Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Oct2007

message: I think all of the season articles should include rankings on the schedule. The ranks would give readers an idea of how tough the team's schedule may be. ESPN does this. The ranks, however, will have to be updated weekly as they change. What is everyone's opinion about this? BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the teams are ranked, then yes, that should be reflected on the schedule. However, I believe the rankings should remain as they were when they played. This is what we do on individual game pages, we include the rankings as they were when the teams played. I would think any end-of-year ranking for a team could be included in the game summary.↔NMajdan•talk 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely: the ranks in a schedule and initial descriptions of a game are when the teams played. Now, if a team won/lost a close game to an unranked team that ended up in the top-10 (which has happened), then by all means mention it as Nmajdan's noted. --Bobak 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As others say, the primary ranking in the schedule table is that of the opponent when the game is played. I don't see a need (and have little interest) in maintaining current rankings all season long on each opponent (or even prior to gameweek ranking). However, it does occur to me that a Final Ranking could be of interest after the season, since (theoretically) the final ranking most accurately reflects the teams' strength.  AUTiger » talk 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comments so far. The schedule should show the opponents ranking as it was coming into the game.  Ideally, the text should be revisited after the year to show where the opponents end up.  I also recommend the schedule section should include a "see also" link to 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings so readers can easily access rankings for all teams through the season. Johntex\talk 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The schedule template already has a variable that makes the "Rank" column header a wikilink to the respective year's ranking page.↔NMajdan•talk 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings on schedules 

message: This is not a big deal, but it would be best to link the following TV stations on the season schedules this way:
*ABC -> ESPN on ABC (Effective since Sept. 2, 2006)
*CBS -> SEC on CBS
*Versus -> College Football on Versus
BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just linking, correct?  Not actually writing them out? e.g.: ABC --Bobak 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry for the confusion. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV links on schedules 

message: FYI: on 10/12, User:Darkwind (not a self-identified member of WP:CFB) AWBed many college coaches' articles using  (deprecated) to convert to  etc. but unfortunately, the params for bowl information do not match between the templates so you'll probably find your favorite coach's career record bowl info no longer displays correctly. Check Darkwind's contribs for possibly affected articles.  AUTiger » talk 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coaches' articles using CFB Coaching Record template 

message: There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#North American football players for a group which would work specifically on articles relating to biographies of individual players, coaches, and other related individuals. Any parties interested in working with such a group are encouraged to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Thank you. John Carter 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed football player, coach, etc. biography work group 

message: I would like to suggest you add the BCS standings to . Thank you.--Monnitewars (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BCS standings 

message: There's something wrong with the article, it should be greatly expanded. For one his career at Michigan is less then a paragraph, while his 7 game stint with the Detroit Lions is given undue weight. Also I don't think it was a drunk driving incident that got him fired, I can't find any sources for that. -MichiganCharms 15:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Moeller 

message: As I heard a law professor state one time, as soon as someone claims that something has been "clearly established" you can rest assured that it likely has NOT been clearly established.  So, MECU, please link to the discussion(s) (i.e proposal or guideline articles in wikipedia) where this convention has "been clearly established both by the community and WP:CFB". Currently there is NO  Official Wikipedia guidelines on this subject...indicating that it is NOT a settled convention.  Please note that a wikiproject article is not the same as a guideline article.  NONE OF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT REASONABLE EDITS ARE VANDALISM OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA POLICY WHEN THERE IS NO GUIDELINE ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY CONCENSUS. B 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're in the archives of this page or the season guideline/format talk page. I'm not going to search for you with that attitude. MECU≈talk 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to give readers an idea of how the team compares to other teams around the country, why not add their weekly NCAA rankings? Here are BYU's. Another thing, have you ever heard a sportscaster give a ranking to a team that received votes from the polls? Per the discussion above, I don't think it's wise to add such rankings either. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But which one(s)? Updating those rankings would get pretty tedious and while stats are interesting, they don't always track well with the only stats that matters, the final score and wins/losses.  I definitely think a link to each team's NCAA stats page would be a great addition to the infobox, however. AUTiger » talk 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No concensus reached, nor proposal or guideline even started

message: I do not see any references to the NAIA or NJCAA (junior college) football programs here.  I believe that they do belong as the topic is currently named.  I'd be willing to put work into the NAIA section.
If NAIA and NJCAA should be separate, then should this project be renamed "NCAA Football"??
Also, I could use some help on the infobox for Malone College Athletics--NCAA still shows up where the blank "division" category is.  
What are everyone's thoughts?  Combine forces?  Separate projects?--Paul McDonald 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm for separate projects. There aren't enough editors on this project for all the articles we have and I think we would be diluting it even more if we added those articles that probably will get very little attention. However, I have fixed that infobox to allow for NAIA and/or NJCAA and made the appropriate change to the article you mentioned.↔NMajdan•talk 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor changed the code which would remove the NCAA/NAIA line from nearly every article that uses the template. I have reverted his change and detailed my reasoning on the template's talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, it looks great!--Paul McDonald 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The reasons I would like to "piggyback" NAIA college football (and NJCAA college football) on this project are:  1) It would promote uniformity in Wikipedia; 2) we wouldn't have to start completely over for NAIA and NJCAA; 3) A lot of coaches and some players go back and forth between NAIA/NJCAA/NCAA -- especially those that play in one division and coach in another; and 4)  since it's basically "me" and maybe a few others focusing on NAIA/NJCAA right now--we won't "eat much" !  Could really use your help in doing simple things like standards, uniformity, etc.  Not looking to "swipe" editors, just ideas.--Paul McDonald 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a decision maker or anything, but I don't see a problem with NAIA/NJCAA stuff being included in this project.  After all, it is called "Wikiproject College Football" and that leads me to believe that it is inclusive of all college football division.  I won't be doing any NAIA/NJCAA editing but someone else wants to, I don't see why we should discourage that.  I think you should have full use of all standards and template this project has created.  Seancp 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Seancp's reasoning.  We might as well keep them together if we can.  I do agree with NMajdan that most of the curretn WPCFB contributors are focused on more "major" schools but I think we also agree that our ultimate goal is to be comprehensive.  Including NAIA and NJCAA is consistent with that goal. Johntex\talk 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAIA and NJCAA College Football? 

message: Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Oct2007
User:Robapalooza has continued to inclued this temporary, non-encyclopedic information into the articles. While I appreciate his efforts, my objections and the objections of others had been noted, and yet the charts continue. The information is definitely interesting, but it does not belong (WP:CBALL, WP:IINFO). I feel the simple "betting line" serves this purpose best. --mc machete 00:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also like to add that the graphs themselves are difficult to read as they do not have a legend. --mc machete 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: From my recollection, it seemed we all pretty much agreed they aren't useful. Removing them would be okay it seems to me. Perhaps getting some outside input would help? I hate to start going down the 3RR vandalism dispute resolution arbitration path. MECU≈talk 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts based on Jeff Sagarin rankings 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship
This page has evolved into an unacceptable original research and synthesis project under Wikipedia guidelines.  The tables listing national championships by year and total championships are synthesized from various sources, incompletely in some cases, and represented as an "authoritative" list.  It inappropriately conveys the misconception that most of the pre-1935 champions were consensus picks, when in fact the opposite was quite true for reasons that I have added in the discussion in the article.
I am currently trying to resolve this issue with Iowa13, but have not gotten an adequate response other than a brush off.  I urge that this article be demoted to "C" quality until this issue is resolved and the original research removed.  Gvharrier 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that we have come to a preferred solution that meets everyone's concerns on this issue. Gvharrier 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is how the information is combined.  A synthesis represents a judgment-based combination.  Compiling from multiple sources is a non-judgmental basis of combining.  To the extent that additional information can be added to that compilation is another goal of combining. I believe that is where we are directing the revisions on that page now.  Iowa13 is doing the work on that process now.  Gvharrier 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship