Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject College football (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Current coaching staff" section on team articles[edit]


Many team articles have a "Current coaching Staff" section (Ex USC Trojans football#Current coaching staff). Current NCAA rules limit the assistant coaching staff to 10 individuals (or such) with that same article noting the Alabama media guide lists "41 photos of people with a numbing array of titles." and similar examples of non-coaching staff largess.

So I recently updated 15 team articles to remove non-coaches from the "Current coaching staff" section as these longtail non-coach, staff members are a better fit for the YYYY/2019 team season articles (Ex 2019 USC Trojans football team). The general result was a limited display of 10~11 actual coaches on these articles and no reverts until today.

Today, Mack270 reverted on Army Black Knights football#Current coaching staff which restored 15 non-coaching staff members (who are already included on 2019 Army Black Knights football team#Coaching staff). The Army article is scoped to 130 years of Army football, but now also conveys 15 additional staff such as "Michael Zeol, Assistant Director of Video Operations, 2017, 2017, William Paterson" which seems dramatically misaligned from the article topic. The content doesn't even seem to rise to WP:FANCRUFT. So am looking for some general consensus that the team articles should directionally attempt to restrict the "Current coaching staff" section to only actual coaches. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we ought to remove current coaching staff sections from main team articles. That's detail that belongs on the relevant team season page. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree in full with Jweiss11. That stuff belongs on the season page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine to include current coaching staffs on the main team articles. It's information relevant to the current state of the program, after all. But I think non-coaching staff should be removed, on both main team articles and season articles. The director of video production, etc. is pure fancruft. Ostealthy (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Butch Nash[edit]

Hello football enthusiasts. There is a draft waiting for review at WP:AFC about a coach with an award named after him. Please check it out.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

remove "Current coaching staff" section from team articles?[edit]

Per the above discussion (in #"Current coaching staff" section on team articles), the success of the Season articles campaign in creating YYYY/2019 season articles, and many team articles already exceeding wiki's 100 kB size guidelines (WP:TOOBIG, Articles to be split), lets revisit the purpose of including "Current coaching staff" sections (Ex USC Trojans football#Current coaching staff) as seen in some but not all FBS team articles.

The assistant coaching staff content already has a natural home in each YYYY (2019 USC Trojans football) season article, but does it deserve its own section in the full team article (Ex USC Trojans football team) which are covering 100+ years of team history?

Q1. Should we remove "Current coaching staff" sections from all FBS team articles.

Related, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The team article infoboxes also render various non-head coach staff (OC, DC, ST, AHC/TEs, etc), such as Nevada Wolf Pack football:

Q2. If removal of the "Current coaching staff" section removes the names of all ~10 assistant coaches from the team articles, should the "OtherStaff" (assistant coaches) parameter of Template:Infobox NCAA football school be deprecated per INFOBOXPURPOSE? UW Dawgs (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes 1 and 2. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal of both "Current coaching staff" sections from main program articles and "OtherStaff" parameter from Template:Infobox NCAA football school. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • UW Dawgs, that was a quick consensus. Anyway, I'm all for it, and I'm all for pruning more. You just tackled Tennessee_Volunteers_football--"Past and present NFL players" can be handled by a link to a category, an all-time list of all-time history against all opponents is...well, a bit over the top, and that list of captains should be cut as well. How about it? ;) Drmies (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Florida Gators football, Uniforms and Current coaching staff[edit]

There is a discussion in which you might be interested at Talk:Florida Gators football#rearranging sections about an editor's aesthetic preference[1] to elevate the "Uniforms" and "Current coaching staff" sections above more traditional content. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Um, that's not at all what I proposed to do. I suggested moving sections with lots of text to the top half of the article and moving long lists to the bottom, basically arranging it into a text/appendix format for easier readability. I'd actually forgotten about it, and though I still think it'd be a much better arrangement, it's probably an idea best revisited after the season. Zeng8r (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team[edit]

A current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Saint John's Johnnies football team raises interesting questions about where we should draw the line on season articles. Saint John's (MN) is a small-college program that won a local conference championship in Minnesota and lost in the quarterfinals of the Division III playoffs. I am a supporter of season articles for Division I (FBS and FCS) programs, but I have serious reservations about proliferation of articles about Division III programs. The current AfD presents an opportunity to explore the question. Feel free to offer your views one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool[edit]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of W-L record for every opponent[edit]

Three FBS articles display the all-time records for "every" (100+) opponent series.

