This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe both ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) and cardinal (1, 2, 3, etc) numbers are preferred as numerals rather than spelled out (e. g. first-team All-American). However, it seems it has often been practice to spell it in some cases. Which is correct? Cake (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:NUMERAL, it's not that simple; it's about consistency. You should never start a sentence with numerals. Generally, you have the option of spelling out one and two-digit numbers, but we usually don't use a numeral for a one-digit number in isolation. On the other hand, ages are typically written in numerals; so are statistics. Three-digit and larger numbers, as well as decimals, are always written in numerals. We have spelled out "first-team" and "second-team" honors for consistency, partially because we shouldn't start a line of text with a numeral, even in an infobox. Confused? You betcha. But stick to spelling out first-team and second-team honors; that's how we've consistently formatted infobox honors for both college and NFL players, and a lot of effort has been expended over the years to achieve that level of consistency. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I somehow neglected to mention I just meant in the navbox. But ok, will keep spelling them out. Thanks for the tip. Cake (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we have a list of national championship by head coach?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article, College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, lists all of the MNC coaches after 1900, and some before. I believe that many of the teams did not have paid coaches before 1900. Of course, the concept of a pre-1936 "championship" is really an anachronism, because their was no such thing as a college football "championship" before the advent of the AP Poll, and all of those pre-1936 "championships" were awarded retroactively -- sometimes years after the fact -- by one of the CFB ratings services. But it is, what it is, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is not correct to say that all of the pre-1936 championships were awarded retroactively. For example, the Dickinson System began awarding national championships on a current basis starting in 1926. Cbl62 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cbl, but the larger point stands. Dickinson awarded MNCs based on a mathematical/statistical formula for 10 years before the 1936 AP Poll; Dickinson also awarded retroactive championships for 1924 and 1925. Among others, Berry (1920–1989), Billingsley (1869–1969), Boand (1919–1929), CFRA (1918–1981), DeVold (1939–1940), Helms (1883–1940), Houlgate (1885–1926), NCF (1869–1979), Poling (1924–1934), Sagarin (1919–1977) and Williamson (1931) awarded retroactive championships (for the seasons shown) several years and even decades after the fact based on proprietary statistical analyses. Setting aside the idea of awarding a sports "championship" based on a statistical analysis/mathematical formula, exactly what statistics do you think were available for CFB teams in 1869 that could be analyzed in 1979? The fact that any CFB program/university would claim one of these retroactive championships is really quite bizarre. Texas A&M just recently discovered two "lost" national championships from 1919 and 1927, which were awarded decades after the fact by a couple of the CFB stats services. And Alabama added a couple more claims from the 1920s, among them retroactive MNCs from Billingsley and Helms. Sad to see historically great programs sink to such silliness. Some folks mocked the Bowl Alliance and BCS because they had the temerity to pick two top-rated teams to actually play for a championship, and as a result we now have the CFP. I give a tip of my hat to the great programs of the past, but claiming a newfound championship 85 or 90 years after the fact is a little wacky. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the "unclaimed national championships" as well. I don't see a day all that far off when we have a rouge Alabama fan editor that will try to say that Alabama won the 75 national championship, and edit all the pages associated with it, including Bear's when Oklahoma was the consensus pick.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I am late to the party [1]UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

