Talk:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season

message: I've tagged this as unencyclopedic as it was/is talking about future events (which have now occurred) (see WP:NOT). It needs, imo, to be updated or deleted. - Politepunk 13:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This clearly fits in the #1 under Crystal Ball: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ... A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. Mecu 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

message: While the AfD consensus was "keep", I think there was sufficient consensus that the "Key Matchups" section needed to go. If someone really thinks I'm wrong here, by all means revert and give me a good reason why it complies with WP:NPOV. BryanG(talk) 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem to be fine - it was really the unsourced section from before that I was talking about anyway. BryanG(talk) 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Key Matchups section 

message: Do we want a full games list of the season? It would be quite lengthy and just clutter up this page, so perhaps on another page? Or go week by week of games? Something like 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season week 1 and then 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season week 2 and so forth? Mecu 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so we'll just list games that are noted as important by other sources. But I disagree that we delete them after the week is over. Does it become unencyclopedic after 2 weeks? Mecu 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we run the risk of the article becoming too long to be usefull if we keep more than two weeks worth of matchups, not necessarily un-encyclopedic. maybe keep two weeks of data for the top games and then have a separate section that is for notable games from that season...instant classics if you will. Z4ns4tsu 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Game List

message: Should there be a section (with subsections for each week) that describe important news items for that week? Such as, for the pre-season section, could have rule changes, the Oklahoma Sooners QB & lineman dismissal, recruiting violations/other scandals/sanctions? I know we're not a news site, but season altering news like the OU thing I believe should be in on the 2006 page somewhere since A) they were selected by some to win it all and B) an upset/loss by Notre Dame would also be damaging. Perhaps weekly summaries of important events? I guess then what happens when a week goes by and nothing noteable happens (lets say all top 25 teams win)? Any thoughts?--MECU≈talk 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be against something like a Major Events section with a bulleted list of events that occurred throughout the season. However, it would be hard being NPOV when it came to random editors views as what is important. Yeah, the OU think is big but what if this happened to Middle Tennessee State? Somebody from there may deem it big news, but not to everybody else.--NMajdan•talk 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a simple rule: If it affects a team that is pre-season selected to win it all, or a current #1 or #2 ranked team, it's important. I think everyone would agree with that. But then this could turn into a season page for a team if like last season, USC/Texas are #1/#2 all season long again it would be all about USC/Texas. --MECU≈talk 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it long-term, there are usually only one or two really notable things about a season.  For instance, 2005 had a few big upsets, but nothing spectacular until the Rose Bowl.  There were the Marcus Vick issues, but those would be more suitible as entries on his page.  I suppose that there really wasn't anything (to my feeble and distracted mind) that really "stood out" last season and needs to be recorded on the season page.  Unlike, say in 2002 when there were two or three straight weeks of last-second upsets. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the section wouldn't always be needed, so I'm not sure we want to set the expectation that it will be there. Z4ns4tsu 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season News 

message: This list looks like it is getting a bit long to me.  Is there a chance that we can get it pared down to just the one or two most important games from each week?  Also, while I agree that almost every game listed here is/was important, if it is not recognized as such by the media at large and can not be sourced, it should be droppped from the table (IMO).  Here are my keepers from the season so far:
*Ohio State @ Texas - #1 vs. #2 is always a season-changer, especially when it is this early in the season
*Michigan @ Notre Dame - Huge upset and possibly the biggest of the season
*Michigan @ Ohio State - Only deserves to be here if both are still in the top 10 when they play or Michigan gets the upset.
Yeah, that's about it. Insead of the table listing a bunch of games like we have now, I'd rather see a smaller section with sub-headings for the games and a detailed and well-sourced analysis of what happened and how it changed the season as a whole (not just for the teams involved, but for the whole conference or nation).  Maybe this can wait until the end of the season, but right now we're getting a lot of POV in the significance column. z4ns4tsu\talk 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should wait until the end of the season to pair down the games, except the unsourced ones. If there's no source for a game when added, it's likely POV from the poster, and if it's not POV then it should have a source. So if there's no source for it after 24 hours, remove it. I think during a season, there are lots of important games, but looking back at last year (for example) there's only 1 or 3 important games. I'm going to remove all games that don't have a source now. --MECU≈talk 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, perhaps the deciding line should be two sources that say it's important. If you look now, there are only 2 games important with that criteria, both you listed above. --MECU≈talk 12:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I object, actually.  I don't think much thinning of the list is needed at all.  The Nortwestern example should definitely stay in - there was HUGE media attention to that game due ot ht edeath of the coach.  The TCU game is cited and it was very unusual in that Tech was not able to score a touchdown.  I think only unsourced games should be removed.  Any that are properly sourced by one or more refernces should stay, in my opinion.  Johntex\talk 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you at least be okay with removing those that have sources from non-national places? Or ones that aren't really impartial? For example the Ga Tech/Clemson game by a GA newspaper (though it says AP)? --MECU≈talk 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2006 NCAA Division I-A football season#Key Matchups|Key Matchups]] 

message: I noticed that the AP rankings are being used in the Bowl games section. Since we are using the Coaches poll for the most part on the yearly team articles (2006 Texas Longhorn football team), would it make sense for us to switch this section to the Coaches poll as well?--NMajdan•talk 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But also I think having the whole bowl list isn't needed, as it's all contained in the article that's linked under the . Maybe just list the BCS bowls? Or, other notable bowl games -- if something unique happens like The Play? --MECU≈talk 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Support; I had thought about doing it myself. I may make some layout/format changes to what you've done however (including more linkages). AUTiger ʃ talk/work 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowl games 

message: I know that "Division I BS" may look a little ungainly :) , but where did the "F" in the article title come from? It seems redundant to say "FBS football season," since presumably the F is for football. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the NCAA designated abbreviation for Football Bowl Subdivision.↔NMajdan•talk 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBS? 

message: I just looked over the list and thought it was pretty good, just noticed some notable missed games. First, the Kansas State-Texas game where Colt McCoy got injured and KSU won, changing the whole Big 12 picture, and second, the BYU-Utah game, won on a last-second pass in the fourth quarter.  It was all over the news because of the final play, as well as the fact that it is a huge rivalry. Wrad 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, partially because of the sourcing requirement that someone else (news media usually) determined the game to be notable. Also many games on the list came from lists of predicted notable matchups, rather than post-game declarations.  You'll note Auburn's win over Florida's (the BCS champ's only loss) isn't on the list either. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to anyone adding games such as those mentioned above, as long as they sourced to a third-party "neutral" group. Getting the team's local paper that says it's a big game doesn't do much for me. ESPN or SI or another such source I'd be fine with. MECU≈talk 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing games? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://mb22.scout.com/fouinsiderfrm1.showMessage?topicID=129802.topic
** In 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings on 2011-05-26 02:09:19, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings on 2011-06-14 05:32:46, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/hall/newfullstory.asp?ID=108011
** In 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season on 2011-05-26 02:09:15, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season on 2011-06-14 05:33:54, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/playingrules/football/2005/6-9-2006RulesChanges..pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070118095241/http://www.startribune.com/512/story/939076.html to http://www.startribune.com/512/story/939076.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion