of their revenue stream. I'm just glad the NCAA required the playoff bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Peach, Fiesta) keep their names on the bowls which is why we have the "Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl" and not the "Chick-fil-A Bowl".
::Thank you, I hadn't found that. I still haven't been able to find anything so I think I'll stick with leaving that stuff out of the article. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 05:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
* There's a lot of reportage (e.g., ) on Hinitt when he came to Parsons in the second half of 1900 but nothing that I found about him coaching football. ] (]) 20:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks for taking a look. I'm starting to suspect that the user who added him to the infobox accidentally saw stuff about him "arriving at Parsons" as president and mistook that as him coming to coach. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It's also just unlikely that the president would be the coach in a time where athletic directors generally coached damn near every sport a school has to offer, especially a 'smaller' school. I have found previous coaches added to numerous navboxes (ie {{t|Buena Vista Beavers football coach navbox}}) from Bigredlance which, after some digging, have proven to not be accurate. (Not to discredit their effort because there is more accurate data than inaccurate that they've added. ] (]) 16:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== FCS/FBS team playoff navboxes TfD ==
== Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject ==
Please weigh in at ]. Thank you. —] (]) 19:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Possible spam/advertisement company/fraudulent website? ==
Misplaced Pages has many thousands of wikilinks which point to ] pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of ] have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.


See the edits ] posting non-official rivalry websites to pages, first as an external link then as a source. ], this is a misguided attempt to be helpful posting an ] source? At worst, these all look the same and are suspect websites.-] (]) 03:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at
*{{Ping|glman}} who has reverted an edit of that user in the past.-] (]) 03:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion on football player leads ==
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; ] <sup>]</sup> 14:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


See ]. ] (]) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== bowl game navboxes footnote changes ==


== Depth charts in team/season articles ==
{{ping|Cards84664}}


Several years ago, it became popular to add "depth charts" to team/season articles. See ]. It has long been my view that these sections are problematic in that: (i) they are almost never supported by citations, let alone citations to reliable sources; and (ii) depth charts continually evolve during the course of a season as players move up and down the depth chart or sustain injuries/suspensions. If depth charts are to be kept, they need to be properly sourced, and there needs to be clarification as to the time period (e.g., start of season? end of season? some particular date in between?). Lacking these elements, we are tolerating vague, unsourced, potentially inaccurate, and ]-violative information. ] (]) 20:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Cards84664 ] to team bowl game navboxes of:
: Looks to be a fair and accurate concern to raise. I might suggest adding an "unsourced" tag/flag to applicable sections, such as the Michigan one noted above, and remove them if they remain unsourced. Or ] and do so directly. ] (]) 20:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
"Forward slash (/) denotes ] semifinal game"
:: I like the templating idea. Can anyone point me to the correct template for an unsourced section? ] (]) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Cbl, ]. ] (]) 02:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:For most of the same reasons, there's no depth charts on NBA pages (]). Even if cited, the sources' content itself did not seem to be reliably updated. —] (]) 03:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{tqq|and there needs to be clarification as to the time period}}. That's what {{tl|As of}} is for. ] (]) 04:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


==]==
Examples:
I just created an article for ], who was killed in the ]. ] (]) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== New College Statistics table format ==
*
*
*
* etc


] created a new College Statistics table format where he had relocated the college name banner to the left side of the table. You can see an example of this in the ] article. Here is an example of the ] for comparison. I wanted to get opinions on his new format and ask whether or not it should replace the current format. ] (]) 01:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I find the text to be verbose and use of / char is non-standard re ]. Thoughts? ] (]) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:I was following the format that was already there on Alabama's template, change it to whatever works for you all. <span style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;">'''<font color="white">]</font>'''</span> ] 19:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


:Just commenting that the format I've been using on certain pages contains the same information without needing additional lines to clutter the table. It also follows the same format as NFL stats tables. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Captain obvious''': Whatever we pick, can we stop the silliness of having to explicitly write "pound sign" or "forward slash"? Showing #, /, †, ‡, etc. is enough without needing the English word also. And most of the world knows ] as £!—] (]) 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
::I think this is preferable to the existing format. Although, I know there is a movement here (which I am in agreement with) to remove the overreliance on colors for the team boxes. Couldn't this be updated to have a link to the 20YY NCAA Division X football season then the 20YY College Name football team just like how the NFL version has NFL season then team season link?-] (]) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I like the idea, but I think having just a three letter acronym for college teams wouldn't work. It works in the NFL because there's only 32 teams, whereas there's hundreds of college teams. One example I can think of is ] and ]. State has the acronym of ''GSU'' while Southern has ''GS.'' In my opinion that can get confusing to people unfamiliar with the schools pretty quickly.
:::Also, there are editors (including myself) who feel that the colors help signify each team better compared to not having colors at all. ] (]) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd argue for removing that from NFL stats tables as linking to the team's season is preferable than the overall league year. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::NFL stats table link to both the NFL (year link) and team season page (from team link) e.g. ] —] (]) 01:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, colors are distracting, esp. now with transfer portal. Either way, college and NFL sections of a bio should be consistent. —] (]) 01:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No acronyms should be used, they aren't used in head coaches tables. Colors are distracting and are overrused. Consensus on this project has stated as such.-] (]) 19:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Per the team colors, we've established consensus to not use them in places like the tables at ] or ], where, if used, you have a gaudy rainbow of many team colors. I think there's a good argument not to use them in these statistics tables as well, given now that in the transfer portal era, players can easily play with three or four teams, e.g. ]. ] (]) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Ok, since there's multiple people that think that the colors are not necessary for the statistics tables, do you guys want to completely move on from using colors in the tables? If so, do you think ]'s ''''']''''' (albeit without colors) is good, or is a format like ''''']''''' better? (this is basically what ] initially suggested) ] (]) 00:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Commenting that I also support having no colors and only viewed this as a compromise as removal seemed to mostly just be enforced by me. The repeating team name in the Meyers example can be merged and the links moved to the year, as the overall NCAA season isn't that important to the player as their team's season is. They all link back to the NCAA season on their respective page for people curious enough. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Keep status quo of the links to the NCAA year. It's consistent with NFL stats format's link to league year, as well as coll basketball and NBA. It doesnt take up any extra space in the table (the words already there) —] (]) 02:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Mid-table headers''' I didn't realize that "current format", which linked to ], was to have the team name as a mid-table header (esp. for players w/ multiple teams). This is counter to ]: {{tq2|Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table.}} There's also no reason to have college and NFL stats formatted differently. Something like ] used to be the standard.—] (]) 08:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Does nobody else find the school name repeated several times to be less than ideal? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I personally don't have a problem with it. As ] mentioned in one of his comments, the college format should be the same as the NFL, college basketball, and the NBA. The college basketball table has the NCAA year and then the team name links to the that school's year in football. I kinda get what you're saying about the school name being repeated several times, but most college players are in college on average for 3-4 years, so in my opinion its not that much of an issue. ] (]) 21:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::See ]. This article has a table and the school name spelled out. (I didn't do this and the table has been this way for a while.) Standardizing these might be good.-] (]) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::At some point, some editor(s) started putting colorized banners of the lone school, like at Brett_Hundley#College_statistics (), but still retaining the school name and links on every row. —] (]) 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I removed like all of those last year but people always add them back. ] (]) 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::We all need to enforce it when we see it, it only takes a second to remove. Maybe my issue is simply using the university name instead of a common abbreviation. Is there some template that already has a list of school abbreviations for other uses that we could use as a base? ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The major problem with this is that there are multiple universities with the same abbreviations. Look at the ] page. There are multiple schools with the abbreviations of AU, BU, CSU, etc. With the NFL having 32 teams, no one team has the same abbreviation, but with college, this isn't the case. Using names like Georgia or UC Berkeley are not long, but at the same time, they make each university distinguishable. ] (]) 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, I guess it's unavoidable. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You inspired me to scrap it from Hundley.—] (]) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::: our culprit if you want to play whack-a-mole with the rest of the headers. ] (]) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh. It seems we had a limited discussion about this at {{section link|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_26#Team_colors_on_stats_tables}} —] (]) 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:It seems like a majority of you think that the ] / ] table formats should be the standard going forward. To reach a consensus on this, do you think that this format should be the standard format? Please reply to this comment stating whether you support or oppose this. Thanks, ] (]) 18:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Support''' the removal of colors but still think the repeating full school names could be improved. ~ ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::'''Support''' Removal of colors and those mid-table team headers (like ). Team names should display and link to the team season in the same format for both college and NFL.—] (]) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Roster template for one-platoon football? ==
::That slash doesn't seem like an appropriate symbol. Intuitively you expect there to be another element on the other side of the slash. An asterisk seems fined. No issue with other symbols suggested. I also agree with Bagumba's point about explicitly writing out the names of these symbols. Not necessary. The various coach and AD navboxes have these symbols spelled out as well, e.g. ], so those should also all be changed. ] (]) 15:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


I'd like to add rosters for older teams such as ], but ] requires <code>|offensive_players=</code>, <code>|defensive_players=</code>, and <code>|special_teams_players=</code>.
: Related, see ] where there is wide-spread adoption of "Pound sign (#) denotes national championship game." but no other similar footer callouts. In very recent history, this (#) designation is relatively non-controversial. In historical context, this designation is inherently inconsistent and controversial (1/2/3/4 ranked teams, from which poll, is final poll before/after bowl game, sequence of bowl games eliminating claims, etc.) The CPF "semi-final game" callout feels like recentism against the backdrop of decades with various selectors and systems.
: Note, from 2007 onward the name of the article/game being linked clarifies that it is the national championship game, like ]...] and ]...].
: All in, I would propose removing the "Pound sign (#) denotes national championship game." text where present as inconsistent, removing the callouts for semi-final games (recentism) which are "just" bowl games in context to these "bowl game" navboxes, and adding a (recent) era-agnostic key for the 2007 game and onward, of "† designated ] game." This limits the key to a single symbol and gains standardization from 2007 onward for the single ''designated'' championship game as determined by ''multiple'' annual systems. ] (]) 06:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


Those distinctions of course didn't exist in the days of ].
== 2017 College Football All-America Team ==


Are there any roster templates built for historic elevens? ] (]) 09:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Bleacher Report, SBNation, and The Athletic have released All-American teams for the 2017 year. I have attempted to add them to the ] but someone has reverted them since they "have never been included". I believe this is the first All-American team BR has released. These sites are legitimate news services for sports. Bleacher Report is affiliated with CNN. I think they pass notability guidelines and are worthy of inclusion. Do people disagree? Certainly they are as worthy as Althon and Scouts.com. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I would say don't include them. In fact per ], limit the listing to All-American selectors only, like college basketball does at ].—] (]) 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC) * ]: not a template, but it provides a richer array of information. ] (]) 12:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::This was discussed last year as well, and probably every year before that. I'm not sure what the right answer here is. Notability doesn't apply to article content so it's up to our judgement. I'd say no to Bleacher Report and SBNation because those are blog sites. The Athletic also looks questionable. It says their team was selected by the site's staff, but who are the site's staff? Could be respected sportswriters (unlikely), could also be a bunch of college students. ] (]) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
::: The staff of the Athletic includes several notable college football sportswriters, among them Max Olsen, Stewart Mandel, Chantel Jennings, and Nicole Auerbach. Jennings and Olsen were longtime writers for ESPN, while Mandel has written for both Sports Illustrated and FOX Sports for 18 years as per his bio. Meanwhile, Auerbach has covered college sports at USA Today since 2011. They are not blog writers like those who write for SBNation, and as such I disagree with the decision to omit their list from the page unless sources such as Sports Illustrated, USA Today, and FOX Sports are to be omitted as well. Due diligence should be done with regards to evaluating the writers for each website when deciding to strike them off the list. ] (]) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Shouldn't we be 86ing some of the "sources" as well like Athlon or scout? Do the schools even recognize them? I hate to speak of slippery slopes but this is going nowhere fast. One day will we cite Big Bubba's Bama Blog where Alabama will have 26 first team AA.] (]) 01:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Big Bubba's Bama Blog would fail on notability (as perhaps the Athletic). I don't think Bleacher Report is in the same category though. It is a major sports journalism website and is certainly of greater significance at this point than Althon or Rivals or even The Sporting News (which is an official selector). Now if you want to list just selectors that count toward "consensus" picks that might be a criteria to exclude all these things, but then you lose Sports Illustrated which seems excessive. ] (] 02:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::The page itself says that the NCAA recognizes 5 total: '''Currently, the NCAA compiles consensus all-America teams in the sports of ] football and Division I men's basketball using a point system computed from All-America teams named by coaches associations or media sources. Players are chosen against other players playing at their position only. To be selected a consensus All-American, players must be chosen to the first team on at least two of the five official selectors as recognized by the NCAA. Second- and third-team honors are used to break ties. Players named first-team by all five selectors are deemed ]s. Currently, the NCAA recognizes All-Americans selected by the AP, AFCA, FWAA, ''TSN'', and the WCFF to determine consensus and unanimous All-Americans.'''] (]) 01:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::::You guys should just remove the reference to Basketball from that statement. Not only is it irrelevant since it’s a football article, it isn’t correct (for instance, consensus All-America basketball teams aren’t picked by position). ] (]) 03:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:::To answer your question "do the schools even recognize them?" Schools will recognize your grandma's All-America team. Personally, I'd support just listing the selectors that are recognized by the NCAA, but that'd undo the standard we've followed for years and which includes pretty much every AA article since the 1800s. {{ping|Cbl62}} Thoughts? ] (]) 02:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
There's nothing wrong with adding beyond the consensus selectors, just understand that its going to be a mostly subjective (and time consuming?) exercise of likely straw votes.—] (])
:: My view is that "more information is better" so long as we clearly delineate which ones are official and which ones are not. See, e.g., ]. ] (]) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::: My point is subject to the "qualifier" that non-official selectors need to be notable, typically as evidenced by their selections receiving coverage in reliable sources. Joe Blow can declare an AA team on his blog, but unless there is some objective indicia that Joe's selections are notable, they doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::::So at a minimum, the selector's picks must be mentioned by at least one (or how many?) independent reliable sources. This would rule out a school or conference touting its own players.—] (]) 09:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Which is why I brought up how schools will recognize your grandma's AA team. On top of being non-independent they're terrible for gauging significance. As for any other mentions in independent sources, it's easier for teams prior to the 21st century; just look for their team in a newspaper. See the ref to LA Times for the New York Sun's team on ]. But unfortunately we live in the digital age where getting published is no big deal and social media has overtaken mainstream media. Today you'd never see a minor selector's team listed by any independent source, much less the LA Times. The best you'll get is something like . ] (]) 16:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}}Which is why I would suggest that we limit it to official selectors. At some point the necessary evil of editorial judgement must be used or else who determines a credible selector. You're right Lizard that this gets discussed every year and SDM was a proponent of adding Athlon in the past, and now this. And I believe he is legitimately asking for his perception of a composite list, but they create these unofficial lists to promote their product. We are not here to sell magazines, but to build an encyclopedia. I would have proposed a compromise that the official be listed in one portion and that any player mentioned in an unofficial AA team be listed lower, but I can also see that this is still digging after the same can of spaghetti, minus the meatballs. So that is why I hope we should limit it. If nothing else to prevent things like how we keep rehashing if the ] won a national title.] (]) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
: I could not disagree more strongly with UC02009bluejay's conclusion that we should excise non-official selectors from Misplaced Pages's All-America pages. Yes, we are to here to build an encyclopedia, but the best way to do that is to provide all the reliable, well-sourced information on notable All-American selections, while carefully distinguishing official and unofficial selectors, as we have been doing for years at ], ], ], ], ], and virtually every other historic All-America team article. By including all notable selectors, we allow readers to evaluate the bona fides of All-America claims. All too often, we see athletic departments or reporters making unsupported claims regarding All-Americans without saying who chose the person or whether the choice was 1st team, 2nd, 3rd, or honorable mention. The best way to combat baseless claims, and to objectively assess the bona fides of All-America assertions, is with ''more'' information presented clearly, not with ''less'' information. ] (]) 20:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:: To clarify, I take no position on whether Bleacher Report, SBNation, and The Athletic are notable selectors. Those points are subject to debate and determination of consensus. What I oppose strongly is the "throw out the bathwater" reaction of saying, "Let's just excise all non-official selectors." ] (]) 20:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::: Further: The NCAA has been quite erratic in determining which historical selectors are recognized as official. ] is a good example. The only selector the NCAA recognizes as official for 1922 is ], then a 63-year old Yale grad who made his selections based on his attending a handful of Eastern games each year. Other selectors in 1922 are considered unofficial, even (i) '']'' magazine which made its selections based on a poll of 214 coaches and (ii) Romelke which compiled the votes of "nearly every important pressman who has picked an All-American team." Limiting Misplaced Pages's coverage to Camp's choices would be ludicrous. ] (]) 21:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} Not being snarky or anything but how could[REDACTED] determine "bona fide," and if we include these unofficial selectors how would a reader be able to differentiate say a Walter Camp vs an Athlon? I still disagree but I have a track record for going along with consensus even when I don' like it. My main goal even if I am in the vocal minority on this is how do we do it so we don't have this dog and pony show every year. Like some have voiced above some of these "selectors" like BR or scout are sketchy. Granted I generally like the evolutionary process but at some point we should draw the line. Basketball does for a reason, and that is my preference. (Yes, I know it is a different project, and criteria but it is a precedent.)] (]) 21:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:: I am not suggesting that Misplaced Pages should purport to make an editorial judgment as to what is a bona fide All-American. To the contrary. What Misplaced Pages can do is provide the best and most complete objective historical data, thus enabling readers to assess that data and reach their own conclusions as to which selections are bona fide. As for how we distinguish between official and unofficial selectors, we can do so in the consensus charts (See ]) and by putting official first-team selections in bold (See ]). These two mechanisms enable the reader to quickly and clearly distinguish between official and unofficial selectors. ] (]) 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
:The standard of notability applies differently to the creation of articles than it does to the articles' content. The best way to avoid the 'slippery slope' arguments is to set a clear standard for inclusion - if the organization has a properly sourced Misplaced Pages article, it should qualify. This is the way other WikiProjects (WikiProject Chess, for example) determine notability and it would prevent Big Bobby's Bama Blog from being included (as is mentioned above). With regards to ], including both official and unofficial selectors should be fine as long as proper weight is given to official ones over unofficial. This is already the case; the lead of the article clearly states which selectors are official, and the official selections are put on bold type face and listed first. Triyng to subjectively include or leave out certain unofficial selectors (e.g. "SI can stay, but not Athlon") veers into "original research" territory. ] (]) 22:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::It's not "original research" to filter out less notable selectors. Per the policy ]: "{{tq|While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ... We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it ...}}." So we could create three tiers of selectors: consensus selectors and notable non-consensus selectors which are listed, and non-notable selectors which are not listed. Or we keep it simple and include only the consensus selectors; you could view the non-consensus selections by the these official selectors as presenting the balanced minority view.—] (]) 12:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I agree, which is why I used the term 'subjectively' - I should have worded that a bit better. There has to be a clear, objective standard for deciding what constitutes a 'notable' selector. So we are in agreement. My proposal was that if a selector has a properly-sourced Misplaced Pages page, it can be considered notable. It prevents a slippery slope from occuring with random blogs/minor websites from espousing their All-America teams. Once we have determined what selectors are or aren't notable, the insignificant ones should indeed be omitted. It is the standard for determining notability that is the issue here. ] (]) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
::::My preference is also to have objective cutoff criteria, but that is subject to consensus. Barring consensus, it goes back to subjective straw-voting. Bear in mind that it's anyways subjective which objective criteria we choose, so we'll never escape some level of subjectiveness.—] (]) 16:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Deep. ] (]) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
:::"we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it" is spot-on here. There's indeed a fine line between editorial judgement and original research. I think we're all in agreement that some selectors are more significant than others and that this should be clearly illustrated in some way. The biggest problem I see in splitting the selectors into tiers is it would create situations where some players would be listed multiple times. The current convention of mashing then all together avoids that. ] (]) 14:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
::::I was not thinking to change the current page layout. Just remove the non-consensus selectors that are considered not so notable (i.e. Tier 3)—] (]) 14:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Oh I see. Well I think that's what we try to do already. Maybe we could do a straw poll to decide specifically which minor selectors are notable and which aren't. ] (]) 15:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
:Could you guys start looking at “official selections only” past a certain date? Or include all granting bodies that at one time were used by the NCAA (even if use was discontinued at some point)? In basketball, we went to the granting bodies that contribute to consensus status by the NCAA so there was a clear line of what is in and what is out. Does it really “officially” matter historically if someone was a Sports Illustrated or ESPN AA if these aren’t typically referred to by anyone other than the granting body and the school? I will also say, this is a bigger issue today than in the 1920s so that’s where a year cutoff could help manage it. ] (]) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
::] is widely considered LSU's only three-time All-American, even by . He was picked by official selectors in 1970 and 1971, but only a single, minor selector in 1969: Football News. As far as I've found, no other selector even named him an honorable mention. Nonetheless he's a three-time All-American. What I'm saying is, "official" or not has really never mattered much to the general public. ] (]) 22:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I guess. Sportswriters have always played a little fast and loose with the facts when it comes to this stuff. Technically, a person can claim to be an “All-American” as an honorable mention pick, as a preseason pick, or if selected by Cat Fancy magazine. The problem is that a lot of sportswriters don’t fact check what is fed to them by the school if it isn’t central to the story. That’s why a more independent red line can be helpful for an encyclopedia in these cases. ] (]) 22:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns ==


== Navboxes for lower level national champions? ==
Gang, there is a requested move discussion regarding the name of the school. Please visit ] for the discussion. It is recommended that you read the discussion above it as well. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 14:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
:Gotta love those ULaLa. ]s.] (]) 21:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
::Anyone think there's enough to warrant a sock puppet investigation there? ] (]) 00:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
:::{{re|Ejgreen77}} Between the numerous IPs, Pncomeaux, Airbill, and others... I've been thinking that for a while now... ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
::::{{re|Ejgreen77}} Go for it.] (]) 01:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


We allow navboxes for college football national champions, but should that apply to lower level national champions? ] suggests to me that the answer should be "no". There's not a single player who has his own article, and so there's nothing meaningful to navigate between. ] (]) 02:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Newly-created templates nominated for deletion ==


:Generally no, as the amount of articles that seem to be needed to establish navbox usefulness seems to be around a minimum of four links (just as a generally accepted rule I have witnessed throughout my adventure with templates for deletion) and lower level teams generally will not have four+ notable players on them. With that being said, if a lower level team has enough to be notable then they should stay, but the ones with two or three (which I am guilty of creating) should be deleted. ] (]) 03:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I've nominated four newly-created templates related to this project for deletion. Please see the discussion ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
::Thanks, ]. I did come across ] which you created. Would you be willing to compile the lower-level champion templates with fewer than four entries (or at least those you created) and submit them for deletion? If you explain the situation, as you did above, the nominatins should be non-controversial. ] (]) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Compiled a list of every single one I could find. I am not too familiar with the deletion process but if you're willing to do that that's up to you.
:::* '''One'''
:::** ]
:::* '''Two'''
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::* '''Three'''
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** ]
:::** <s>]</s>
:::** ]
:::** <s>]</s>
:::** ]
:::** <s>]</s>
:::] (]) 20:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


== Are conference championships conference games? ==
== AfD: 1982 Tobacco Bowl ==


I have nominated ] for deletion. Please see the discussion ]. ] (]) 18:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Seeing disparities in team schedules whether conference championships are marked as nonconf=y or not. What's the standard? ] (]) 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Conference Championship games are conference games. ] &bull; ] &bull; ] 04:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== College Football Hall of Fame Class of Navboxes ==


Hey all, I am actually very surprised that we don't have them, is there a reason as to why?] (]) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) ::{{ping|Jeffrey R. Clark}} I can see that; however conference championship games do not count to their conference record as noted in ]. ] (]) 05:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Correct, I know it's weird, but it's been that way for as long as I can remember it. ] &bull; ] &bull; ] 05:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
: Personally, I think they would just be clutter. The fact that individuals were inducted into the CFHOF in the same year isn't a very significant commonality. Frankly, I'm also not a fan of such "class" navboxes for Baseball HOF or Pro Football HOF either. ] (]) 21:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::::Conference championship are not conference games. They do not count in a team's conference record, and they should be noted as "non-conference" in schedule tables. ] (]) 05:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: I don't necessarily disagree at all, it just struck me as odd that nobody would have thought of that. Since we are on the topic of clutter why do we have ], when we already have ] and for the ].--] (]) 21:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Perusing some relevant articles, looks like we have a big inconsistent mess here. Jeffrey R. Clark, "it's been that way for as long as I can remember it", are you referring to our convention about this here on Misplaced Pages? Because I believe at some point, I made sure that all conference games were denoted as non-conference. But other editors have removed many of those notations. ] (]) 05:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I’d vote that these are clutter. Sports projects already get grief for having too many infoboxes. ] (]) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::I mean, if we have a convention that's states that they shouldn't be counted as conference games, then so be it. I could be just simply forgetting that discussing had taking place. ] &bull; ] &bull; ] 06:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Disagree that they should be marked with a <code>*</code> and noted as non-conference games. That goes against the very meaning of the words. It's the conference's championship game, of course that's an in-conference game. Conference templates like ] have a row for the conference championship game because it's part of the in-conference slate of games.
:::::Now, they shouldn't be included in a team's "conference record". That should be understood to be the regular season record, while the CCG is a separate post-season game. I'm not sure where I stand on them being included in all-time team records and coaching records, we should consult secondary sources. ] (]) 08:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::As for the "very meaning of the words", depends on what you mean by "conference". As for all-time team records and coaching records, do you mean things like ] and ]? Oregon's 2024 conference record was 9–0, not 10–0 (including their win in the ]), and not 10–1, also including the playoff loss to Ohio State. And also not 9–1 per {{u|NorthernShore}}'s ! Clearly, any all-time conference totals for Lanning and Oregon should reflect the 9–0 record from the 2024 season. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I can see an argument for including CCG records in a coach's all-time conference wins/losses, if we saw secondary sources doing that. Or in all-time team conference wins. I'm interested in how college basketball does it (both on Misplaced Pages and in third-party sources), as each team has multiple conference tournament games to end the year.
:::::::I agree that any singular season tally should show just the 9–0 regular season conference record.
:::::::] shows a 16–2 WCC record, omitting 2 wins and 1 loss in the WCC tournament. But the conference tournament games are rightly not marked with a confusing <code>*</code> to indicate they are "non-conference".
:::::::Readers will be ] that the conference championship game is marked as "non-conference", and the asterisk will be continually deleted/re-added forever across every season article. Avoiding that is for more important than getting the non-asterisked table rows to exactly sum up to the conference record. ] (]) 17:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I disagree - I'd be more astonished if there was something marked with an asterisk that didn't count towards a team's conference win-loss total. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: {{u|SportingFlyer}}, can clarify you comment? Seems like you were disagreeing PK-WIKI, but maybe there a typo? Did you mean to say, "I'd be more astonished if there was something '''''not''''' marked with an asterisk that didn't count towards a team's conference win-loss total". ] (]) 18:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I would expect any game that counts towards a team's conference standings to have an asterisk, and otherwise not. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::: Okay, well that's the exact opposite of the scheme that was established here nearly 20 years ago, and a different, more fundamental issue that what Admanny brought up. We put asterisks on non-conference games, not on conference games. Perhaps it would be less confusing if we eliminated the "nonconf" field, replaced it with a "conf" field, and inverted the entire scheme. That would require a massive, bot-assisted overhaul to tens of thousands of articles. PK-WIKI, let me ask you this: if we had a scheme where we denoted conference games with asterisk, would you want the conference championship games to get an asterisk, even though they don't count toward the team's conference record? ] (]) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The major issue is explicitly marking the CCG with a big asterisk as a "non-conference game" when IMO it very clearly ''is'' a (post-season) conference game. That's why people remove them. If the asterisks were inverted I guess I would be fine having the CCG un-annotated alongside the bowl games, that's less of a glaring "mistake".
::::::::::::The need for asterisks comes down to the regular season games each season. If we had a separate table for post-season play, that post-season table wouldn't need the distinction... none of the games count towards the conference record, and it's assumed that CCGs are conference and bowl games are non-conference games anyway. It's not really useful to asterisk. The legend could be changed to something like "Non-conference regular season games". Or a section header be added near the end of the table to differentiate between regular season and post season play.
::::::::::::My preference would be to only asterisk the 3 non-conference regular season games. Or, the 9 regular season conference games. And then justify excluding asterisks on the CCGs and bowls through some other means like the design of the table or the text of the asterisk note.
::::::::::::] (]) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
* Adding to the messiness, there are conferences that have divided into divisions that only count games against divisional opponents as conference games. It seems bizarre to me that opponents in the same conference (but different division) should be counted as non-conference games, but that's how at least some conferences do it. ] (]) 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I think that practice has only taken place as sub-Division I levels. The ] (PSAC) comes to mind, e.g. ]. ] (]) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


===Side discussion about oddities===
== Cbl62 flouting consensus on schedule tables ==
:I should also note that the Army-Navy game, despite both being AAC members, is NOT a conference game, and is reflected accurately in both teams' pages. So my point is, there are indeed exceptions. ] (]) 06:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Yes, are some instances where two teams in the same conference play in the regular season and it's not a conference game, e.g. ]. Conversely, there are some instances where games against non-conference opponents were designated as conference games and counted in the conference standings for one team, e.g. ]. ] (]) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== "standardizing" edits ==
] thinks that he doesn't have to use the standard templates (] and it's siblings) for building schedule tables on season articles because he doesn't like them or they're to difficult for him manage; see ] for an example. This is a blatant flouting of core, long-standard project consensus. It bodes to confuse and misdirect less witting and newbie editors and increases the risk of style forking. Can some others weigh in here? ] (]) 06:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


User {{user|Ha2772a}} has undertaken an effort to make "standardizing" edits to a large number of bowl game articles. These include, from what I briefly have seen, adding "CFP New Year's Six" as an infobox sub-header of non-playoff games (for example, ]) and adding "National Championship Game" as an infobox sub-header of various historical games, such as ] and ]. All look to be good-faith edits, but I certainly question deeming them to be "standardizing" when it appears to narrowly be one editor's preferred style. More narrowly, I don't agree with either of the two specific examples, as NY6 sub-headers for non-playoff games are just infobox clutter, and retroactively deeming certain games which, in retrospect, yielded a national champion is very different than a game that is specifically played for that purpose. Other editors may like the changes. Comments welcome, as I feel this type of broad change deserves some attention. ] (]) 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
===Jweiss11 engaged in mass removal of sourced and verifiable information===
: Additional comment on the ], now deemed a "National Championship Game"—after Nebraska defeated Oklahoma, they still had a non-conference game to play (at Hawaii, which they won) and they then accepted a bid to the ] (which is ''also'' now deemed a "National Championship Game"), where they defeated Alabama. That Nebraska's next-to-last regular-season game was a "National Championship Game", the first of two they played in the same season... this is not encyclopedic. ] (]) 01:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
] has been engaged in what I consider to be highly unproductive editing tonight in removing sourced and verifiable schedule charts from every season article on the ] program (e.g., ). As I've told him, I find the "CFB Schedule Entry" to be time-consuming (and confusing) in the extreme. This may be unique to me, but I simply don't have the patience to do the tedious and confusing manual data entry required by the existing format. As a result, over the years, I've created many season articles, hoping that someone else might fill in the schedule tables. That hasn't happened, so I began filling in the tables this month, beginning with the Detroit Titans. The format I'm using attempts to precisely mimic the end product of the "CFB Schedule Entry" format but does so in a way that my impatient mind can manage. I am not advocating an overhaul of the system. I am simply trying to create Schedule charts on articles that have gone without them, in some cases for years. If Jweiss11 or someone else wants to convert my charts into "CFB Schedule Entry" format, I have no problem with that. Go for it. But what I do object to is Jweiss11 blanking all of the charts I created. This IMO could be properly characterized as vandalism. The bottom line is that we have an editor (me) willing to backfill on articles lacking schedule tables. I believe these sourced charts (as seen at ]) are better than the long-standing status quo of no schedule information. ] (]) 06:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


::Yeah, "CFP New Year's Six" stuff is at least technically accurate. We can debate whether it's a necessary subheader in the infobox. I believe we've recently discussed the topic of pre-1992 "national championship games here. The ] was not a "national championship game". What if ]e had narrowly beaten ], while ] had beaten ] in a blowout at the ]? ] (]) 01:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Cbl, if an element of Misplaced Pages editing is too difficult for you to do properly, then you should not do it. Your false charges of vandalism are also noted. ] (]) 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:::I don't think either is necessary. The NY6 stuff will surely be present in the lead of those articles, and adding "national championship game" to any pre-BCS championship seems flatly incorrect to me. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Jw, I am simply trying to improve our season articles to the best of my ability. It is beyond me that you believe that the ] is "better" without the schedule table I added (with inline citations for each game). If you prefer the "CFB Schedule Entry" format, you are free to convert to that format ... with no objection from me. What you are not free to do is go on a campaign of mass removal of sourced and verifiable content. ] (]) 06:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
::::No opinion on any of the particular games mention here; citations should be added and discussed. But there certainly were "national championship games" prior to the advent of the BCS. The ] awarded two separate national championship trophies directly to the winner. The ] was . The ] and ] both awarded the ], one of the most prestigious CFB national championship trophies, directly to the winner of the game. All of the above are no more and no less "national championship games" than the ], ], ], or ]. ] (]) 02:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Your insistence on flouting a basic point of consensus on style is simply disruptive editing. Bad style replicates like cancer and you are engendering the spread. ] (]) 06:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::PK-WIKI, all of that stuff is appropriate for inclusion and explanation in prose in the lead and body of these articles, but "Richard Nixon national championship game" does not belong in an infobox. The ] what a very specific kind of structurally defined national title game and is noted as such, as the "Bowl Coalition National Championship Game". ] (]) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Replying to this comment but have read the rest of the discussion (@] @] @]). My edits were only looking to standardize how the subheaders are formatted in the infobox. There were vast differences between bowls with how they handled BCS Championships and their predecessors as well as the CFP NY6 indicator and BCS Bowl Game indicator. For example most bowls had the CFP NY6 moniker when not a quarterfinal for the first six years, but didn't with more recent editions. It was a similar state for "BCS Bowl Game." I agree that it shouldn't just be the preferences of a single editor, I was simply looking to make a set of pages consistent within what was already existing for those boxes. The inconstancies confused me since all these bowl games are basically identical types of an event.
:As for championships predating the Bowl Coalition, I did not add NCG to any box that it did not already exist in. Some of these linked out to the page about college football championships, some did not, I elected to link all of them so at least explanation could be ensured on that page. Although the list on that page raises questions because there are championship games listed there that did not have '''any''' mention on their page. Perhaps the pre-Bowl Coalition games need some kind of indicator like quotation marks if it isn't 1 vs 2 in a bowl game?
:I delved into games of the century as well because there was a separate formatting method for those titles that was applied to the 2006 Rose Bowl that formatted the infobox title with the year at the end instead of preceding the bowl name. The same standard was used here, moving Game of the Century to the subheader and using the bowl name or teams as the game name. Again a similar problem exists with the GOTC page since it lists additional games that do not have the moniker mentioned on their page about the game. ] (]) 03:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::The generic term "national championship game" is a misnomer, given that the NCAA has never sanctioned a championship at the highest level of college football. All that has existed are championship games of specific structures, such as Bowl Coalition National Championship Games (e.g. ]) or BCS National Championship Games (e.g. ]) or College Football Playoff National Championship games (e.g. ]) and that is all the infoboxes should call them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::::::I generally agree with you that we should title the infobox "BCS national championship game" or whatever, depending on the selector. However I'm not sure how to square that with the historic reality of ] in the poll era. Games such as the ] were widely regarded as national championship games, so much so that the specifically to account for the game. It was regarded as a national championship game in the de facto / generic sense, but I think it would be incorrect for us to label the infobox as "AP Poll National Championship Game" when no such designation was made. "National championship game" with citations seems like the best solution. ] (]) 05:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


==="National championship game" in infoboxes===
:::: I am not "flouting" anything. As we discussed on your Talk page, I'm simply doing the best I can to improve season articles. Bear in mind that variant schedule charts are numerous. See, e.g., ], ], ], ], ], etc. (A couple of of these are really awful, the last couple are pretty good.) But if you want to "improve" things, the solution is to actually "improve" them. Removing accurate (and in the Detroit cases, fully sourced) content is not an "improvement". Rather, such mass removal of fully-sourced content is what really constitutes disruptive editing. ] (]) 06:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
'''Proposal''' — infobox labelling of any "national championship game" that was not contested as part of a notable postseason structure (e.g. Bowl Coalition, BCS, or CFP) is WP:SYNTH and should be removed. Notable games of any era that led to one of the participants being named a national champion can be (and hopefully already are) highlighted as such in the article. Comments welcome. ] (]) 04:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Blanking sourced content, even if motivated by some template fetish, is vandalism. This isn't even a close call, Jw. I would sleep on it and hopefully you will cool off. Also hopefully some other CFB people will talk some sense into you. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 06:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:'''Support''' proposal that such "national championship games" should not be noted in infoboxes. ] (]) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - Limiting NCGs to those within a {{tpq|"notable postseason structure"}} is ] and ]. The ] and ] were ''exactly'' the same type of national championship games: informal matchups within the existing bowl invite system that, through luck and fortuitous scheduling, happened to produce a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup. (The ] one was actually "worse": the Coaches Poll had it as a No. 1 vs. No. 3 matchup.) Both should be noted as national championship games. The powers that be have been scheduling those types of NCGs for the last 100 years. The media has called the qualifying ones "national championship games". Trophies have been awarded on the field to the winner of the game. National championship games did not begin in 1992 or 1998. ] (]) 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>'''Support''' - I think that "National championship game" should only be used in the cases where the winner of that game became the national champion not by being ranked No. 1 as a result but rather by the very act of winning the game itself. (I guess another way to frame this would be the fact that the game was played for the purposes of determining a national champion rather than having the game serve as a "national championship" if the participants happen to be No. 1 and No. 2 .) From what I can tell that first "National Championship Game" would be the ]. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 07:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</s> — <s>I am amending my vote to a '''soft oppose''' as I would support infobox inclusion of any game which is determined via rough consensus to have met the criteria at ]. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)</s> — I keep changing my mind so '''neutral''' it is. Lots of good debate at the ]. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 02:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::What exactly did Alabama win in New Orleans? , and that's about it. The that after the game, all Gene Stallings ''could see was a scoreboard that read Alabama 34, Miami 13. '''This morning''' he will see another sight to cherish: the Crimson Tide perched alone atop the final polls, an improbable national championship of well-earned certainty.''
::How exactly was the ] a new type of national championship game? It wasn't. They waited for the polls the next day just like every other year. Who recognized them directly for winning the game itself? No one. The recognition came from the AP and Coaches the next day. The game was exactly as much of a national championship game as, say, the ] where the and were similarly branded as "The National Championship". ] (]) 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::From what I understand after reading a bit of ] was that the 1993 Sugar Bowl, as the first Boal Coalition National Championship Game, marked the first year of "we are going to definitely have a national championship game with No. 1 playing No. 2" as opposed to "we just so happen to have No. 1 vs. No. 2 in this bowl game, so it's a ''de facto'' 'National Championship Game'". It seems to be the first year that the penultimate rankings are more important than the final rankings, since the national champion became dependent on the game (with the rankings merely a formality afterward) and its participants (who were, by definition, the top two teams in the penultimate rankings) rather than dependent on simply waiting on the rankings, especially in the majority of cases when the top two teams weren't paired together. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 08:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::That's incorrect. The Bowl Coalition didn't have the Big Ten or Pac-10 champions. The Bowl Coalition '''got lucky''' that they were able to schedule the top two teams in a single bowl. We very well could have had No. 1 Michigan playing No. 2 Washington in the ], which would then itself have been the "national championship game". They also got lucky that Miami was in the Big East, as hypothetical No. 1 Nebraska (Orange Bowl) would not have played No. 2 Alabama (Sugar Bowl) despite both bowls and conferences being in this "coalition". There was definitely no guarantee that the Bowl Coalition would be able to schedule a national championship game; the agreement simply made it a bit easier than before. If anything had messed up the No. 1 vs. No. 2 pairing there ''would not have been a national championship game'', the exact same fragile situation as every season prior to 1992. ] (]) 08:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Okay, I appreciate the explanation. In that case I feel ] should be rewritten because {{tq|an agreement among NCAA Division I-A college football bowl games and conferences for the purpose of forcing a national championship game between the top two teams}} was the quote that led me to believe that the system was designed for the sake of always having a No. 1 vs. No. 2. Now that I read ], I feel like the first labeled "National Championship Game" should be the ], since I guess that was the first year where, prior to the start of the season, you could guarantee that there would be a definitive national championship game taking place to conclude the year. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 17:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I agree with you that the advent of the ] in ] was the first season where, prior to the season, the ] two teams were pre-confirmed to play in a national championship game. And, additionally, that it would specifically happen in the ]. That was an important milestone but I don't believe it diminishes the prior national championship games that occurred by happenstance.
::::::The ] was unquestionably that season's national championship game. That fact should be noted in the game's infobox.
::::::Likewise, the ] was also unquestionably that season's national championship game. That fact should be noted in the game's infobox.
::::::] (]) 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That's a fair point. I don't have an issue with saying "national championship" in the infobox so long as it's covered in prose with appropriate sourcing, which I suppose goes without saying anyway. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 20:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Would you agree that the ] was a national championship game? Or not really? ] (]) 21:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Potentially. I would want to see what the contemporary reliable third-party sources said about it. ] (]) 21:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Semantically, every Bowl Coalition National Championship Game was a Bowl Coalition National Championship Game, nothing more or less. The Bowl Coalition was a notable (as in, ]) postseason structure and its championship games (independent of their value) can be precisely enumerated, and their infoboxes should identify them as such. Deeming any games as being "national championship games" (used as a generic term) is subjective, as seen in the list at ]. They cannot be precisely enumerated ("This list is incomplete") and various entries are debatable (e.g. ], played when the two teams had 5 other total games left to play). I am advocating not tagging ''any'' games with generic "national championship games" labels. ] (]) 08:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::You are assigning too much value to this supposed "Bowl Coalition National Championship Game", which didn't really exist as a first-class enterprise. The phrase as a capitalized proper noun basically does not exist in a search on Newspapers.com. I question if we should even be using that phrase on Misplaced Pages due to its lack of usage in reliable third-party sources. Searching for "Bowl Coalition" does not turn up a single piece of vintage memorabilia on eBay.
::::: I'm not assessing its "value"; it was a notable (]) postseason entity. I am fully supportive of discontinuing the use of a capitalized proper noun if it was spuriously created; adjusting to "Bowl Coalition national championship game" or even perhaps "Bowl Coalition title game" ("title game" being the phrase that appears multiple times in the target article) seems appropriate. ] (]) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::The Orange Bowl (]) was also a notable postseason entity. As was the Fiesta Bowl (]). Both independently endeavored to schedule No. 1 vs. No. 2 "national championship games", which they successfully accomplished in ], ], ], and ]. When those two bowls and a few others made a coalition to make the bowl selection process a bit easier, that new organization is no more or less notable than the previous independent bowls that did the same thing. While the Bowl Coalition was an important milestone in the march towards the BCS/playoff, it was certainly not "the first official national championship game". That is the "value" I'm talking about being overestimated.
::::::I think it would be more accurate to describe the games as "the national championship game in the Sugar Bowl... which was scheduled last month by the Bowl Coalition agreement". There was no "Bowl Coalition title". There was no "Bowl Coalition national championship" to be won. The titles that these teams were winning were the AP and Coaches poll titles, and these national championship games in the 1980s and 1990s were all ''de facto''. Even the ones set up by the Bowl Coalition.
::::::] (]) 02:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: Certainly all of the NY6 games are notable in general, and Misplaced Pages has articles about each individual contest, various of which are rightfully notable in their own right. I'm in agreement with your example wording (and variants thereof), which are appropriate for article prose. The question at hand is infobox labels (now "standardized", including wikilinks). We seem to have agreement that, for example, ] shouldn't have proper noun "National Championship Game" in its infobox and ] shouldn't have proper noun "Bowl Coalition National Championship Game" in its infobox. What, if anything, goes in the infobox? Secondarily, at the bottom of said infoboxes is a set of prev/next links under the title of "College Football Championship Game" (another incorrect use of a proper noun). Those links seem to incorporate yet a different set of games, that are not enumerated anywhere, at least that I can find. For example ], which does not appear in ]. Having infobox labels and prev/next link trees, presented with seemingly well intended but made up proper nouns, is not encyclopedic. What do we do with those? ] (]) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::My thought is to use the branded/official/common name if that exists: "College Football Playoff National Championship", "BCS National Championship Game"(?), "Bowl Alliance Championship Game"(???), etc. Use the generic "National championship game" if no such name exists, with proper citations of course. Add the selector or trophy to the text or infobox somehow if such award is explicitly tied to the game: "National championship game (])" or "National championship game (])".
::::::::Remove the navigation links between years, unless navigating between an explicit set (CFP, BCS, ]...). Link between those 3 for convenience. I would argue against Bowl Coalition years, as that would open the whole above can of worms of also linking back to the 1980s Orange and Fiesta Bowl NCGs. ] (]) 18:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::: I'm supportive of those actions. Other editors are welcome to comment. With regards to the list at ], would that work better as a stand-alone article (perhaps "List of college football national championship games" or similar)? A bit more visibility might help, especially with regards to sourcing. ] (]) 19:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::What the Bowl Coalition was was an internal conference/bowl agreement that . Nothing more, nothing less. They could have easily been unsuccessful, in which case no national championship game would have been played in their bowls. Their NCGs can only be "precisely enumerated" because they got lucky 3 years in a row.
::::: This is history that, with appropriate sourcing, would enhance the Bowl Coalition article. ] (]) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Rose Bowl was similarly an organization and conference agreement that hoped to have the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup in its annual bowl. If they had the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup, they would have promoted it as a "national championship game" exactly as the Sugar Bowl did. The press would have treated this hypothetical 1993 Rose Bowl NCG identical to the Sugar Bowl NCG. In this case none of the other individual bowls (aka "the Bowl Coalition") would have had a national championship game.
::::: As above. ] (]) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Orange Bowl, prior to joining the coalition, was also an organization and conference agreement that independently attempted to schedule a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup its annual bowl. For the 1987 season they succeeded, and the ] was thus the national championship game, promoted as such, and widely proclaimed as such in the press.
::::: This is history that, with appropriate sourcing, would enhance the Orange Bowl article. ] (]) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::All these organizations and agreements are exactly the same: fragile attempts at matching the No. 1 vs. No. 2 team in a bowl. As the years went on, they brought in more conferences and loosened the tie-ins that made this difficult. But in the early years, especially the Bowl Coalition where there was no dedicated trophy, no rotating dedicated top bowl, no guarantee of the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup, no guarantee of even the Bowl Coalition's top two teams meeting, no crystal football, the national championship game was essentially ''exactly'' the same as the NCGs in the 1980s. Treating the Bowl Coalition as a "notable postseason structure" separate from what came before it is ahistorical. ] (]) 09:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: The ], warts and all, doesn't somehow grant notability to each entry in the open-ended list presented at ]. Nor should there be a capitalized proper noun ("National Championship Game") appearing in infoboxes. While ] is a great example of a game that pitted No. 1 vs No. 2 in both team's final game of the season with the winner being named consensus national champion in the polls, other entries in the open-ended list were neither a 1 vs. 2 matchup and/or were not the teams' final games of the season and/or the winning team was not a consensus selection in the polls. We even have examples of seasons and teams with more than one ""National Championship Game". Hence my continued issue with the use of that term in infoboxes. ] (]) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I fully agree that list should be better sourced and edited, and welcome lower case capitalization etc. Note that due to the multiple selector reality of college football, a season very well might have multiple "national championship games" deciding multiple national championship awards, titles, and trophies. The easiest example being one played for the pre-bowl UPI Trophy while another is later played for the post-bowl AP Trophy. ] (]) 02:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:Notify @] of the above discussion per recent edits at ], ], ], ]. ] (]) 20:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for this. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - I agree with @]: Limiting NCGs to those within a <q>"notable postseason structure"</q> is ] and ]. The ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]<nowiki/>were no different from the Bowl Coalition/Alliance, BCS and even 4-team CFP national championship games: informal matchups within the existing bowl invite system that, through luck and fortuitous scheduling, happened to produce a No. 1 vs. No. 2 or a No. 1 vs. No. 3 matchup - especially since the No. 3 teams usually automatically jump to No. 1 after winning over the top-ranked team.
:Most of them should be noted as national championship games. As PK said: The powers that be have been scheduling those types of NCGs for as long as the sport has existed. The media has called the qualifying ones "national championship games", and some, or most of them I’ve cited have been referred to as NC games by the media. Trophies have been awarded on the field to the winner of the game. These games did not begin in 1992 or 1998. ] (]) 21:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Also, I was suggesting labeling the ] as a national championship game as I feel it meets the criteria. But that’s just me. I wouldn’t mind hearing others opinions on this. ] (]) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I disagree with the assertion that the list of ''de facto'' national championship games you listed are {{tq|no different from the Bowl Coalition/Alliance, BCS and even 4-team CFP national championship games}}. The CFP national championship seems like the opposite to me: unlike the de facto games, the CFPNCG is scheduled not only before the season, but years out, with the intention of serving as the national championship. While the de facto games are viewed as national championships because they just so happened to be No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchups, the CFPNCG is viewed as a national championship because it was created solely for that purpose, regardless of the rankings or seedings of the teams that participate - it's the national championship no matter what. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
{{ping|Ha2772a|Dmoore5556|Jweiss11|PK-WIKI|Alex9234}} (hopefully I didn't leave anybody off the ping list) I created ] as a place for us to determine which games were "national championship games" and compile sourcing used to make those determinations. I recognize that ] exists, but I feel like the WP-space page is more appropriate for this issue since it seems to be more internal. I have included some criteria for pre-BCS national championship games that make sense to me; comments and revisions are welcome at that page. ] <small>(] &#124; ])</small> 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' proposal that such "national championship games" should not be noted in infoboxes. ] (]) 05:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:Linking @] to the above wikiproject list as well per recent edits in the mainspace article. ] (]) 23:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Designated conference games ==
In the grand scheme of things, I think the overall contributions from both of you is more important than this single issue. I'd like to think you can work out a compromise between the two of you. My feeling is correct schedule information is better than none at all. Is there anything that can be done to make the templates easier to understand for Cbl62? Can Cbl62 use the template, but leave confusing parts blank? Can someone just convert the non-template tables later, as Cbl62 has no problem with that either. All of those options sound better than removing correct information that is in a clean format, even if the table is non-standard.—] (]) 08:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
: Thanks, and I agree with your opening comment. We discussed on Jweiss' talk page, but he asserted that his view "should be simply accepted and mark the end of this discussion" and then blanked the tables I had created. As for your compromise suggestions/questions:
:* Making the template easier to understand and less time consuming would be great. The template is ''very'' cumbersome and has been a real impediment to building out the schedule charts despite nearly 10 years of this project's efforts. As Mnnlaxer noted at Jweiss' talk page: "Those tables are a pain in the ass for me, and I know more about templates than the average editor." The simple table format I'm using has each game on a single line and is way easier to complete. As points of reference, the NFL, MLB, and NHL projects all use simple charts, more akin to what I am doing, for their schedule/game log charts. See ], ], and ]s.
:*As for completing some but not all parts of the template, I don't think that moves the ball forward and, even if it did, would just result in messy, incomplete charts.
:* As to your third question, the format I'm using precisely mimics the output of the "official" CFB schedule template. It allows us to improve season articles and still permits a template-driven editor to swap out the formatting should they choose to do so. That's a compromise that makes sense to me. ] (]) 09:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' – A schedule is better than no schedule at all. If Cbl62 is willing to insert the schedules not using the template because it's "time consuming", then let him. If Jweiss and/or others don't like it, then they can ] and add the correct template... at least Cbl62 is willing to add the schedules. Should we use the template, yes, but I agree it needs needs updated and simplified. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


I just created ] to keep track of the teams that played "designated conference games", games against non-conference opponents that nevertheless counted in the that team's conference record. All the examples I've found occur between 1954 and 1978. Note that ] (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/) doesn't reflect any of these designated conference games, so it has erroneous conference records and standings for the relevant teams and conferences. ] (]) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
===Template usability===
Following are the current parameters for {{tl|CFB Schedule Entry}}.<br>
<code><nowiki>{{CFB Schedule Entry
| date =
| time =
| w/l =
| nonconf =
| homecoming =
| away =
| neutral =
| rank =
| opponent =
| opprank =
| site_stadium =
| site_cityst =
| gamename =
| tv =
| score =
| overtime =
| attend =
}}</nowiki></code><br> To help us better understand the issues, what are some of the problem people are experiencing? Confusing parameter names, unclear what should be entered, etc?—] (]) 10:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:My biggest issue with it has always been how many parameters you have to fill in whether you need them or not. If you're writing about an older season, you may not have the game time, attendance, or TV information (if it was even televised) readily available, and if the team wasn't ranked that year you may not need the rank column either. Normally this would mean that you can just leave out those columns entirely, but in the CFB schedule templates, you have to enter "time=no" (and so on for the other parameters) in both the header and every single entry. This is tedious if you aren't copying and pasting entries, and even if you are it's a lot of noise that you don't really need. ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
:: Agree with TheCatalyst. For a 10-game season, it's like having to fill out a lengthy questionnaire 10 times and having to remember code for many of the entries. It's just SO much easier to do it the way MLB, NFL, and NHL do it -- where you simply list the information for a game on a single line. Here's a comparison of how a single game is dealt with using the two versions:
:: * CFB Schedule Entry (a 15-part questionnaire for each game): "{{tl|CFB Schedule Entry}}.<br>
:::<code><nowiki>{{CFB Schedule Entry
| date = September 26
| time = unknown (does the coding require me to leave blank?)
| w/l = w
| nonconf = no because the team was "independent" (leave blank?)
| homecoming = unsure (leave blank?)
| away = no (do I write "no" or just "n")
| neutral = no (do I just leave blank?)
| rank = none (do I just leave blank?)
| opponent = ]
| opprank = none (do I just leave blank?)
| site_stadium = ]
| site_cityst = ]
| gamename = none (do I just leave blank?)
| tv = none (do I just leave blank?)
| score = 20–24
| overtime = no (do I just leave blank?)
| attend = 24,375
}}</nowiki></code><br>
:: * My way (a simple line of understandable text): "|September 26||]||], ]||'''L''' 20–24||24,375"
::The amount of time required to fill out multiple questionnaires (and figure out the correct coding) to complete the "official" template is unnecessary and deters schedule creation. ] (]) 15:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


:North Dakota in ] and ] competed as an FCS independent but had a scheduling alliance with the Big Sky. They were ineligible for the Big Sky title but games played against them counted in conference standings. Is this relevant? ] (]) (]) 14:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:All column use choices should only be in the header template, no repeating in entry rows should be needed. I would also take out the 95% font size and the dot between stadium and city. A comma would be fine. While on the subject, for {{tlx|CFB Yearly Record Start}}, entering "bowl = no" does not work. The label goes away, but there are still blank cells in the column. Also, for independents, if you don't include "conference = " (yes, blank), template code shows up in the table. And like CFB Schedule Entry, you need to include "| ranking = no" and "| ranking2 = no" on every entry if you're not using the ranking columns. I would hope Jweiss11 could admit that the template code could be vastly improved, which could potentially solve the issue. {{re|PSUMark2006}} or {{re|User:Nmajdan}} can you help out? -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|Mnnlaxer}} Can you provide examples of articles for these errors in the template? ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Sure, I just altered ] to show the "bowl = no" in the Start and took out "conference = " in 1917. Please undo the edit after you've had a look. But most problems with these two templates are coded correctly, they are just very cumbersome. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
::::Thanks, see ] as that will fix the "bowl" problem. Should we make the "conference record" field optional so it won't display <nowiki>{{{conference}}}</nowiki>? ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 01:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::Then the "bowl = no" issue is just like the rest of the repetitive "no"s you have to use, plus it wasn't mentioned in the documentation. Yes, "| conference = | confstanding = | bowlname = | bowloutcome = | bcsbowl = | ranking = | ranking2 = " should all be optional and default to blank cells if the column is being used or not creating cells in that column if the header has a "no" for that column. The same optional and defaults for the season entries should be made. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
::{{ec}} I realized that after I typed it... was getting ready to suggest conference as optional but you beat me to it! It would save us time this way. ''Corky''&nbsp;<sup>'''''<u><small>]</small></u>'''''</sup> 02:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
{{od}} Okay, guys, here are my thoughts on this. Jweiss is not wrong in saying that we should be encouraging use of the official CFB schedule template. Cbl62 is not wrong in saying that the template as it exists right now is a bit clunky in certain spots. So, to me the solution is, let's work to improve the template to make it more user-friendly. I fully agree with what has been brought out above about the repetitive "no" parameters, and I think this is something the should be fixable. For example, if you enter "rank=no" into the header of the template, you shouldn't have to re-enter "rank=no" on every single individual game entry - that should be done automatically. And, the same thing goes for other parameters like time, TV, attendance, etc. The good news is that it seems to me like this is something that should be fixable, we just need someone with the technical skills like ] to take a look at the template coding. ] (]) 21:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
:Yes, as far the usability, these templates were created years ago with a very modern BCS-centrist mindset, so those fields like time, rank, and TV are turned on by default. I'm not against flipping things around so that they are turned off by default. This would require some editing to the templates coupled with a bot sweep to clean up all the transclusions. ] (])


::Esb5415, yes, thanks. I had forgotten about that. Those are indeed designated conference games for all the Big Sky members that played North Dakota in 2018 and 2019. ] (]) 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Outdent}} Here are my general thoughts. I agree that are some small sub-optimal usability issues with the templates in question and I will support any effort to resolve or improve them.


== ] ==
However, the templates as they exist, are not that difficult to use properly with some care and attention to detail. If one chooses to build tables for a series of season articles for a particular team, once you get the first the table set up, you can accomplish much of the subsequent work by coping the code from one season to the next and making tweaks as needed—scores, dates, and opponent links will clearly change from one year to the next. This approach can be even more efficient given that teams will often play opponents in a similar order from one season to the next and have game locations toggle on a two-year cycle for regular/conference opponents. If anyone here wants to tackle the task of adding schedules tables for a series of articles missing them, I'm happy to help. Perhaps, attempt a table for the first of the series, and I can check it and make corrections as needed to facilitate the rest of the run.


There isn't an easy way to tell who was inducted this year (or any other) because this list is split up into three different lists and then further broken up by letter for each subsection, so the table sorting function is kind of pointless. Thoughts? Maybe there should be navboxes for each year like the ]? It looks like these lists have been split since the very beginning. In 2006, Nmajdan ] on the talk page as well. We can keep the coaching list separate though. ] (]) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
What is absolutely inappropriate is the approach that Cbl has taken. He decided that templates were too much of a pain for him, so he just said, "fuck em". These templates have already been transcluded on over 11,000 articles. They represent a core element of consensus and cooperative alignment for this project and its sister college sports projects. Noting that some messy non-compliant outliers, which don't use these templates, exist is an intellectually dishonest excuse. Cbl's example of ] was chopped about two years ago from one of those sloppy decade articles, ], that we've since phased out. Season articles for the Alabama or Michigan represent some of our best-in-class examples. Those should be used as models.
:These lists should probably be reorganized into one table, so that the sorting is more functional. ] (]) 22:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Agree with Jweiss. If reorganizing into one list with sortable columns is feasible, it would make for a much more useful sorting function. ] (]) 19:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] (]) 22:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
: JW -- The problems with usability are not "small" or remediable with a little tweaking. There's a fundamental problem with a cumbersome structure that requires repetition and completion of a questionnaire for each and every game entry. None of the other major sports do it that way, and my suggestion is to convert to a simple chart along the lines of those used by the NFL (]), MLB (]), NHL (]), or NBA (]). Any of these is preferable to the bureaucratic and burdensome structure we currently use. As for my creation of charts, it's not a "f--- em", not to you or anyone. It's an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I hoped that someone might fill in schedule tables and waited, in some cases, 3-1/2 years, for that to happen (e.g., ] and ] were created in August 2014!). Unfortunately, nobody did it, so I'm now filling them in. And I'm not doing it in a bizarre or "intellectually dishonest" manner. I'm doing it in a responsible and sound manner that visually replicates the "official" version (with the exception of a new "Source" column recommended by Mnnlaxer). If you or anyone wants to modify formatting, that time could be better spent building charts on other articles that don't already have schedule charts, but you are free to do so (my only objection would be to removal of content). ] (]) 01:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
::CBl, your approach is a non-solution. Do you want to TfD the templates in question and replace all 11,000 transclusions with manual tables? Otherwise, what you are doing is engendering a style fork. The legitimate issue with the templates, raised by TheCatalyst31 above, are indeed small and remediable. I've described above exactly how that remediation would be accomplished. With the issue of the non-applicable fields turned on by default resolved, these templates would become no less cumbersome than any infobox. Perhaps we should do away with those as well in favor of manually-rendered tables? I've also offered to assist anyone having difficulty implementing these templates. Your behavior here continues be self-centered and intellectually dishonest. You're up in arms about a preponderance of season stubs missing schedule tables, a preponderance that you created and now are singularly annoyed by. Three or four years is under the time limit for Misplaced Pages. The time limit, in case you're forgotten, is the end of time. In the meantime, the small band of hands we have on deck here may be busy working on other things, even fixing . If you continue to flout the consensus here and create more of your non-standard tables, I will be forced to apply for some sort of injunction or topic ban against you. ] (]) 06:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
::: JW - Of course, I appreciate your efforts on other things. We're all trying to improve Misplaced Pages, but accusations ("self-centered", "intellectually dishonest", saying a different approach amounts to "f-- em") aren't helpful. The schedule chart at ] is far from the abomination you seem to view it as. To the contrary, it's fully sourced (unlike most schedule charts), it's quick and easy to use, it's comparable to the "simple chart" format used for NFL seasons, and the output is virtually indistinguishable from the CFB Schedule chart (with the exception of Mnnlaxer's "Source" column). As Corky noted above, "at least Cbl62 is willing to add the schedules." But instead of a thank you, I get threatened. "Bah, humbug!" ] (]) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
:::: ], if you want something like {{tl|sports rivalry series table}} for this purpose, we can definitely do that. I just need to have a few samples showing the input syntax and output result and I can generate a module that does the formatting. ] (]) 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
::::: Jweiss11, it appears that "style fork" isn't a thing. If you can find it somewhere in non-project space, please let me know. Also, consensus can change. It is entirely possible that current consensus could choose to allow simple tables that replicate the look of the template. Not saying that will happen, just making a point about your righteousness and absolutism in this debate. -&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Mnnlaxer, style forking is indeed a thing. Compare the schedule tables at ] to ] to ]. The style here is forked in three directions. The Michigan table represents our best-in-class application of project consensus. The Texas Texas table was produced in ignorance and remains because of neglect. The Detroit table is a product of Cbl's deliberate flouting of consensus. I'm well aware that consensus can change, but it clearly has not yet. As for your assessment of my point, perhaps before you denounce the behavior of others, you should establish a pattern of good judgement here on wikipedia, instead of initiating a spurious AfD like ], or kicking up a bunch of nonsense about including a 1992 team video on ]. Then later we find out you were a player on the 1992 team. Certainly no conflict of interest there! ] (]) 15:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::: Come on Jw, it's about flouting time to stop flouting the flouty flout. And as for the Baird AfD, it was hardly "spurious"; I ended up voting "keep", but it was not a slam dunk by any means. Finally, nobody is defending or advocating the Texas Tech format, but I think the 1951 Detroit Titans schedule table is actually significantly better than the 1951 Michigan table with its (i) burdensome coding, (ii) empty and unnecessary columns for Game Time and TV, (iii) absence of game citations, and (iv) multiple rows spilling over unnecessarily to a second line. ] (]) 03:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: The Baird AfD was indeed an utterly spurious slam dunk keep. The time and TV columns can be easily turned off. Time to start discussing with some intellectual honestly, Cbl, and stop advocating for concessions to your own neuroses. ] (]) 21:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::: " ... stop advocating for concessions to your own neuroses." Seriously? Did you actually just type those words and then hit the "Publish changes" button? A ] is a mental illness/disorder. Such accusations are grossly inappropriate, Jw. Learn to conduct yourself in a civil manner! And please review ] on the "types of comments that are ''never'' acceptable." ] (]) 22:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::: Everyone has neuroses. It's a common, basic human malady. And I think it's a clear diagnosis of what's happening here. ] (]) 22:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
===Design of new template===
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Following up on the suggestion by ] (above) of the {{tl|sports rivalry series table}}, I am opening a new heading to focus solely on format for a new template. The coding format of "sports rivalry series table" is very user friendly and desirable. Perhaps we should take a poll on what fields are truly needed. IMO, a more limited group of fields would be best, perhaps just (1) Date; (2) Opponent; (3) Rank; (4) Site; (5) Result; (6) Attendance; and (7) Source. I favor getting rid of "Time" and "TV" which are lesser details that could be dealt with in a "Game Notes" section (but if consensus is to keep these fields, I suggest that they remain optional as they are now). The "Source" column would not be needed once "Game Notes" are integrated into an article, so it should be an optional column IMO. "Rank" should also be an optional column, as it will not apply in many cases (where it has no application, no reason for an empty column). A simple asterisk footer for non-conference opponents could continue to be used, but the footer should be optional so it doesn't appear in tables for independent programs. In deference to the process, I will defer creating further tables until we work through this process. ] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
:FYI, all of them elements of the existing footer can be turned off. See ] or an example. ] (]) 15:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
:: The key from my perspective is jettisoning the burdensome and repetitive questionnaire format and adopting a simple format (a la "sports rivalry series table") where the agreed fields are set forth on a single line. ] (]) 15:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
::: I'm in favor of retaining the time and TV fields. I don't see the value of having the fields "set forth on a single line". There's often enough information the tables that the text will easily wrap over onto a second line on most displays. The current layout, with each field on it's own line, is much easier to parse. See ]. ] (]) 20:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:::: My point is that the simple chart format (a la "sports rivalry series table", and as used for NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc) is dramatically quicker and easier to use than the repetitive "questionnaire" format used by for college seasons (and no place else that I'm aware of). Also, maintaining empty "Time" and "TV" columns for old seasons (e.g., ], ]) is not a best practice IMO. ] (]) 21:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
::::: If the TV and time columns are irrelevant for older seasons, then those columns can be hidden. ] (]) 21:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::: Yes, they ''can'' be hidden, but practice is completely erratic (e.g., ], etc.) because the coding is not user-friendly. A simple chart would make it much easier to eliminate inapplicable columns. ] (]) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::: College basketball uses ] and related templates. ] isn't a great comparison here because it's a much simpler table. So other then setting the defaults for the time, rank, and TV columns to off, what tangibly do you really want to change here? ] (]) 21:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::: What do I really want to change here? I've said it many times, and I'll say it again -- we should adopt simple chart format (either as the standard format or as an alternative format) along the lines of what's been rolled out at ] (which can be amended, of course, to add Time, Rank, and TV, where applicable, and to eliminate "Source" if consensus is opposed). As noted above (and ignored by you), similarly simple schedule charts are used by every major sport -- NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL. The simple chart format makes chart creation much, much easier. Like night and day. And it works great for the other major sports -- no missing seasons, no oddball formats (like ] and ]) resulting from the undue burden of trying to fill out the burdensome "questionnaire" for each game, no empty, superfluous columns because folks don't know the coding to turn off/hide them, etc. etc. ] (]) 21:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: The manual charts used by the NFL and other sports (which I am well aware of) are inferior to the ones used for college sports because they lack the dynamic nature that allows for synced change down the line. In fact, I've considered in the past rolling out the college football style templates to the NFL and elsewhere. Can you be clear what exactly what you are proposing? Do you want to TfD the templates in question here and replace with manual coding? Otherwise, I can't see what tangibly you are proposing other than setting the default for the time, rank, and tv fields to off. ] (]) 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::: I've been clear about my advocacy for a simple chart format (which can be a standard or alternate format and does not in any way necessitate a TfD for the old format). However, in view of your recent personal attacks above, suggesting that my position is driven by mental illnesses/disorders (!!!) (my reply ), I am disengaging from you for the time being. ] (]) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


== ] ==
== User:Lion1407/sandbox/Harrison Stewart (Football Player) ==


See the linked discussion re proposed deletion of ]. ] (]) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi WP:CFB members. I'm not sure if this would fall under your WikiProject's scope, but was wondering if someone might mind taking a look at ]. I stumbled across the draft while checking on some recent image uploads. I'm not sure how undrafted/unsigned former college football players are assessed for notability, but ] doesn't seem to apply here. Anyway, if Stewart's notable, the draft creator could probably use some help with the formatting, etc. to bring it inline with relevant policies and guidelines. Someone might be able to help out with the images as well. I also have a slight suspicion based upon ] that there might be some connection between the creator and Stewart. This is not such a big deal as long as the draft is submitted for review through AfC, but could be an issue later on if the draft becomes an article and the creator continues to try and edit it. -- ] (]) 05:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
* Also ] ] (]) 16:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
`

Latest revision as of 02:52, 23 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject College football and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCollege football
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2022-12-11


Articles needing improvement/attention
WikiProject College football was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 22 November 2010.

Shortcut

CFDW information is incorrect

I just spent some time editing the 1901 Washington football team article and finding contemporary sources from Newspapers.com. I was primarily interested in the previously unknown Athletic Park where many of the games were played, rather than at Denny Field. But I also discovered many errors in the games themselves.

This article was previously sourced only to the Washington Yearly Results page on the now defunct College Football Data Warehouse website.

Several of the games had incorrect dates and scores. CFDW also lists a 16–6 game vs. University of Puget Sound that was in fact played by UW's second team.

I know that this CFDW site was referenced heavily in the past, perhaps before we had better regulations against using WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. Now that Newspapers.com is available via the The Misplaced Pages Library, we should endeavor to cite contemporary reliable sources instead. Is there a way to tell how many CFDW references still exist? How many of our early season articles are sourced only to CFDW?

PK-WIKI (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You can type "College Football Data Warehouse" or other variations into the search bar to find the references. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
College Football Data Warehouse went defunct around 2015 or 2016. Prior to that, I had sent David DeLassus probably 100 emails over the years with error corrections. Note that https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/ and many media guides also have a lot of errors, particularly concerning the late 1800s and early 1900s. I've reached out to sports infomation directors at various schools about correcting their errors with varying degrees of repsonsiveness. Recently, I discoved Billy Crawford (American football), who was head coach at Butler and Wisconsin in the early 1890s, and is completely omitted or misattributed in media guides for both schools. Corrobation with contemporary sources is always best. We have a growing collection of media guide errors at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Media guide errors. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
  • From my ten-plus years working on season articles, I found that all of the major sources for older game results (Sports Reference, College Football Data Warehouse (CFDW), and school media guieds) have some errors (I would estimate at less than one percent overall for Sports Reference and CFDW, a bit higher for some of the media guides). On balance, my assessment is that CFDW had fewer errors than Sports Reference. I found both to be reliable but not perfect. David DeLassus (who ran CFDW for many years) is/was a meticulous researcher, and his work is invaluable for many of the historically-but-not-currentley-significant programs whose results have never been compiled elsewhere. (Becuase of DeLassus' reliability, many newspapers and other publications relied on CFDW as their go-to source for historic game results. I hope that Misplaced Pages is now becoming that "go-to" source.) My best advice: Use one or the other to construct the initial skeleton for an article's schedule/results, but where available we should include citations to newspaper articles with actual game results as our best practice to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our content. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
1905 Washington football team lists a game vs. the crew of the USS Chicago (1885).
CFDW shows this game as well as another undated one vs. Seattle High School.
Contemporary reports however call both a "practice game".
Do we have a standard for including "practice games" in team articles? PK-WIKI (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
As for practice games, if you can find contemporary newspaper reports, I would include them in the schedule table and season or game summary detail sections, but if such a game is not counted in the team's official records (as in its media guide), for now I would note the game a practice game with a parenthical "practice" after the score, and not inlude the decision in the team's won–loss record. We may want to build some sort of standarized various for practice games into the table templates. For the 1905 Washington team, the game on October 4 against USS Chicago is listed in the media guide and counted in the team's official record, so I would treat that as a normal regular season game. The game played against Seattle High School, prior to that, probably in late September, is not mentioned in the media guide, and should be treated as a practice game. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
This would appear to be an instance of the modern Media Guide being wrong.
Page 89 of the Tyee 1907 yearbook (which for some reason contains the 1905 season...) shows the 1905 Washington football team's first game as Whitman with no mention of either of the earlier games.
The Seattle P-I also reported it as a "practice" game on the day of the event. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's a WAC-Idaho rematch that's missing from the 1902 Washington Agricultural football team and Battle of the Palouse articles and the WSU records but present in the 1904 (1902 season) Idaho yearbook and seemingly in contemporary newspaper reports. PK-WIKI (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The most recent Idaho football media guide, from 2018, that I can find doesn't list this November 15, 1902 game either; see page 161 at https://govandals.com/documents/2018/7/30/2018_Football_Media_Guide.pdf. Note that the Spokemans Review article states "Today's contest, being not a championship game..." Usually the verbiage "championship game" from this era means more or less what we mean to be a conference game now. But neither school's media guide records the game at all. Perhaps this should be noted as a "practice" game? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Quick comment, which I believe is consistent with the above replies. I've created multiple articles about the earliest seasons of New Hampshire Wildcats football. I've found multiple instances of the school's media guide and CFDW differing from contemporary newspaper accounts. This ranges from minor differences in scoring, to different overall records depending on which games of the season are considered to have been varsity contests. The approach I've taken is to list both what "modern" sources say, and what contemporary sources said—a couple examples are 1896 New Hampshire football team and 1903 New Hampshire football team. I've also seen "practice games" end up in varsity records as late as 1912 New Hampshire football team. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Regarding practice games, University of Chicago began its seasons in 1890s-1900s with several practice games against local high schools. Sources have included these as part of the team's annual records. If it were up to me, these games should not count but that's original research, so I have not removed them. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that approach. Early New Hampshire teams had a number of matchups against non-college opponents—including high schools, athletic associations, and crews of US naval ships from a nearby shipyard—that remain part of their official record per the school's Media Guide. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Denny Field

As for "Denny Field" at the University of Washington, the first reference I can find on newspapers.com is in 1907. This article from August 1901 discusses "Athletic park" and a potential on-campus alternative for football at Washington: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-post-intelligencer/159875152/. PK-WIKI, I see you redirected Athletic Park (Seattle) to Championship Field, which was built in 1994. Did you find a source to indicate the the Athletic Park of 1901 was on the same site? Confusingly, the 1901 Washington University football team also played at an "Athletic Park", better known as Sportsman's Park in St. Louis! Jweiss11 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Athletic Park was at the same location as current-day Championship Field (or within a half-block or so, if not the exact site).
I started a discussion on this at Talk:Championship_Field#Previous facilities at this site: Athletic Park, YMCA Park, baseball field with some preliminary sources.
Per the sources I added today most of the 1901 games were played at Athletic Park, but in one game on October 6th UW "...defeated the Vashon college team on the university campus..." which I take to mean Denny Field. I'm guessing that many/most of the games prior to the mid-1900s were played at either Athletic Park or Madison Park (Seattle). But Misplaced Pages currently locates almost all of the post-1895 games to Denny Field, which should be researched/corrected. Perhaps they had a rudimentary field and practice site on campus circa 1895, which was later expanded with bleachers as documented in your clipping. Perhaps also later named in memoriam of a Denny (Arthur A. Denny 1899, David Denny 1903). PK-WIKI (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The 1904 Washington football team played their home games at Madison Park (Seattle), except for their very first game vs. California to end the season at Recreation Park (Seattle). A stadium that seems to have been in the eventual Seattle Center area and is mentioned at List of Pacific Coast League stadiums. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

1904 Arkansas Cardinals football team

While we are on the topic of descrepancies between conteporary coverage versus modern-day media guides and encyclopedias, 1904 Arkansas Cardinals football team is really a head scratcher. I brought this up a few months ago here, but didn't get any input. Please see: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 26#1904 Arkansas Cardinals football team. Would love to some other eyes on this one. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

General manager

GMs may become a thing in college sports. This Athletic article gives a detailed scope of Andrew Luck's responsibilities. Might be worth a WP page at some point or expansion of General manager (American football). —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a more directly involved, football-specific athletic director better suited for the NIL and transfer portal (basically free agency) era. It probably does warrant an expansion if this becomes a thing moving forward. ~ Dissident93 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Two stand-alone articles for Georgia Tech games worth assessing

2023 Georgia Tech vs. Miami football game has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. An article for this past week's 2024 Georgia Tech vs. Georgia football game was also just created and has been tagged for notablity. Thoughts on that one? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My view is the 2024 Georgia Tech vs. Georgia football game article is far from being ready and should be placed in Draft unless/until the creator(s) build it out. That said, whether an 8-overtime game, by itself, warrants its own article will be a point of contention. I would say no, as I feel that adding sharp/focused content to relevant articles (such as Overtime (sports) and the articles about the teams) is more helpful to readers than making them go to an independent article where they need to read through what will end up being an epic-like account of the game. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Hard agree on UGA-GT being draftified. The only substantive content in the entire body of the article is under "Controversies" and it looks to me like SEVEN of the article's eleven citations are used just to support the fact that the game went into eight overtimes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Butters.From.SouthPark: would you have any concerns/opposition to draftifying the UGA–GT article for now? It's not ready for mainspace in its current state and hasn't been edited constructively in three days apart from the scoring summary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No concerns Butters (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Moved to Draft:2024 Georgia Tech vs. Georgia football game. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jweiss11 and Dmoore5556: Unrelated to Georgia Tech, but we have another pop-up single game article for 2024 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game that includes some questionable lines neutrality-wise. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC) @Tejano512: I would recommend you hold off on creating articles on standalone games as the vast majority of games are not worthy of their own articles. These articles have to pass WP:SPORTSEVENT, and at present they do not. I think this article is best suited to redirect to Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry (which, funnily enough, isn't even the rivalry page that's linked in the lead). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Resurrection of one the most storied rivalries in college sports. I'd say it's fairly significant and/or about as significant as a bowl game. Tejano512 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tejano512 Maybe, but what you say isn't relevant in this case. It comes down to what the sources say, and it is far, far too soon to make any sort of determination as to the long-term impact of this game from the perspective of outside sources (plus, the game itself was fairly mundane, so basically all of the "notability" being ascribed to the game is purely based on circumstance and pre-game hype, which is getting off on the wrong foot as far as I'm concerned). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Follow-up note for anyone interested in participating: the deletion discussion for 2024 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game can be seen here. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Approval required for CFB schedule template edit to accommodate CFP seeding parameter

Template talk:CFB schedule#Template-protected edit request on 8 December 2024

I have made all the changes necessary to incorporate seed= and oppseed= parameters. Example in the edit request. This would clean up a lot of confusion and follow college basketball norm. Thanks Admanny (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba sorry to randomly ping you, but I know you're an admin who is also involved with the project. I think Admanny has an excellent idea here - any way you could help him get it implemented? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Dissident93: and @Frietjes: as they last edited the template this calendar year Thanks Admanny (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you to @Dissident93: for approving the request! I have gone through every team in the playoff's schedule to implement the new seed and oppseed parameters. Works perfectly! @PCN02WPS:, I am alright with removing rankings from the bracket now. Side note: @TheGoodGeneral 1:, I see your efforts to "standardize" how seeding would look in the schedule tables, thank you for that, just letting you know this is a thing now. Thanks Admanny (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Glad to see it works without issue. ~ Dissident93 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS: I pinged the wrong person my bad! Admanny (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Standalone CFP first round articles

Hi all, just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that 2024 Clemson vs. Texas CFP football game has been created by Tejano512. It was redirected by CoconutOctopus shortly afterwards but undone and expanded by Tejano less than 20 minutes later. I was under the impression that we would not be creating standalone articles on first round games - thoughts? Pinging @Dmoore5556, Jweiss11, PK-WIKI, and Zzyzx11: as all of you commented on this thread where I posed that question earlier this year and/or at this merge discussion where the details of individual edition CFP articles were discussed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm still of the (rather strong) opinion that the first-round (non-bowl) games can and will be adequately covered in the 2024–25 College Football Playoff article and the articles for the participating teams. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Not sure how to proceed with this though, maybe try a PROD? Open to suggestions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
For now, I rolled back the article to the redirect, and left a message on the talk page of Tejano512. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Normally, I wouldn't disagree, however I believe there are many reasons why a stand alone article should be considered/is warranted: Nearly unprecedented seasons for many teams, First time CFP expansion creating unique matches (teams barely missed higher seed), Highly covered teams (pre, reg and post season), Extensive media coverage, Prominent players, coaches, staff and fans, etc, First match in history, etc Tejano512 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe those aspects can be well covered in the team articles and the 2024–25 College Football Playoff article. Note that 2024–25 College Football Playoff is a dedicated article about the playoff, independent of the broader 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games article. Having a "grouped" article covering more than a single matchup (game or series) between two teams has work effectively in, for example, baseball—such as 2024 American League Wild Card Series, 2024 American League Division Series, and their National League equivalents. Other editors are welcome to opine as well. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I oppose creating standalone articles for every single CFP first round game. As Dmoore5556 mentioned, there are currently no standalone articles for every single MLB Wild Card Series and Divisional Series game. There are also currently no standalone articles for every single NBA playoff series, every single NHL series, and certainly no standalone articles for every single NFL playoff game. Otherwise, where will it end if these playoffs -- not just the CFP but the other postseasons I mentioned as well -- eventually expand to include additional teams? The only way I would support a separate article on a CFP first round game is if, after it is played, passes criteria #4 of WP:SPORTSEVENT: A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game. This is why some individual NFL playoff games like the Tuck Rule Game do have separate articles, but most other NFL playoff games do not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:PAGEDECIDE is a relevant guideline:

... at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).