At the time, Dickinson was considered reputable. With age, it has been the subject of much ridicule. Even before then, there were years where things fell into place and there was an obvious one or two champions, which is unsurprising given the BCS, etc, often banked on the same happening. With tradition to currently name a champion each year, there is an impetus for the historian to pick a champion in years in between. Perhaps the strongest example can involve Texas A&M. In 1917, Georgia Tech is national champ. In 1918, it's Pittsburgh or Michigan with nobody else even close, and Pitt beat Georgia Tech (Pitt was also undefeated in 1917 and declined to play Georgia Tech. However, and though Tech at home and Pitt on the road, they had a common opponent in Eastern school Penn. Pitt won 14 to 6. Tech ran all over Penn 41 to 0). For 1919, there are a handful of teams to make a case for. Of course, one could make a mythical trophy for '17 and 18 – but then it had to go to someone for '19. That said, the will to a total coverage with champions since 1869 with one game seasons and such like is a humorous part of the history, especially if one wishes to treat the subject quantitatively. It seems our expression of Spengler's Western man as Faust in this corner of history. Cake (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I will add that Texas A&M's claim is helped along by the defeat of Centre, though years later, in the 1922 Dixie Classic. Centre and A&M were two established, undefeated programs in 1919, though usually outside the regions of many established powers for one to argue their strength of schedule. In hindsight the defeat of Centre was more a shock than Centre's defeat of Harvard. Cake (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to interject here regarding 1918 and point out that many sources of the time named Navy as a close second to Pitt. Navy went 4-1 like Pitt, annihilated its four weaker opponents (average of 66-3) and only lost to one of the unbeaten so-called "military superteams" 7-6 in a game that was universally regarded as a fluke (Navy came within about a half-a-foot of a 13-0 shutout). If Navy wasn't the most vastly overlooked team in college football (a controversial remark, I know, but it really is true), it would probably be a slightly-lesser co-champion with Pitt. Which of course just goes to show, yet again, that mythical national championship picks are worth nil. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected (cannot forget Gloomy Gil). However I feel my post's point is not changed much, and would say it's hard for the south to get over Pitt over Tech 32 to 0. That seemed to pass the torch. 78 to 0 is Tech's average outside of the Pitt game. Cake (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I don't disagree with your points at all. And just while I can, I'd like to point out that it was yet again Navy that had been beating many of the south's best teams since the late 1880s. Actually, the south's occasional successes against Navy would have helped out its standing if anyone in the east had actually considered Navy eastern, which no one really did. But I agree. Pitt's drubbing of Georgia Tech probably set the south back years in terms of getting respect (save Alabama, who has been vastly overrated by retroactive selectors, if they deserve to be called that). - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I know Georgetown, which seemed to vary in whether it was considered southern, had a series with Navy. The only southern victory which comes to mind is 1893 Virginia and that was tit-for-tat. Maybe I am biased but I would not neglect respect for, say, 1925 Alabama, though I know Alabama is one to claim a 2 loss season. Cake (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone refresh my memory regarding our policy for creating future CFB season articles? May I assume this 2016 article, 2016 USC Trojans football team, has been created too soon? If so, I plan to send it to AfD per WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• It was my understanding that a 2016 article should not be created until the 2015 season is over. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've listed it for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 USC Trojans football team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see related discussion at WT:CBBALL

Please weight in on this discussion please. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that WikiProject College Football has a chart to help assess importance of various kinds of pages, and generally speaking the chart makes sense. I've noticed however, that MisterCake assessed the 1971 OU-Nebraska game (for many years referred to as The Game of the Century, and the winner considered by many sources the best team ever to play the game) as low, as the chart suggests. However, this game determined the national championship of the 1971 season, the loser ending up ranked second, the team that lost to both #1 and #2 ranked third in the AP poll. IMHO, games listed in the article Game of the Century (college football) might be moved up a notch to mid. I've taken the liberty of changing this single incidence. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've recently done many importance assessments with many to go, and with many retreads to better fit the criteria or just plain misreading it. @Dirtlawyer1: suggested a talk in some weeks with, I hope, the intention to hash out the few problems such as these if I can hash out some of the larger problems. I have a handful or two of my own questions which I am keeping with me until then. Included with that consideration is the thought that further edits might change my mind. So, your question might get better consideration with the coming discussion rather than at the moment. However, since you brought it up, I will entertain the idea. Single game articles certainly get treated as "low." It seems one could consider it a sub article of the team-season (usually mid) which is a sub article of the team (usually high) which is a sub article of the national season (top). The exception is BCS bowl games (whether this means in the BCS era only or not I am not sure. Surely you don't want every Fiesta Bowl, but do want most every Rose Bowl.) and other bowls with a meeting of top ten teams (so I guess quite a few Cotton Bowls, for instance. Aside from say the contemporary football playoff championship game). No doubt this leaves questions. What of conference championship games? Are they not sub articles of the conference season (high) and therefore deserve a mid ranking? I am myself aware '71 Nebraska (1899 Sewanee says nanny boo-boo) is considered an all-time great team, perhaps the greatest, and '71 Oklahoma is not far behind, with that game determining the champion. It is hard to disagree with you. But, that said, other "game of the century" articles probably have similar stories, and there is a point to be made for the slippery slope. Say, if 71 Nebraska v. OU, why not 1905 Michigan v. Chicago, or 1921 Centre v. Harvard, or 1922 Princeton v. Chicago? And from there further perhaps, though I cannot say I'd mind if those were 'mid' and was as you say just following the chart as given. So I would on this issue, if it is an issue, mostly remain aloof and give credence to both sides and just hope to see that quality/importance table trend towards something better as many articles, as I found them, seemed to have their importance neglected. Most of all I think the chart needs more parenthetical examples. Cake (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MisterCake. I started to post the above to your personal talk page, but it occurred to me before I clicked save this might be a wider issue. I started my aborted post with "Thanks for your assessment work", so I never meant to discredit your efforts. As I said, generally the chart makes excellent sense. (BTW, 1972 USC Trojans also have a pretty good claim to that title.) The three examples you gave are legendary contests, well-covered many years after the event, all meeting WP:EVENT, and deserving of their own articles. My point is that run of the mill games don't normally deserve their own articles, and those regular season contests that do would normally not rank higher than low in importance. But if the most important bowl games are deserving of mid importance ranking by default, it could reasonably be argued that the most important game of an individual season such as 1971 OU-UN would be equally important, being the decider of the national championship for that season. I realize this may introduce an element of subjectivity into such rankings, but that's why I introduced the criteria of inclusion in the GotC article, which covers regular season contests of similar significance. I'd be interested in what others thought, even if they disagree with my position for one reason or other. BusterD (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I did not take it as somehow discrediting the work, just laying out where I am coming from. Or maybe would come from if it's discussed again later. My point was to say many could claim the title, so I could understand the reasoning of your opponents. "But if the most important bowl games are deserving of mid importance ranking by default, it could reasonably be argued that the most important game of an individual season such as 1971 OU-UN would be equally important, being the decider of the national championship for that season." I don't disagree. Were it up to me, one could have say 1922 Princeton v. Chicago as 'mid' (game of the year, unreservedly) with 1922 Michigan v. Vanderbilt and 1922 Alabama v. Penn as 'low' (big deals in the south, and nationally in that Michigan is national champs without that game). As far as all-time greats, for the era I cover most will take the 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado/Yellow Jackets. Had Pitt played them before the war dismantled the team they would probably get pretty high rank even today. I usually see it as 1995 Nebraska vs. 1971 Nebraska, to your point. Cake (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me if this is only my own interest, but I wonder if it would be useful to have all the games with crazy wind conditions to make for long kicks to have a better record of the longest kicks without such aid. I know there is A. H. Douglas's kick, and Pat O'Dea's longest. Are there other such instances? Cake (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like kind of an amorphous subject for a discrete article, e.g. List of windy college football games? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Like any list, it would also need to meet WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking more along the lines of the proper commentary about certain inclement weather if I were ever to expand/perfect, say, Field_goal#College_football. Not suggesting its own separate treatment. Cake (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI this article was recently created. Seems like WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT might apply here. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it is mostly covered already in List of Arizona Wildcats football seasons. CFP ranking, which is not a final ranking, is not needed IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much a copy/paste of List of LSU Tigers football College Football Playoff rankings and Poll history. We should get rid of both of these articles. The season lists can cover rankings. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Jweiss is right. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have AfD'd this article. Please comment here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the table the † symbol †Indicates Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series (BCS) bowl, or College Football Playoff (CFP) game. The † was on coaches pages who played in New Years six bowls until user:Akatheflake removed that because they were "New Year's Six game, not one of the three CFP games". The non Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS games that were not part of the National Championship are marked on coaches pages with † so why not New Years Six games? Should we change the table to say New Years Six instead of College Football Playoff? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the pickle because Baylor didn't play in a CFP game but it was under the CFP umbrella. However,"New Years Six" isn't the official title of the games, therefore I think it should have the CFP indicator even though it isn't in the "playoffs".–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. As far as I'm concerned the New Year's Six bowls have as much importance as the Coalition, Alliance, and BCS games so they should be marked with the †. I would just like to come to a consensus before re-adding it to the coaches pages where it got removed. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify for everyone, what we're talking about here is the footer notation in Template:CFB Yearly Record End/footnotes, as primarily instantiated on head coaching record tables on bio articles. Bsuorangecrush, I agree, if we are are marking all Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS games that were not national title games, which we are, then we should also be marking the three College Football Playoff games that are not actually part of the championship tournament. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand what everyone is saying, but to me, College Football Playoff game implies that the two teams in that game made the designated four-team playoff and have a chance at the title. The BCS games that were not for the championship were still marketed as and universally considered BCS games because the BCS computers chose those teams and everyone referred to them as BCS games. While the playoff committee determines the "New Year's Six" participants, those games were never referred to by ESPN or any other outlet I saw as "Playoff Games".Akatheflake (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Akatheflake

I agree with that. That is why I asked if it would be better if we changed it from saying College Football Playoff (CFP) to saying New Year's Six. Agreed they do not consider other non semifinal games as part of the playoff, the New Year's Six is something they talk about as if it were the BCS. I would say those games need to be marked the way it's been done in the past.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What if we did this

|- | colspan="9" | ^†Indicates Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, BCS, or CFP/New Years' Six bowl.
^#Rankings from final Coaches Poll.