Moreover, WP:LASTING is not even met at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I think our best bet is to handle CFP first round games at 2024–25 College Football Playoff and relevant team season articles, not with stand-alone articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The CFP first round games should be discussed at 2024–25 College Football Playoff and relevant team season articles. I also think it may be worth thinking about whether all bowls should have a stand-alone article moving forward with the implementation of a multi-round playoff structure, similar to other sports. - Enos733 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Mexican college football champions

Every now and then, we as a project come across a new area to be developed. E.g., WWI and WWII military teams, black college football champions, small college football national champions, etc. User:JTtheOG has created 2024 Borregos Salvajes Monterrey season, the 2024 champion of a Mexican college football competition. It appears well sourced, but I know little about college football in Mexico. Do we have other articles on Mexican college football champions? Is there an applicable list or category? Is this a notable vein of gold that should be mined? Or merely fool's gold? (If nothing else, I've found a new candidate for favorite team mascot: "Borregos Salvajes" = "Savage Sheep") Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To answer your (first) question: no, I believe this to be the first Mexican college football season article on Misplaced Pages, either English or Spanish. American football has a century-old history in Mexico and receives extensive coverage, especially at the collegiate level. The Borregos Salvajes Monterrey, located in the gridiron hotbed of Monterrey, are the dominant college team. They even broke away from the ONEFA in the 2010s to create their own league, CONADEIP , although they have since returned. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll also add that while the competition is around the DIII/JUCO level, the amount of coverage (at least for this team) is more akin to a high-performing DII or FCS program. JTtheOG (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

First-round CFP games, bowls?

While in the 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games article the first-round bowl games, being played at campus sites, have been collectively noted as "Non-bowl game" and excluded from the Bowl record by conference totals/table, the NCAA is counting those games along with traditional bowls here. As we know, the NCAA doesn't sanction the CFP, they are independent entities, but NCAA records are rather comprehensive. Input welcome on whether the first-round games should "count" is welcome. Note that this will also affect the counts and percentages at Bowl Challenge Cup. Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that other sources (such as USA Today, here) are also lumping first-round games in with named bowls, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and update the bowl game article to include CFP first-round games. This will add 4 games, thus 8 teams to the overall counts (3 Big Ten, 2 ACC, 2 SEC, 1 Independent). Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think they are bowl games, but they're certainly post-season games with the equal/greater important to the lesser bowls. Article titles can likely stay as-is, stats should be updated as if they were bowl games, and article leads should have "...and post-season playoff games" or etc. appended. I imagine that's how the reliable sources will handle it but we should observe as they do. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the infoboxes of Marcus Freeman and Curt Cignetti to include last night's CFP first round game in bowl records. However, Indiana Hoosiers football and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football need to be updated accordingly. We should keep an eye of the articles for progams and coaches of the first round participants. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

East-West New Year's Day postseason games, bowls?

Relevant to the above topic discussing if first-round playoff games are "bowls".

In 1924, California and Stanford were both unbeaten, played to a 20–20 tie, and were co-champions of the Pacific Coast Conference.

In two New Year's Day East-West post-season classics in California, Stanford played unbeaten Notre Dame in Pasadena, while California played unbeaten Penn in Berkeley.

Contemporary newspapers show the games sharing the top billing, both described as post-season unbeaten vs. unbeaten East-West big games.

Is our coverage of post-season college football currently lacking due to our modern conception of "Bowls"? That terminology was probably popularized circa 1934–35 NCAA football bowl games with the introduction of the Sugar and Orange bowls. Are we missing coverage of other earlier January 1st post-season games? Does the Penn game deserve to be listed at 1924–25 NCAA football bowl games, List of Pac-12 Conference football champions, List of California Golden Bears bowl games, etc.? PK-WIKI (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

CC 1922 San Diego East-West Christmas Classic, which was originally supposed to feature Oregon but was opposed by the PCC in favor of only playing the Rose Bowl. The conference also disapproved of 1922 Stanford football team scheduling a post-season December 30th game vs. Pittsburgh, which was played. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Bowl game articles -- text and links for naming sponsorships

Hello college football editors! Which of these two styles do you prefer, and why, for the lead paragraphs of bowl game articles? Or if neither, what do you suggest? In both of these styles, the short name of the game (e.g. "2025 Rose Bowl") as well as the sponsored name (e.g. "Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential") are mentioned in boldface in the lead paragraph. (1) Mention the sponsored name in the first sentence, after the short name, without a link to the sponsoring company -- like this. (2) Mention the sponsored name in the last sentence, with a link to, and very short description of, the sponsoring company -- like this. — Mudwater 19:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to advocate for style (2) myself. One reason is that it makes the lead sentence less messy and more direct. Another reason is that I'm sure some of our readers would like find out at least some minimal information about the sponsoring companies. In the example above, some people won't know what Prudential is, but style (2) tells them in three words -- "financial service company" -- and if they want to find out more they can just click through. (A lot of last year's bowl game articles follow style (2), but we need not feel bound by tradition.) — Mudwater 19:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll give my thoughts since I was the one that brought this up on Mudwater's talk yesterday - I used to use (2) exclusively but have since switched to (1), as can be seen in my more recent articles (2024 College Football Playoff National Championship, 2024 Rose Bowl, 2024 Sugar Bowl, etc.). I think it looks cleaner and keeps the boldface stuff in one place, plus that construction is used widely elsewhere for other sports (Emirates Stadium, Belgian Pro League, Croatian Football League, EFL Championship, etc.). I like having the full name in the first sentence, instead of giving a shortened name and then coming back to the full name at the end, and I don't think we owe it to the sponsors to link and describe their companies (or at least we don't owe it to them any more than the soccer articles do). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

AfD heads-up

For all that are interested, Alabama–Penn State football rivalry has been nominated for deletion. The nomination is available here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (3rd nomination). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 season articles

Looks like a bunch of editors have starting creating 2025 season articles already. I thought we had agreed not to create the next season's articles until the current season is over. That's doesn't happen until January 20. Nevertheless, I don't we should start deleting stuff that would just have to be recreated in a few weeks. But if and when you do create 2025 season articles, it would be helpful you could properly categorize any such articles, create any needed categories and standings templates, and properly tag and rate the talk pages for such articles, templates, and categories. By default, FBS team season articles should be set to mid importance. FCS and anything lower should be set to low importance by default. Also, please do not copy over offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox from 2024 to 2025 (ahem, looking at you Butters.From.SouthPark). No one knows what schemes teams are going to running next season. It may be the same thing as this season, particularly if the coaching staff stays the same, but we don't know. Please wait until you have a media guide or some other reliable source, likely not before late next summer, before populating the scheme fields. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Motdattan, heads up here regarding the offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Will delete them from now. I get the point that they may not run the same scheme even though the staff doesn't change. Motdattan (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I thought we had agreed not to create the next season's articles until the current season is over. That's my recollection as well, and we should not be creating season articles way in advance. However, I think it's fine once the "regular season" is over at the end of November. Especially with the new playoff system prolonging the season all the way out to January 20 (the championship game), I don't see a need to wait until January 21 to start creating 2025 season articles. That said, any 2025 season article will be vulnerable to deletion or draftification if it lacks appropriate sourcing. So any articles created should be supported by the best sourcing available. And if good sourcing is not available, probably best to create the article as a draft until the sourcing becomes available. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to Motdattan and anyone else, when you create articles like 2025 Washington State Cougars football team, please remember to properly tag the talk page with appropriate project banners. Failure to do so may lead to unfamiliar editors tagging the wrong project at Talk:2025 Washington State Cougars football team. Dclemens1971, note that college football season articles like this should be tagged for this project, WikiProject College football, not Misplaced Pages:WikiProject American football. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. I am indeed not aware of every possible banner available in Rater. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I can do that. Motdattan (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Butters.From.SouthPark, please note the above about not copying over offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox from 2024 to 2025. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Dogloverr16, heads up to you as well. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

All-South independent football teams

Papichulo52 recently created a series of 27 articles for "All-South" independent teams, all-star teams for major independents in the South for the years 1968 to 1994. Most of these articles have been tagged with Template:One source, and yesterday, Reywas92 PROD'd one of them, 1973 All-South Independent football team. I obejctived to the PROD because this subject isn't obivously non-notable, and these articles should be adjudicated together, either in discussion here and, perhaps, at AfD. Note that we have analogs for these articles at Category:All-Eastern college football teams, Category:All-Pacific Coast football teams, Category:College Football All-Southern Teams, plus the many articles for all-conference teams. Gjs238, GhostInTheMachine, and Hey man im josh each did a bunch of cleanup on these articles, but they still need some work. And more importantly, what does everyone thing about notability here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

My indirect input is the series of articles appear to lack context. They could likely benefit from an "anchor" article that explains the All-South independent teams—what entity bestowed the honor, how were players selected (e.g. a poll of media/coaches/other players), was this only at the University level or did it also include Small College players, did the composition of the "team" change over time (it appears that Special Teams were added at some point), and such. And perhaps a bit of "so what"—did the honor raise the profile of seniors heading to the NFL draft, or might it have raised the profile of underclassmen heading into the next season's Heisman consideration, or ? Clearly someone(s) put a chunk of work into 27 different articles, but a lot of it comes across as a wall of mostly non-notable names. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The same criticism could be applied to the All-Eastern teams (88 articles), largely created by Cbl62 and Cumberland Mills. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I would support consolidating them all at a new article 1973 College Football All-Region Teams to match 1973 College Football All-America Team. Could also do 1973 College Football All-Conference Teams rather than an article for each conference? This would be an "anchor" article that explains the concept of regional teams, and would also allow minor regions/conferences to be easily added without the overhead of a new article or risk of deletion. Would also consolidate a bunch of references and boilerplate, as I imagine many of the selectors are ranking multiple regions in the same article.
Also, IMO articles like 1973 All-Big Eight Conference football team should be retitled to 1973 Big Eight All-Conference football team.
I also think we are missing a lot of history on pre-conference regional team rankings. Some articles like Lambert-Meadowlands Trophy exist, but regional newspaper rankings of teams and regional "mythical" championships were extremely common in the pre-conference era. Tables like Template:1917 Eastern college football independents records collect the teams and standings, but not the sportswriter rankings. Is there a place for regional rankings at articles like 1917 college football rankings, or is that supposed to be national? Should they live at a new article?
PK-WIKI (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
PK, I'm pretty sure the common names of the all-conference teams generally take the form of "All-Big Eight Conference", not "Big Eight All-Conference". The phrase "College Football All-Region Teams", if used, should certainly not be capitalized. Same for "College Football All-Conference Teams". Those early regional rankings certainly seem apt for inclusion in the prose of team season and national season articles. Not sure they belong in standings tables. Probably too fragmented to be standardized for that sort of thing. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, there'd be WP:BROADCONCEPT pages like College football all-region teams and College football all-conference teams. However, are there sources that deal with this at a high-level? Otherwise, is it WP:OR? There's existing pages like List of All-Big Ten Conference football teams, which at the very least serve as navigation to all the conference's year-specific pages. In basketball, pages like List of All-Pac-12 Conference men's basketball teams enumerate every years' teams, not merely links to year-specific pages. However, the size of football teams (off+def+special teams) seems to make it unwieldy to combine each years' selection onto a single page (also discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 16 § Help needed: All-SEC and All-Pac-12 teams).—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea to consolidate each of the regional teams rather than each one having its own article. Reywas92 20:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I created All-East team articles for the period ending in 1979. During that time, All-East teams were a big deal because the major Eastern teams (Penn State, Syracuse, Pitt, Army, Temple, Rutgers, etc.) were not members of conferences, and there weres no all-conference teams to cover an entire region of major college football. The All-East selections became less notable after the 1970s, as the Big East Conference was formed and the eastern majors began to join the Big East or other conferences like the ACC and Big 10. I have doubts about the notability of All-East teams post-1979, but the All-East teams of the 20th century at least through the 1970s received extensive coverage and pass our notability standards. (I don't have the time to look into the All-South independent teams at the moment, but unlike the East, the South was historically dominated by major conferences (SEC and Southern Conference), so I'm less confident in the notability of this grouping. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Research help - head coach of a defunct program

I am working on a rewrite of Frederick W. Hinitt's article, which originally claimed (via navbox and category) that he was the head coach of the football program at the now-defunct Parsons College for one season in 1900. This would have been during his first year as president of the school, but I haven't been able to find any indication that this was the case on Newspapers.com, in this wonderful book about the school, or in Google searches in general. The creator of the navbox template, {{Parsons Wildcats football coach navbox}}, is retired and did not include any sourcing in the navbox, and Hinitt's name was added later by Bigredlance, who hasn't edited in about a year. I might have just overlooked it somewhere, but if anyone has some time to spare and wants to help me out, I would welcome some assistance! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The 1967 football media guide provides some help: . Page 44, in particular, has a historical sketch that discusses the pre-1909 squads. Hinitt is not mentioned. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I hadn't found that. I still haven't been able to find anything so I think I'll stick with leaving that stuff out of the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of reportage (e.g., this) on Hinitt when he came to Parsons in the second half of 1900 but nothing that I found about him coaching football. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for taking a look. I'm starting to suspect that the user who added him to the infobox accidentally saw stuff about him "arriving at Parsons" as president and mistook that as him coming to coach. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's also just unlikely that the president would be the coach in a time where athletic directors generally coached damn near every sport a school has to offer, especially a 'smaller' school. I have found previous coaches added to numerous navboxes (ie {{Buena Vista Beavers football coach navbox}}) from Bigredlance which, after some digging, have proven to not be accurate. (Not to discredit their effort because there is more accurate data than inaccurate that they've added. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

FCS/FBS team playoff navboxes TfD

Please weigh in at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 December 28#NCAA FCS/FBS playoff team navboxes. Thank you. —SportsGuy789 (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Possible spam/advertisement company/fraudulent website?

See the edits User:Cfbrivalries posting non-official rivalry websites to pages, first as an external link then as a source. WP:AGF, this is a misguided attempt to be helpful posting an WP:NOTRELIABLE source? At worst, these all look the same and are suspect websites.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on football player leads

See here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Depth charts in team/season articles

Several years ago, it became popular to add "depth charts" to team/season articles. See 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team#Depth chart. It has long been my view that these sections are problematic in that: (i) they are almost never supported by citations, let alone citations to reliable sources; and (ii) depth charts continually evolve during the course of a season as players move up and down the depth chart or sustain injuries/suspensions. If depth charts are to be kept, they need to be properly sourced, and there needs to be clarification as to the time period (e.g., start of season? end of season? some particular date in between?). Lacking these elements, we are tolerating vague, unsourced, potentially inaccurate, and WP:BLP-violative information. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks to be a fair and accurate concern to raise. I might suggest adding an "unsourced" tag/flag to applicable sections, such as the Michigan one noted above, and remove them if they remain unsourced. Or WP:BOLD and do so directly. Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I like the templating idea. Can anyone point me to the correct template for an unsourced section? Cbl62 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Cbl, Template:Unreferenced section. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
For most of the same reasons, there's no depth charts on NBA pages (WP:NBADEPTH). Even if cited, the sources' content itself did not seem to be reliably updated. —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
and there needs to be clarification as to the time period. That's what {{As of}} is for. Left guide (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Tiger Bech

I just created an article for Tiger Bech, who was killed in the 2025 New Orleans truck attack. Thriley (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

New College Statistics table format

Dissident93 created a new College Statistics table format where he had relocated the college name banner to the left side of the table. You can see an example of this in the Jayden Daniels article. Here is an example of the current format for comparison. I wanted to get opinions on his new format and ask whether or not it should replace the current format. SteeledDock541 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just commenting that the format I've been using on certain pages contains the same information without needing additional lines to clutter the table. It also follows the same format as NFL stats tables. ~ Dissident93 01:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this is preferable to the existing format. Although, I know there is a movement here (which I am in agreement with) to remove the overreliance on colors for the team boxes. Couldn't this be updated to have a link to the 20YY NCAA Division X football season then the 20YY College Name football team just like how the NFL version has NFL season then team season link?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I think having just a three letter acronym for college teams wouldn't work. It works in the NFL because there's only 32 teams, whereas there's hundreds of college teams. One example I can think of is Georgia State University and Georgia Southern University. State has the acronym of GSU while Southern has GS. In my opinion that can get confusing to people unfamiliar with the schools pretty quickly.
Also, there are editors (including myself) who feel that the colors help signify each team better compared to not having colors at all. SteeledDock541 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd argue for removing that from NFL stats tables as linking to the team's season is preferable than the overall league year. ~ Dissident93 00:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
NFL stats table link to both the NFL (year link) and team season page (from team link) e.g. Justin_Herbert#NFL_career_statistics —Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, colors are distracting, esp. now with transfer portal. Either way, college and NFL sections of a bio should be consistent. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
No acronyms should be used, they aren't used in head coaches tables. Colors are distracting and are overrused. Consensus on this project has stated as such.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Per the team colors, we've established consensus to not use them in places like the tables at Pigskin Classic or 2021 Big Ten Conference football season, where, if used, you have a gaudy rainbow of many team colors. I think there's a good argument not to use them in these statistics tables as well, given now that in the transfer portal era, players can easily play with three or four teams, e.g. JT Daniels. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, since there's multiple people that think that the colors are not necessary for the statistics tables, do you guys want to completely move on from using colors in the tables? If so, do you think Dissident93's format (albeit without colors) is good, or is a format like this better? (this is basically what UCO2009bluejay initially suggested) SteeledDock541 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Commenting that I also support having no colors and only viewed this as a compromise as removal seemed to mostly just be enforced by me. The repeating team name in the Meyers example can be merged and the links moved to the year, as the overall NCAA season isn't that important to the player as their team's season is. They all link back to the NCAA season on their respective page for people curious enough. ~ Dissident93 00:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep status quo of the links to the NCAA year. It's consistent with NFL stats format's link to league year, as well as coll basketball and NBA. It doesnt take up any extra space in the table (the words already there) —Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Mid-table headers I didn't realize that "current format", which linked to Shedeur Sanders#Statistics, was to have the team name as a mid-table header (esp. for players w/ multiple teams). This is counter to MOS:COLHEAD:

Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table.

There's also no reason to have college and NFL stats formatted differently. Something like Dan Marino#College statistics used to be the standard.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Does nobody else find the school name repeated several times to be less than ideal? ~ Dissident93 15:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I personally don't have a problem with it. As Bagumba mentioned in one of his comments, the college format should be the same as the NFL, college basketball, and the NBA. The college basketball table has the NCAA year and then the team name links to the that school's year in football. I kinda get what you're saying about the school name being repeated several times, but most college players are in college on average for 3-4 years, so in my opinion its not that much of an issue. SteeledDock541 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
See Jason White (American football). This article has a table and the school name spelled out. (I didn't do this and the table has been this way for a while.) Standardizing these might be good.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
At some point, some editor(s) started putting colorized banners of the lone school, like at Brett_Hundley#College_statistics (permlink), but still retaining the school name and links on every row. —Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I removed like all of those last year but people always add them back. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
We all need to enforce it when we see it, it only takes a second to remove. Maybe my issue is simply using the university name instead of a common abbreviation. Is there some template that already has a list of school abbreviations for other uses that we could use as a base? ~ Dissident93 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The major problem with this is that there are multiple universities with the same abbreviations. Look at the List of colloquial names for universities and colleges in the United States page. There are multiple schools with the abbreviations of AU, BU, CSU, etc. With the NFL having 32 teams, no one team has the same abbreviation, but with college, this isn't the case. Using names like Georgia or UC Berkeley are not long, but at the same time, they make each university distinguishable. SteeledDock541 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it's unavoidable. ~ Dissident93 23:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
You inspired me to scrap it from Hundley.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's our culprit if you want to play whack-a-mole with the rest of the headers. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh. It seems we had a limited discussion about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 26 § Team colors on stats tables —Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems like a majority of you think that the Jason White (American football) / Brock Vandagriff table formats should be the standard going forward. To reach a consensus on this, do you think that this format should be the standard format? Please reply to this comment stating whether you support or oppose this. Thanks, SteeledDock541 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Support the removal of colors but still think the repeating full school names could be improved. ~ Dissident93 18:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Support Removal of colors and those mid-table team headers (like this). Team names should display and link to the team season in the same format for both college and NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Roster template for one-platoon football?

I'd like to add rosters for older teams such as 1889 Washington football team, but Template:American football roster/Header requires |offensive_players=, |defensive_players=, and |special_teams_players=.

Those distinctions of course didn't exist in the days of one-platoon football.

Are there any roster templates built for historic elevens? PK-WIKI (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Navboxes for lower level national champions?

We allow navboxes for college football national champions, but should that apply to lower level national champions? Template:2023 Harding Bisons football navbox suggests to me that the answer should be "no". There's not a single player who has his own article, and so there's nothing meaningful to navigate between. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally no, as the amount of articles that seem to be needed to establish navbox usefulness seems to be around a minimum of four links (just as a generally accepted rule I have witnessed throughout my adventure with templates for deletion) and lower level teams generally will not have four+ notable players on them. With that being said, if a lower level team has enough to be notable then they should stay, but the ones with two or three (which I am guilty of creating) should be deleted. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Thetreesarespeakingtome. I did come across Template:2023 Cortland Red Dragons football navbox which you created. Would you be willing to compile the lower-level champion templates with fewer than four entries (or at least those you created) and submit them for deletion? If you explain the situation, as you did above, the nominatins should be non-controversial. Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Compiled a list of every single one I could find. I am not too familiar with the deletion process but if you're willing to do that that's up to you.
Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Are conference championships conference games?

Seeing disparities in team schedules whether conference championships are marked as nonconf=y or not. What's the standard? Admanny (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Conference Championship games are conference games. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 04:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jeffrey R. Clark: I can see that; however conference championship games do not count to their conference record as noted in 2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Conference standings. Admanny (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Correct, I know it's weird, but it's been that way for as long as I can remember it. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 05:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Conference championship are not conference games. They do not count in a team's conference record, and they should be noted as "non-conference" in schedule tables. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Perusing some relevant articles, looks like we have a big inconsistent mess here. Jeffrey R. Clark, "it's been that way for as long as I can remember it", are you referring to our convention about this here on Misplaced Pages? Because I believe at some point, I made sure that all conference games were denoted as non-conference. But other editors have removed many of those notations. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean, if we have a convention that's states that they shouldn't be counted as conference games, then so be it. I could be just simply forgetting that discussing had taking place. Jeffrey R. Clark • talk • contribs 06:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Disagree that they should be marked with a * and noted as non-conference games. That goes against the very meaning of the words. It's the conference's championship game, of course that's an in-conference game. Conference templates like Template:2023 Pac-12 Conference football standings have a row for the conference championship game because it's part of the in-conference slate of games.
Now, they shouldn't be included in a team's "conference record". That should be understood to be the regular season record, while the CCG is a separate post-season game. I'm not sure where I stand on them being included in all-time team records and coaching records, we should consult secondary sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
As for the "very meaning of the words", depends on what you mean by "conference". As for all-time team records and coaching records, do you mean things like Dan Lanning#Head coaching record and List of Oregon Ducks football seasons? Oregon's 2024 conference record was 9–0, not 10–0 (including their win in the 2024 Big Ten Football Championship Game), and not 10–1, also including the playoff loss to Ohio State. And also not 9–1 per NorthernShore's edit on January 6! Clearly, any all-time conference totals for Lanning and Oregon should reflect the 9–0 record from the 2024 season. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I can see an argument for including CCG records in a coach's all-time conference wins/losses, if we saw secondary sources doing that. Or in all-time team conference wins. I'm interested in how college basketball does it (both on Misplaced Pages and in third-party sources), as each team has multiple conference tournament games to end the year.
I agree that any singular season tally should show just the 9–0 regular season conference record.
2016–17 Saint Mary's Gaels men's basketball team shows a 16–2 WCC record, omitting 2 wins and 1 loss in the WCC tournament. But the conference tournament games are rightly not marked with a confusing * to indicate they are "non-conference".
Readers will be WP:ASTONISHED that the conference championship game is marked as "non-conference", and the asterisk will be continually deleted/re-added forever across every season article. Avoiding that is for more important than getting the non-asterisked table rows to exactly sum up to the conference record. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree - I'd be more astonished if there was something marked with an asterisk that didn't count towards a team's conference win-loss total. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, can clarify you comment? Seems like you were disagreeing PK-WIKI, but maybe there a typo? Did you mean to say, "I'd be more astonished if there was something not marked with an asterisk that didn't count towards a team's conference win-loss total". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I would expect any game that counts towards a team's conference standings to have an asterisk, and otherwise not. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, well that's the exact opposite of the scheme that was established here nearly 20 years ago, and a different, more fundamental issue that what Admanny brought up. We put asterisks on non-conference games, not on conference games. Perhaps it would be less confusing if we eliminated the "nonconf" field, replaced it with a "conf" field, and inverted the entire scheme. That would require a massive, bot-assisted overhaul to tens of thousands of articles. PK-WIKI, let me ask you this: if we had a scheme where we denoted conference games with asterisk, would you want the conference championship games to get an asterisk, even though they don't count toward the team's conference record? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The major issue is explicitly marking the CCG with a big asterisk as a "non-conference game" when IMO it very clearly is a (post-season) conference game. That's why people remove them. If the asterisks were inverted I guess I would be fine having the CCG un-annotated alongside the bowl games, that's less of a glaring "mistake".
The need for asterisks comes down to the regular season games each season. If we had a separate table for post-season play, that post-season table wouldn't need the distinction... none of the games count towards the conference record, and it's assumed that CCGs are conference and bowl games are non-conference games anyway. It's not really useful to asterisk. The legend could be changed to something like "Non-conference regular season games". Or a section header be added near the end of the table to differentiate between regular season and post season play.
My preference would be to only asterisk the 3 non-conference regular season games. Or, the 9 regular season conference games. And then justify excluding asterisks on the CCGs and bowls through some other means like the design of the table or the text of the asterisk note.
PK-WIKI (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Adding to the messiness, there are conferences that have divided into divisions that only count games against divisional opponents as conference games. It seems bizarre to me that opponents in the same conference (but different division) should be counted as non-conference games, but that's how at least some conferences do it. Cbl62 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think that practice has only taken place as sub-Division I levels. The Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference (PSAC) comes to mind, e.g. 2017 IUP Crimson Hawks football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Side discussion about oddities

I should also note that the Army-Navy game, despite both being AAC members, is NOT a conference game, and is reflected accurately in both teams' pages. So my point is, there are indeed exceptions. Admanny (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, are some instances where two teams in the same conference play in the regular season and it's not a conference game, e.g. 2012 Portland State Vikings football team. Conversely, there are some instances where games against non-conference opponents were designated as conference games and counted in the conference standings for one team, e.g. 1968 LSU Tigers football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

"standardizing" edits

User Ha2772a (talk · contribs) has undertaken an effort to make "standardizing" edits to a large number of bowl game articles. These include, from what I briefly have seen, adding "CFP New Year's Six" as an infobox sub-header of non-playoff games (for example, 2023 Orange Bowl) and adding "National Championship Game" as an infobox sub-header of various historical games, such as 1973 Rose Bowl and 1971 Nebraska vs. Oklahoma football game. All look to be good-faith edits, but I certainly question deeming them to be "standardizing" when it appears to narrowly be one editor's preferred style. More narrowly, I don't agree with either of the two specific examples, as NY6 sub-headers for non-playoff games are just infobox clutter, and retroactively deeming certain games which, in retrospect, yielded a national champion is very different than a game that is specifically played for that purpose. Other editors may like the changes. Comments welcome, as I feel this type of broad change deserves some attention. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional comment on the 1971 Nebraska vs. Oklahoma football game, now deemed a "National Championship Game"—after Nebraska defeated Oklahoma, they still had a non-conference game to play (at Hawaii, which they won) and they then accepted a bid to the 1972 Orange Bowl (which is also now deemed a "National Championship Game"), where they defeated Alabama. That Nebraska's next-to-last regular-season game was a "National Championship Game", the first of two they played in the same season... this is not encyclopedic. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, "CFP New Year's Six" stuff is at least technically accurate. We can debate whether it's a necessary subheader in the infobox. I believe we've recently discussed the topic of pre-1992 "national championship games here. The 1973 Rose Bowl was not a "national championship game". What if Ohio State had narrowly beaten USC, while Oklahoma had beaten Penn State in a blowout at the Sugar Bowl? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think either is necessary. The NY6 stuff will surely be present in the lead of those articles, and adding "national championship game" to any pre-BCS championship seems flatly incorrect to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
No opinion on any of the particular games mention here; citations should be added and discussed. But there certainly were "national championship games" prior to the advent of the BCS. The 1932 Rose Bowl awarded two separate national championship trophies directly to the winner. The 1969 Game of the Century was proclaimed as a national championship game by the president of the United States. The 1972 Orange Bowl and 1973 Sugar Bowl both awarded the MacArthur Bowl, one of the most prestigious CFB national championship trophies, directly to the winner of the game. All of the above are no more and no less "national championship games" than the 1993 Sugar Bowl, 1996 Fiesta Bowl, 1999 Fiesta Bowl, or 2025 College Football Playoff National Championship. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
PK-WIKI, all of that stuff is appropriate for inclusion and explanation in prose in the lead and body of these articles, but "Richard Nixon national championship game" does not belong in an infobox. The 1993 Sugar Bowl what a very specific kind of structurally defined national title game and is noted as such, as the "Bowl Coalition National Championship Game". Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Replying to this comment but have read the rest of the discussion (@Jweiss11 @PCN02WPS @PK-WIKI). My edits were only looking to standardize how the subheaders are formatted in the infobox. There were vast differences between bowls with how they handled BCS Championships and their predecessors as well as the CFP NY6 indicator and BCS Bowl Game indicator. For example most bowls had the CFP NY6 moniker when not a quarterfinal for the first six years, but didn't with more recent editions. It was a similar state for "BCS Bowl Game." I agree that it shouldn't just be the preferences of a single editor, I was simply looking to make a set of pages consistent within what was already existing for those boxes. The inconstancies confused me since all these bowl games are basically identical types of an event.
As for championships predating the Bowl Coalition, I did not add NCG to any box that it did not already exist in. Some of these linked out to the page about college football championships, some did not, I elected to link all of them so at least explanation could be ensured on that page. Although the list on that page raises questions because there are championship games listed there that did not have any mention on their page. Perhaps the pre-Bowl Coalition games need some kind of indicator like quotation marks if it isn't 1 vs 2 in a bowl game?
I delved into games of the century as well because there was a separate formatting method for those titles that was applied to the 2006 Rose Bowl that formatted the infobox title with the year at the end instead of preceding the bowl name. The same standard was used here, moving Game of the Century to the subheader and using the bowl name or teams as the game name. Again a similar problem exists with the GOTC page since it lists additional games that do not have the moniker mentioned on their page about the game. Ha2772a (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The generic term "national championship game" is a misnomer, given that the NCAA has never sanctioned a championship at the highest level of college football. All that has existed are championship games of specific structures, such as Bowl Coalition National Championship Games (e.g. 1993 Sugar Bowl) or BCS National Championship Games (e.g. 1999 Fiesta Bowl) or College Football Playoff National Championship games (e.g. 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship) and that is all the infoboxes should call them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoore5556 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I generally agree with you that we should title the infobox "BCS national championship game" or whatever, depending on the selector. However I'm not sure how to square that with the historic reality of national championship games in the poll era. Games such as the 1969 Rose Bowl were widely regarded as national championship games, so much so that the AP Poll delayed its final poll specifically to account for the game. It was regarded as a national championship game in the de facto / generic sense, but I think it would be incorrect for us to label the infobox as "AP Poll National Championship Game" when no such designation was made. "National championship game" with citations seems like the best solution. PK-WIKI (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