No reason to have it say Bowl Championship Series and BCS. No reason for it to say College Football Playoff and CFP. If anyone needs to know what the abbreviations mean then they can click the link. And New Years Six does not have its own page so linking it to the CFP is the best option. Anyone have a problem with changing the template to this?Bsuorangecrush (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. It should resolve the ambiguity. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this would be great.Akatheflake (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Russ Peterson (American football player) to be moved to Russ Peterson (offensive lineman). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jake Ryan (American football) to be moved to Jake Ryan. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Justin Brown (wide receiver) to be moved to Justin Brown. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We now have articles on every year's All-Big Ten Conference football team. See Template:All-Big Ten Conference football teams. If anyone wants to collaborate on similar articles for the Pac-12, let me know. Cbl62 (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• After doing the All-Southern teams, which is an era with which I will be more familiar (until we get into the modern era), I've started a few similar articles for the All-SEC teams. See Template:All-SEC football teams. Cake (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need some eyes on UAB articles. Bleacher Report reports UAB football to be reinstated [2].UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've updated most of them.....On a small note, anyone know how to end the seasons button on the 2014 UAB Blazers football team infobox (and be able to add a year later when they decide to field the next team? They are not fielding a team until at least 2016).....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Answered my own question...I'm leaving it blank for now until they figure out when they'll be able to field a team.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to collaborate to make pages for the 1971 Marshall Thundering Herd football team. I would just create it outright, but given the sentimental importance of this team I would be remiss not to ask other editors their opinions/help/collaboration on this project.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help, though I have to confess that I haven't had much on-wiki time recently. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help, Bluejay. Happy to pitch in with some newspaper sourcing, etc., once you get a draft in progress with the basics in place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll pitch in. I'd write the backbone of the article but I'm not positive when I'll have time. Has anyone written the schedule and all that yet? Chuy1530 (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have here[3] feel free to adjust it as you see fit.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more than detailed enough to go live right now. There's more that could be added for sure but I can't find the time to do it and publishing might get more eyes on the article. Chuy1530 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I submitted the article for review. I decided to do this rather than move it directly into article space because I didn't want to take credit for your contributions.UCO2009bluejay | Y'all want to talk? 22:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated. I've have been fine with a cut/paste move but I know they're frowned upon when multiple people have worked on an article. Hopefully it doesn't sit around in review too long; as far as season articles go it's pretty solid and has room to improve once we get more eyes on it.Chuy1530 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the article to the article space with a simple move. The edit history is there. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of CFB players and other bio subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs. Here are two examples of Wikidata for former college football players: Dan Marino] and Tim Tebow. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC whether to permit non-Wikipedia links in Wikipedia navboxes @ Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes?. Given this WikiProject's ongoing interest in navboxes, some of you may be interested in commenting. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The subject of importance assessments for this project was raised a couple of posts above here. I want to bring up another question about the subject. The existing rubric for importance assessments can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Importance scale. The current version is largely the work of User:Cmadler from early 2012. User:MisterCake seems to be on a furious kick of implementing importance ratings on the talk pages of article—thanks for your work there, Cake. One thing about the existing assessment scheme that strikes me as odd is that national championship seasons (e.g. 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team) end up being rated as higher importance (Top) than the main article for the respective program (e.g. Michigan Wolverines football), which is rated as only High. I understand that national championship seasons should be considered more important than other seasons, but are those articles really higher priority than the main program articles? Something seems awry here. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

One solution might be to handle it like the given criteria for the stadia - top if the program has multiple national titles. Cake (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the problem. How about a program that has only one national title, like Syracuse? Should 1959 Syracuse Orangemen football team be of greater importance than Syracuse Orange football? Or how about program like Purdue with no national titles? Are these national championship season articles really of greater importance than Purdue Boilermakers football? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And let's be clear: whatever higher importance rating we may assign to a national championship season article, the championship needs to be a consensus championship, which means AP/Coaches champions, Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS champions, or College Football Playoff champions. We should not be rating season articles as "high" or "top" importance when the championship was that of a single selector retroactively awarding MNCs years after the fact. Let's try to keep it real, guys. The WP:CFB importance ratings should mean something: we should not have 250 "top" importance season articles when we're done with this exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS suggests that Football Writers Association of America (FWAA) and National Football Foundation (NFF) titles are on the same footing as the aforementioned per the he NCAA's designation as "Consensus National Champions". The national championship teams in question here, "consensus" without an #1 ranking either major poll, are as follows:

• 1958 Iowa Hawkeyes football team (claimed - 8–1–1, tied AFA, stomped by OSU at home)
• 1960 Ole Miss Rebels football team (claimed - 10–0–1, played weak schedule, not including top 3 SEC teams: UA, AU, UF)
• 1961 Ohio State Buckeyes football team (claimed - 8–0–1, no bowl game)
• 1964 Arkansas Razorbacks football team (claimed - 11–0, best case of the minority championships)
• 1964 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team (unclaimed - 9–1, no ranked opponents on game dates)
• 1970 Ohio State Buckeyes football team (claimed - 9–1, lost to 9–3 Stanford in bowl, minority NC in AP/Coach split year)

And what about before 1936? 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team isn't as important other national championship seasons? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

According to our Wikipedia article, "The 1901 college football season had no clear-cut champion, with the Official NCAA Division I Football Records Book listing Michigan, Yale, and Harvard as having been selected national champions. Harvard beat Yale 22–0 the last game of the year."

No, with two possible exception, the listed teams are not as important as the consensus national champions that were recognized in those same years. Not at all. Significant "minority" championships, such as those listed above, should be rated one importance level below what the consensus national champions are rated in each of those years:

• 1958 LSU Tigers football team (11–0, AP#1/Coaches#1, Paul Dietzel, Billy Cannon, one of the great CFB teams)
• 1960 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team (AP#1/Coaches#1, 8–2, lost bowl)
• 1961 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (11–0, AP#1/Coaches#1, undeniably one of the great CFB teams)
• 1964 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (10–1, AP#1/Coaches#1, lost bowl to Texas, who Arkansas beat)
• 1970 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team (11–0–1, AP#1/Coaches#3, tie was vs ranked USC in LA)
• 1970 Texas Longhorns football team (10–1, AP#3/Coaches#1, lost bowl to ND)

So, no, JW, '58 Iowa, '60 Ole Miss, '64 Notre Dame, and '70 Ohio State should not be rated at the same importance level as consensus champions '58 LSU and '61 Alabama, or even split-poll champion '70 Nebraska. The '60 Ohio State team has a case, '64 Arkansas team has a better case, especially given '64 Bama's bowl loss, and mutual opponent games against '64 Texas. But you've also selected close calls; most are not. The '58 Hawkeyes vs. '58 LSU Tigers, though? Seriously, not even close.

I don't care much about importance ratings, but it would be arbitrary and inappropriate for one or more editors to impose their subjective view that pre-1936 championships are less important than modern championships. Plain and simple. Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What pre-1936 championships would those be, Cbl? Do you mean the MNCs that were awarded by statisticians, years after the seasons were actually played? LOL@Pre-1936 MNCs. For the sake of historical faireness, let's treat the pre-1936 teams that received a majority of the statisticians' championships as consensus champions; I believe this is exactly what College Football Data Warehouse does. However, there should not be three or four team articles all rated "top" or "high" for the same season. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We can holler into the wee hours about who had the better team in 1958 or 1970 or whatever, but the point is we need some clear-cut, consistent, and objective way to treat national championships, even if "objective" really means deferring to the subjectivity of another body, like the NCAA, or College Football Data Warehouse, or whomever. College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS is the most comprehensive treatment of national titles that we have at our disposal, and it clearly implies, on the authority of the NCAA, that Iowa's '58 title is on the same footing at LSU's '58 title, no matter how stupid that might actually be. Whatever we ultimately determine to be a legit national title worthy of "Top" importance should probably have a one-to-one relationship with those legit national titles worthy of a navbox (see: Category:NCAA Division I FBS champions navigational boxes), and worthy of being noted in the infoboxes of season articles (e.g. 1958 college football season), and worthy of citation in bio infoboxes and head coaching record tables (e.g. Forest Evashevski). Jweiss11 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think one could argue Syracuse's national championship season deserves more focus than Syracuse football; that 1984 BYU is bigger than BYU or Purdue. I must side with cbl on the national championships. The idea that pre 1936 championships were only claimed retroactively is false. Find anyone to dispute Yale in 1909 or Georgia Tech in 1917. I should also note, probably the greatest Bama team aside from 61 is '34 (Don Hutson and Bear Bryant at ends), and that title is disputed with Minnesota. Cake (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cake, by what rationale can one argue that Syracuse's 1959 title season deserves more focus than the whole of Syracuse football, 1889 to present? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• The same reasoning which would say it for BYU - the prominence of national championship seasons. The same rationale for having Harvard Stadium and 1890 Harvard above Harvard football, as the table necessitates. Syracuse deserves the focus of the 1959 season, but its program does not deserve the focus over many other teams. I think it's true that some team articles (like Harvard's, probably, given the historical significance) should get the bump, but not all. Cake (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've been largely absent from Wikipedia for a little while now, but I happened to notice this discussion and figured I'd jump in. My overriding motivation in creating that importance schema was simply that this was and is a large project, and I felt that it was -- ahem -- important...for us to assess importance. The perfect is sometimes the enemy of the good, and I thought (and still think) that it is more important to have and use a good schema than to strive for an ideal schema and risk ending up with nothing, or with an even worse mess. (Prior to this, it had been suggested that creators of or major contributors to articles could not assess them, and that the Big 8 Conference should be low-importance because it was defunct.) This Wikiproject includes nearly 50,000 pages, and there must be a way to signal to an uninformed editor or a bot that one article is more important than another. Keep in mind that in debating the relative importance of national championship team season articles vs team articles, we're arguing about where within the top 4.5% of articles these should rank.