"National championship game" in infoboxes

Proposal — infobox labelling of any "national championship game" that was not contested as part of a notable postseason structure (e.g. Bowl Coalition, BCS, or CFP) is WP:SYNTH and should be removed. Notable games of any era that led to one of the participants being named a national champion can be (and hopefully already are) highlighted as such in the article. Comments welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support proposal that such "national championship games" should not be noted in infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - Limiting NCGs to those within a "notable postseason structure" is WP:RECENTISM and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The 1988 Orange Bowl and 1994 Orange Bowl were exactly the same type of national championship games: informal matchups within the existing bowl invite system that, through luck and fortuitous scheduling, happened to produce a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup. (The Bowl Coalition one was actually "worse": the Coaches Poll had it as a No. 1 vs. No. 3 matchup.) Both should be noted as national championship games. The powers that be have been scheduling those types of NCGs for the last 100 years. The media has called the qualifying ones "national championship games". Trophies have been awarded on the field to the winner of the game. National championship games did not begin in 1992 or 1998. PK-WIKI (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Support - I think that "National championship game" should only be used in the cases where the winner of that game became the national champion not by being ranked No. 1 as a result but rather by the very act of winning the game itself. (I guess another way to frame this would be the fact that the game was played for the purposes of determining a national champion rather than having the game serve as a "national championship" if the participants happen to be No. 1 and No. 2 .) From what I can tell that first "National Championship Game" would be the 1993 Sugar Bowl. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC) — I am amending my vote to a soft oppose as I would support infobox inclusion of any game which is determined via rough consensus to have met the criteria at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/National championship games. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC) — I keep changing my mind so neutral it is. Lots of good debate at the talk page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
What exactly did Alabama win in New Orleans? The Sugar Bowl trophy, and that's about it. The Los Angeles Times reports the next day that after the game, all Gene Stallings could see was a scoreboard that read Alabama 34, Miami 13. This morning he will see another sight to cherish: the Crimson Tide perched alone atop the final polls, an improbable national championship of well-earned certainty.
How exactly was the 1993 Sugar Bowl a new type of national championship game? It wasn't. They waited for the polls the next day just like every other year. Who recognized them directly for winning the game itself? No one. The recognition came from the AP and Coaches the next day. The game was exactly as much of a national championship game as, say, the 1988 Orange Bowl where the program and broadcast were similarly branded as "The National Championship". PK-WIKI (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
From what I understand after reading a bit of Bowl Coalition was that the 1993 Sugar Bowl, as the first Boal Coalition National Championship Game, marked the first year of "we are going to definitely have a national championship game with No. 1 playing No. 2" as opposed to "we just so happen to have No. 1 vs. No. 2 in this bowl game, so it's a de facto 'National Championship Game'". It seems to be the first year that the penultimate rankings are more important than the final rankings, since the national champion became dependent on the game (with the rankings merely a formality afterward) and its participants (who were, by definition, the top two teams in the penultimate rankings) rather than dependent on simply waiting on the rankings, especially in the majority of cases when the top two teams weren't paired together. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 08:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That's incorrect. The Bowl Coalition didn't have the Big Ten or Pac-10 champions. The Bowl Coalition got lucky that they were able to schedule the top two teams in a single bowl. We very well could have had No. 1 Michigan playing No. 2 Washington in the 1993 Rose Bowl, which would then itself have been the "national championship game". They also got lucky that Miami was in the Big East, as hypothetical No. 1 Nebraska (Orange Bowl) would not have played No. 2 Alabama (Sugar Bowl) despite both bowls and conferences being in this "coalition". There was definitely no guarantee that the Bowl Coalition would be able to schedule a national championship game; the agreement simply made it a bit easier than before. If anything had messed up the No. 1 vs. No. 2 pairing there would not have been a national championship game, the exact same fragile situation as every season prior to 1992. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I appreciate the explanation. In that case I feel Bowl Coalition should be rewritten because an agreement among NCAA Division I-A college football bowl games and conferences for the purpose of forcing a national championship game between the top two teams was the quote that led me to believe that the system was designed for the sake of always having a No. 1 vs. No. 2. Now that I read BCS National Championship Game#History, I feel like the first labeled "National Championship Game" should be the 1999 Fiesta Bowl, since I guess that was the first year where, prior to the start of the season, you could guarantee that there would be a definitive national championship game taking place to conclude the year. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you that the advent of the Bowl Championship Series in 1998 was the first season where, prior to the season, the top(*) two teams were pre-confirmed to play in a national championship game. And, additionally, that it would specifically happen in the 1999 Fiesta Bowl. That was an important milestone but I don't believe it diminishes the prior national championship games that occurred by happenstance.
The 1993 Sugar Bowl was unquestionably that season's national championship game. That fact should be noted in the game's infobox.
Likewise, the 1988 Orange Bowl was also unquestionably that season's national championship game. That fact should be noted in the game's infobox.
PK-WIKI (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I don't have an issue with saying "national championship" in the infobox so long as it's covered in prose with appropriate sourcing, which I suppose goes without saying anyway. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Would you agree that the 1978 Cotton Bowl Classic was a national championship game? Or not really? Alex9234 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Potentially. I would want to see what the contemporary reliable third-party sources said about it. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Semantically, every Bowl Coalition National Championship Game was a Bowl Coalition National Championship Game, nothing more or less. The Bowl Coalition was a notable (as in, Bowl Coalition) postseason structure and its championship games (independent of their value) can be precisely enumerated, and their infoboxes should identify them as such. Deeming any games as being "national championship games" (used as a generic term) is subjective, as seen in the list at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship games. They cannot be precisely enumerated ("This list is incomplete") and various entries are debatable (e.g. 1946 Army vs. Notre Dame football game, played when the two teams had 5 other total games left to play). I am advocating not tagging any games with generic "national championship games" labels. Dmoore5556 (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
You are assigning too much value to this supposed "Bowl Coalition National Championship Game", which didn't really exist as a first-class enterprise. The phrase as a capitalized proper noun basically does not exist in a search on Newspapers.com. I question if we should even be using that phrase on Misplaced Pages due to its lack of usage in reliable third-party sources. Searching for "Bowl Coalition" does not turn up a single piece of vintage memorabilia on eBay.
I'm not assessing its "value"; it was a notable (Bowl Coalition) postseason entity. I am fully supportive of discontinuing the use of a capitalized proper noun if it was spuriously created; adjusting to "Bowl Coalition national championship game" or even perhaps "Bowl Coalition title game" ("title game" being the phrase that appears multiple times in the target article) seems appropriate. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The Orange Bowl (Orange Bowl) was also a notable postseason entity. As was the Fiesta Bowl (Fiesta Bowl). Both independently endeavored to schedule No. 1 vs. No. 2 "national championship games", which they successfully accomplished in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988. When those two bowls and a few others made a coalition to make the bowl selection process a bit easier, that new organization is no more or less notable than the previous independent bowls that did the same thing. While the Bowl Coalition was an important milestone in the march towards the BCS/playoff, it was certainly not "the first official national championship game". That is the "value" I'm talking about being overestimated.
I think it would be more accurate to describe the games as "the national championship game in the Sugar Bowl... which was scheduled last month by the Bowl Coalition agreement". There was no "Bowl Coalition title". There was no "Bowl Coalition national championship" to be won. The titles that these teams were winning were the AP and Coaches poll titles, and these national championship games in the 1980s and 1990s were all de facto. Even the ones set up by the Bowl Coalition.
PK-WIKI (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Certainly all of the NY6 games are notable in general, and Misplaced Pages has articles about each individual contest, various of which are rightfully notable in their own right. I'm in agreement with your example wording (and variants thereof), which are appropriate for article prose. The question at hand is infobox labels (now "standardized", including wikilinks). We seem to have agreement that, for example, 1986 Orange Bowl shouldn't have proper noun "National Championship Game" in its infobox and 1993 Sugar Bowl shouldn't have proper noun "Bowl Coalition National Championship Game" in its infobox. What, if anything, goes in the infobox? Secondarily, at the bottom of said infoboxes is a set of prev/next links under the title of "College Football Championship Game" (another incorrect use of a proper noun). Those links seem to incorporate yet a different set of games, that are not enumerated anywhere, at least that I can find. For example 1956 Orange Bowl, which does not appear in College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship games. Having infobox labels and prev/next link trees, presented with seemingly well intended but made up proper nouns, is not encyclopedic. What do we do with those? Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
My thought is to use the branded/official/common name if that exists: "College Football Playoff National Championship", "BCS National Championship Game"(?), "Bowl Alliance Championship Game"(???), etc. Use the generic "National championship game" if no such name exists, with proper citations of course. Add the selector or trophy to the text or infobox somehow if such award is explicitly tied to the game: "National championship game (MacArthur Bowl)" or "National championship game (Erskine Trophy)".
Remove the navigation links between years, unless navigating between an explicit set (CFP, BCS, BA...). Link between those 3 for convenience. I would argue against Bowl Coalition years, as that would open the whole above can of worms of also linking back to the 1980s Orange and Fiesta Bowl NCGs. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm supportive of those actions. Other editors are welcome to comment. With regards to the list at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship games, would that work better as a stand-alone article (perhaps "List of college football national championship games" or similar)? A bit more visibility might help, especially with regards to sourcing. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
What the Bowl Coalition was was an internal conference/bowl agreement that attempted to schedule No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchups in one of the participating bowls. Nothing more, nothing less. They could have easily been unsuccessful, in which case no national championship game would have been played in their bowls. Their NCGs can only be "precisely enumerated" because they got lucky 3 years in a row.
This is history that, with appropriate sourcing, would enhance the Bowl Coalition article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The Rose Bowl was similarly an organization and conference agreement that hoped to have the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup in its annual bowl. If they had the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup, they would have promoted it as a "national championship game" exactly as the Sugar Bowl did. The press would have treated this hypothetical 1993 Rose Bowl NCG identical to the Sugar Bowl NCG. In this case none of the other individual bowls (aka "the Bowl Coalition") would have had a national championship game.
As above. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The Orange Bowl, prior to joining the coalition, was also an organization and conference agreement that independently attempted to schedule a No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup its annual bowl. For the 1987 season they succeeded, and the 1988 Orange Bowl was thus the national championship game, promoted as such, and widely proclaimed as such in the press.
This is history that, with appropriate sourcing, would enhance the Orange Bowl article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
All these organizations and agreements are exactly the same: fragile attempts at matching the No. 1 vs. No. 2 team in a bowl. As the years went on, they brought in more conferences and loosened the tie-ins that made this difficult. But in the early years, especially the Bowl Coalition where there was no dedicated trophy, no rotating dedicated top bowl, no guarantee of the No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup, no guarantee of even the Bowl Coalition's top two teams meeting, no crystal football, the national championship game was essentially exactly the same as the NCGs in the 1980s. Treating the Bowl Coalition as a "notable postseason structure" separate from what came before it is ahistorical. PK-WIKI (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The Bowl Coalition, warts and all, doesn't somehow grant notability to each entry in the open-ended list presented at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#National championship games. Nor should there be a capitalized proper noun ("National Championship Game") appearing in infoboxes. While 1988 Orange Bowl is a great example of a game that pitted No. 1 vs No. 2 in both team's final game of the season with the winner being named consensus national champion in the polls, other entries in the open-ended list were neither a 1 vs. 2 matchup and/or were not the teams' final games of the season and/or the winning team was not a consensus selection in the polls. We even have examples of seasons and teams with more than one ""National Championship Game". Hence my continued issue with the use of that term in infoboxes. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I fully agree that list should be better sourced and edited, and welcome lower case capitalization etc. Note that due to the multiple selector reality of college football, a season very well might have multiple "national championship games" deciding multiple national championship awards, titles, and trophies. The easiest example being one played for the pre-bowl UPI Trophy while another is later played for the post-bowl AP Trophy. PK-WIKI (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Notify @Alex9234 of the above discussion per recent edits at 1933 Rose Bowl, 1963 Rose Bowl, 1969 Rose Bowl, 1973 Rose Bowl. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Alex9234 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with @PK-WIKI: Limiting NCGs to those within a "notable postseason structure" is WP:RECENTISM and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The 1963 Rose Bowl, 1969 Rose Bowl, 1973 Rose Bowl, 1983 Sugar Bowl, 1987 Fiesta Bowl, 1988 Orange Bowl and 1994 Orange Bowlwere no different from the Bowl Coalition/Alliance, BCS and even 4-team CFP national championship games: informal matchups within the existing bowl invite system that, through luck and fortuitous scheduling, happened to produce a No. 1 vs. No. 2 or a No. 1 vs. No. 3 matchup - especially since the No. 3 teams usually automatically jump to No. 1 after winning over the top-ranked team.
Most of them should be noted as national championship games. As PK said: The powers that be have been scheduling those types of NCGs for as long as the sport has existed. The media has called the qualifying ones "national championship games", and some, or most of them I’ve cited have been referred to as NC games by the media. Trophies have been awarded on the field to the winner of the game. These games did not begin in 1992 or 1998. Alex9234 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, I was suggesting labeling the 1978 Cotton Bowl Classic as a national championship game as I feel it meets the criteria. But that’s just me. I wouldn’t mind hearing others opinions on this. Alex9234 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that the list of de facto national championship games you listed are no different from the Bowl Coalition/Alliance, BCS and even 4-team CFP national championship games. The CFP national championship seems like the opposite to me: unlike the de facto games, the CFPNCG is scheduled not only before the season, but years out, with the intention of serving as the national championship. While the de facto games are viewed as national championships because they just so happened to be No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchups, the CFPNCG is viewed as a national championship because it was created solely for that purpose, regardless of the rankings or seedings of the teams that participate - it's the national championship no matter what. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ha2772a, Dmoore5556, Jweiss11, PK-WIKI, and Alex9234: (hopefully I didn't leave anybody off the ping list) I created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/National championship games as a place for us to determine which games were "national championship games" and compile sourcing used to make those determinations. I recognize that this table exists, but I feel like the WP-space page is more appropriate for this issue since it seems to be more internal. I have included some criteria for pre-BCS national championship games that make sense to me; comments and revisions are welcome at that page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support proposal that such "national championship games" should not be noted in infoboxes. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Linking @Jeff in CA to the above wikiproject list as well per recent edits in the mainspace article. PK-WIKI (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Designated conference games

I just created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football/Designated conference games to keep track of the teams that played "designated conference games", games against non-conference opponents that nevertheless counted in the that team's conference record. All the examples I've found occur between 1954 and 1978. Note that Sports Reference (https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/) doesn't reflect any of these designated conference games, so it has erroneous conference records and standings for the relevant teams and conferences. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

North Dakota in 2018 and 2019 competed as an FCS independent but had a scheduling alliance with the Big Sky. They were ineligible for the Big Sky title but games played against them counted in conference standings. Is this relevant? Esb5415 (talk) (C) 14:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Esb5415, yes, thanks. I had forgotten about that. Those are indeed designated conference games for all the Big Sky members that played North Dakota in 2018 and 2019. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

List of College Football Hall of Fame inductees

There isn't an easy way to tell who was inducted this year (or any other) because this list is split up into three different lists and then further broken up by letter for each subsection, so the table sorting function is kind of pointless. Thoughts? Maybe there should be navboxes for each year like the Pro Football Hall of Fame ones? It looks like these lists have been split since the very beginning. In 2006, Nmajdan questioned it on the talk page as well. We can keep the coaching list separate though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

These lists should probably be reorganized into one table, so that the sorting is more functional. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree with Jweiss. If reorganizing into one list with sortable columns is feasible, it would make for a much more useful sorting function. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Terrence Cody

Terrence Cody has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nick Gates (American football)#Requested move 19 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nick Gates (American football)#Requested move 19 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 January 21

See the linked discussion re proposed deletion of Template:2023 Harding Bisons football navbox. Cbl62 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

`

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football: Difference between revisions Add topic