With all that said, perhaps the solution is to say that teams with multiple national championships are by default one level higher than given (so an FBS team with multiple national championships would default to top-importance). And yes, I do think that Colorado's 1990 season, for example, is a more important topic to cover than Colorado football in general. I do think it's also reasonable for post-1949 championships to limit this to "consensus" national champions, as noted by Jweiss11.

Finally, keep in mind that these are the default, or "starting" importance levels, but right there directly beneath the importance assessment table, it clearly states that with consensus (on an article-by-article basis) any article can be adjusted up or down one level or importance. cmadler (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite a few editors are involved with Michigan Wolverines football. Could anyone help to connect the dots outlined in the history section of the Linebacker article. Much of the later body of the article does not have inline citations as well. Any help is appreciated. Cake (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Many claims to be the "first" in football to do this or that tend to be apocryphal. See, e.g. Forward pass#First legal pass. This is often due to the fact that many supposed "inventions" were actually the product of gradual evolution that can be partially credited to multiple persons with a definitive answer being elusive at best. That said, the historic claim of Germany Schulz as the first person to play the linebacker position, during a game in 1904, seems pretty well supported. There are many sources for this, including:

(1) The National Football Foundation, a neutral, reputable, and probably eminent source, recognizes Schulz as the first linebacker. His official biography at the College Football Hall of Fame states: "Before Schulz, centers always played in the line on defense. He dropped back, became a roving center and football's first linebacker." For his contributions to the game, Schulz was one of the inaugural inductees into the CFHOF in 1951. See here.

(2) In 1954, sports columnist Dave Lewis explored the history of the linebacker position, and concluded that Schulz was the "first of the breed". Lewis wrote: "Schulz revolutionized defensive line play being the first to back up the line". Dave Lewis, "Once Over Lightly," The Long Beach Independent, July 29, 1954.

(3) Schulz recalled that the first time he stepped back from the line on defense, Coach Yost was horrified. Yost said, "Dutchman, what are you trying to do?" "Stop 'em", replied Schulz. "But you're supposed to play in the line", Yost insisted. "They'll run over us." "Listen Yost", Schulz claims to have said, "My way is best. If any of 'em gets by me, I'll move back into the line and stay there". Yost eventually saw the wisdom in Schulz's technique, and soon nearly all centers were backing up the line on defense. Malcolm Bingay, "A Little About This and That: How Schulz Entered Michigan Still A Mystery," The Morning Herald, May 1, 1951; ; "Frankly Speaking: Schulz' Great Grid Exploits Reviewed," The Long Beach Press-Telegram, April 17, 1951.

(4) As for the 1904 date, see "First linebacker found," AP story, October 1974, found here.

(5) Article posing the question, "Who was the first recognized linebacker?" with answer being Schulz, found here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• No doubt the (at worst) legend of Schulz deserves its place in the article; hence, for example, why I did not delete his picture on the article. Thank you for the extra sources. So is it 1904 or 1905? Is there a specific game which gets credit? I also wonder why the center. Cake (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• The source I found says 1904 but doesn't specify a particular game. I assume the center was the natural spot to back off the line as he was located in the middle of the line and could respond to running plays on either side. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• That sounds right. I ask since I know about the only position e. g. Lynn Bomar didn't play was center, yet he was a mean linebacker. Cake (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CFB members, here is a navbox within the scope of our project that I have nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 12#Template:Southeastern Conference Law Schools. Given project members' past interest in related navbox subjects, I thought you would want to know, and we invite your participation in the TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Template:UAA Business Schools should be TfD'd by the same rationale. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have added the UAA Business Schools navbox to the TfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1957 winner of the Heisman Trophy, John David Crow, died last night in College Station, Texas. Crow played for Bear Bryant at Texas A&M, and later returned to A&M as its athletic director. He was A&M first and only Heisman winner until Johnny Manziel won 55 years later. If anyone has time to clean up the article today, now would be a good time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, thanks for the heads up here. I had done editing on this article in February as I was making a (still unfinished) run though the Heisman Trophy winners to do some formatting and clean-up work. I just expanded the infobox to include Crow's coaching and administrative tenures. I'm not sure if I've formatting things the way they are typically done in Template:Infobox NFL player. Seems there are some less than desirable standard practices with that infobox, e.g. linking of start and end years of tenure to NFL season articles and two sets of parentheticals for coaching tenures to denote year range and position. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The creation of a new WikiProject has been proposed: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Collegiate sports (USA). The proposed purpose of this new WikiProject is

to bring a level of standardization of format to Wikipedia articles concerning college sports in the USA. This would include any articles about specific college sports . . .; those sports' seasons . . . and their championships. . . It would include articles about the several collegiate sports governing associations (National Collegiate Athletic Association, National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, National Christian College Athletic Association, United States Collegiate Athletic Association, National Junior College Athletic Association) and the various college conferences/leagues (i.e. Big Ten Conference, Ivy League, etc.). It would also include the articles concerning the sports programs of the member institutions of the associations . . . any specific single-sport article for said institution (such as SIU Edwardsville Cougars baseball or SIU Edwardsville Cougars softball), and any single-season article for said sports (such as 2014 SIU Edwardsville Cougars softball team). There is currently no standard format for creating and/or maintaining these pages. The major areas of concern have been and continue to be articles describing collegiate conferences and member institutions' athletic programs. Two articles describing two very similar schools or leagues can be a different as night and day, and when efforts have been made to standardize, those changes have often been met with resistance.

I think this needs to be very carefully examined. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Two articles describing two very similar schools or leagues can be a different as night and day" Some actual examples would be nice. Cake (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Cake and I have started templates for the All-SEC and All-Pac-12 teams here: Template:All-SEC football teams and Template:All-Pacific-12 Conference football teams. Help is needed and appreciated to fill out the remaining years. Cbl62 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cake and Cbl62, thanks for your work here. Now might be a good time to talk about how far we want to take this effort of stand-alone lists for all-conference teams. I presume we probably also want to this for the ACC and the Big 12 and its predecessors, the Big 8 and the Southwest Conference. Is that it? What about the other FBS conferences outside of the big five, like the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC, Mountain West, and Big East? FCS conferences? I'm thinking DII, DIII, and NAIA definitely no. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jweiss that this is a discussion worth having. The SEC, Big 10, Pac 12, ACC, Big 12/Big 8/Southwest Conference seem like no-brainers. Conferences like the Big East Conference and the Missouri Valley Conference are oddballs in that there are periods when they were top level conferences, but not so much in their modern iterations. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I think it depends on the level of press coverage received by those all-conference teams.Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: if you want to get a working framework, I would suggest that you do table for each year's all-conference honors, with columns for first team, second team, third team, honorable mention, as applicable, specific to each conference. Ten of those tables could be aggregated by decade for each conference (e.g., All-SEC football teams, 1990–99). If and when someone later has the time to split them into individual years, with substantial text and in-line references, etc., that could be done in the future. I am not excited about the prospect of immediately creating 82 stub articles for SEC honors, though. I also think you are going to have a difficult time finding significant coverage of all-conference honors in multiple, independent, reliable sources for the mid-majors. Reactions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

At an earlier discussion, I expressed interested in creating a single list list for all historic All-Pac-12 selections. It may need to be spun out to a list with multiple decades or even a single decade if it got unwieldy. This does not preclude all-conference articles for a single season, if there is consensus. However, for a conference like the Pac-12, which only has one poll (unlike the Big 10), I think it may be sufficient to build the list in the existing season articles e.g. 2014 Pacific-12 Conference football season#All Conference teams, or is there enough material to warrant a spinout to 2014 All-Pacific-12 Conference football team?—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a single list ends up being pretty unwieldy. Unlike basketball, where there are only 5 first-team players, there are at least 24 first-team football players each year just for the AP selections. If you factor in second-team selections, there are 48 selections per year just for the AP. And, based on what I've seen so far, there were AP and UPI teams for Pacific Coat team in some years. That means a single list would get quite unwieldy. I've already done the Pac-8/Pac-10 lists for 1962 to 1978 and welcome any help you may want to offer, Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

To avoid duplication of effort, I have for now simply linked the all-conference template (Template:All-Pacific-12 Conference football teams) to the relevant sections of the existing Pac-12 conference articles. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"any help you may want to offer": Most of my recent efforts for monotonous list expansion has been at Parade All-America Boys Basketball Team. I'll put the Pac-12 lists as a secondary option, but my overall activity on WP will be mostly sporadic for the coming weeks. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba -- I didn't mean my comment to be snide in the least. Your hard work on college sports articles is up there with the top contributors. I meant that as a sincere invitation and apologize if it came across any other way. Cbl62 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cbl62: I didn't take it as snide, and apologize if my response in any way made it seem that way. Chalk it up to the limitations of written communication. No harm, no foul. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Bagumba: The same reason why texting can lead to misunderstandings and why I'm not a fan of that mode of communication. In any event, the more I dig, the more it appears that the Pac-12 isn't so different than the Big 10 in the range of all-conference selectors. See, e.g, 1957 All-Pacific Coast Conference football team (separate teams selected by AP, UP and coaches). Cbl62 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Another question: should we have main articles for each these all-conference teams, analogous to College Football All-America Team?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jweiss11 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"I presume we probably also want to this for the ACC and the Big 12 and its predecessors, the Big 8 and the Southwest Conference. Is that it?" Probably, yes. It is certainly worth discussing, for I find the Big East a curiosity. But surely the point of these are to find the best players of a region. East (Northeast; New England. Represented by All-America team, though there were All-Eastern teams), West (Great Lakes; Represented by All-Big Ten), South (Southeast; Deep South & South Atlantic; Represented by All-SEC and All-ACC respectively), Southwest (Represented by All-Southwest), and Pacific Coast (Represented by All-Pac) is a pretty typical way of splitting up football regions historically. The southwest did join up with the Missouri Valley in forming the Big 8/Big 12, and so maybe All-MVIAA or whatever could be justified if it is really an issue. I think the Missouri Valley in this sense might be entirely sustained by Nebraska's football program. The conferences that are haphazard and redundant regionally (like the WAC or Conference USA or whatever), or of the region from Utah to Idaho (like the Mountain West), should be left out. Unless one finds a rich, buried history of All-Mountain teams. The above should provide one with some rough guidelines. Once I finish what I can do with the All-SEC teams and clean up a few of my own articles, aside from non-wiki matters, I will see what I can do to help the All-Pac teams. Maybe find a UP selection when all we have is an AP kind of thing, for that's certainly the kind of struggle with the All-SECs. Cake (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Cake, the more amorphous regionalism you're talking about surely applies to the early days of college football, but when we get to the present day or the last few decades, what's notable is cut along discrete conference lines. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No doubt one appeals to a certain history with the regionalism - but such is that from which the conferences and all-regions teams stem. It seems a historical question by necessity. I am not just commenting on coverage of the sport a century ago, but which 'All-X' teams one expects to be notable with some notable, neglected players. Also the major conferences which have usurped the regions are still regional and largely the same even if nothing really stops e. g. Stanford joining the ACC or whatever. Don't really get the point of including e. g. All-WAC teams because Mizzou in the SEC shows regions are meaningless today, any more than still listing the best players of Tulane, Georgia Tech, and Sewanee on All-SEC lists after they have left the SEC since they are still of the region. The fact is conferences are to formalize a region and the major teams there of; and so it seems both the regionalism and the conference membership have to be taken into account, especially when we are speaking of a historical list in the first place and which conferences to exclude. Cake (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A bigger question might be if we include say the ACC, do we then include–as you would with the Big Ten or SEC or Pac-10/12, All-South Atlantic Teams, even when All-Southern teams held sway? Cake (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care whether we have separate articles or not, per se, as long as all FBS conferences get treated equally, plus historical equivalent FBS conferences (WAC, Big East, etc.). Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In the end, it's all governed by WP:GNG. All conferences are not necessarily equal when it comes to the coverage they receive, and so it isn't realistic to say that what's sauce for one is necessarily sauce for another. If All-WAC teams have received the type of coverage that is needed to satisfy WP:GNG, then lists make sense. If the coverage is lacking, then they would be subject to challenge. Cbl62 (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others," eh? Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

EJ, it's not a question of fairness in deciding what article topics we include, it's a question of significant coverage per WP:GNG. If Wikipedia were about "fairness" in deciding what to include, every college football player would have an article; that's not the way Wikipedia works, nor, frankly, is that the way the media covers sports, athletes and teams in the real world. As I am sure you've heard before, Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The All-PAC teams have been completed for the years 1916 to 1978 (Template:All-Pacific-12 Conference football teams), but I'm presently a bit burned out by the effort. Help would be appreciated from anyone willing to work on the years after 1978. Cbl62 (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So.... I was bored at 2am and after reading the TCU Horned Frogs article, specifically their conference membership section I thought it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a visual representation since they've changed conferences so many times in the last 20 years. Feel free to take a gander, TCU Horned Frogs#History. Any feedback is appreciated. If anyone else knows of articles that could use something like that please ping me here or on my talk page and I'll try to work on it, if not then that works too I spose. Cheers, —  dainomite   07:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is a section on changing conference membership, I don't have a problem with this. However, what about teams that play in different conferences such as Notre Dame football Boise State Wrestling etc.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I imagine it would be done as per normal with a note at the bottom that X sport isn't in the conference. For instance if one was added to Notre Dame Fighting Irish it would show the Big East and then the ACC because that's the athletic conferences that Notre Dame has belonged to with a note in the prose that the football program doesn't participate in the conference and instead is independent. —  dainomite   03:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If anyone can find me the first name of the end on Virginia Tech (VPI) last name 'Ware' at the turn of the century, they deserve three internet-brownies. Cake (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@MisterCake: It requires a subscription, but this Newspapers.com article states the name J. E. "Joe" Ware. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks so much. Got a subscription due to wiki, also looked on virginiachronicle, and never could find him. You've done it. Here is the chap. Cake (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Collaboration at its finest. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• If only I could find Anderson of Cumberland's name; it would be the last of the sore thumbs sticking out amongst the All-Southerns. Cake (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)