All three team articles currently fail WP:TOOBIG. These serires sections are 5-15kB, where TOOBIG begins to flag at >50kB. So the sections are inherently problematic.

Do we have consensus around either 1) outright removal, or 2) merging to a new "List of Team Nickname all-time series records" type article convention to support this content? Observationally, this content is not consistently maintained and diverges from sourcing. My view is remove, but a new stand-alone article type is also reasonable. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The concept of separate, stand-alone series record articles was soundly rejected by the community in this AfD (and others) back in 2016. Dumping the same data into the main program article looks like an attempt to end-run around that process. FWIW, I have no objection to all time record table in program articles on a limited basis where it makes sense (such as conference or in-state opponents). But, listing every single team they've ever played a single game against seems like overkill to me. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Removed x3 per prior consensus (on stand alone article format). UW Dawgs (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed again from Nebraska after they were re-added.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see the series records remain on Nebraska Cornhuskers football. I maintain the records and keep them current after every weekend. Wscsuperfan (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lower division season articles[edit]

There has been good discussion in recent days about when, if ever, we should have season articles about college football teams that play at levels below Division I. See these AfDs: 1973 San Diego, 2016 Saint John's, and 2018 Olivet. As of now, we have not adopted any formal guidance, leaving the matter to be debated endlessly under WP:GNG. With 450 D3 schools, 251 NAIA schools, and 314 D2 schools, opening the door to articles on all such seasons means we could eventually face 50,000 stubs (1,015 lower level schools x 48 seasons since the multi-division system was adopted in 1973). To me, and particularly when we have not even come close to building quality season articles on all D1 programs, this would be a misdirection of limited resources and an ongoing maintenance problem. I'm not sure where consensus is on this, but I think it would be reasonable for us as a project to formulate guidance. I initially thought that we might limit such season articles to lower level teams that have won their divisional national championship. Consensus did not seem to support that. In an attempt to establish some consensus, I'm offering a few alternatives below. Please offer your view. @Jweiss11: @Bagumba: @SportingFlyer: @Paulmcdonald: @Ejgreen77: @Eagles247: @Lizard the Wizard: @Smartyllama: @Ocfootballknut: @Strikehold: @MisterCake: @Patriarca12: @PCN02WPS: @UCO2009bluejay: @Corkythehornetfan: @UW Dawgs: @Ostealthy: @SportsGuy789: @GPL93: @Pvmoutside: @Zeng8r: @JohnInDC: @Bsuorangecrush: @Rikster2: @Hoof Hearted: @TonyTheTiger: @Clarityfiend: @Dirtlawyer1: @BD2412: @Edge3: @Metropolitan90: Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Scope note: This vote is not intended to apply to articles from the era before the multi-division system was created. Teams in the older era often shifted between periods of greater or lesser significance, and I believe that these seasons should remain governed by WP:GNG. But the development of the divisions in 1973 provides a clear framework for assessing notability from that point forward, and we should make use of that framework. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 1: Leave everything as is, governed by GNG[edit]

  • Support I gotta say--every time I try to come up with some kind of rule or guideline that's better than GNG I fail. I'm not saying that GNG is perfect by any stretch, but it's already in place and it seems to work well. When things "don't" work well is when an individual or group of editors argue against the well-established General Notability Guideline. "Look at season article for XXXX team in the year 19XX -- it's just a small team/school/Div III/NAIA/whatever, they don't deserve an article": Well, what does the coverage about that topic say? If there is enough coverage to surpass GNG, then any argument against it based on size or whatever is really just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the article doesn't have the coverage to pass GNG, then no amount of arguing if favor of keeping the article can overcome that. GNG works.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If it passes GNG, it should have an article, whether it's DI, DII, DIII, NAIA, middle school, or a team of goats. Some of those are more likely to pass GNG than others, but that should be the standard. Smartyllama (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support after some thought and after reading User:Paulmcdonald's argument. If the season passes GNG then it should be kept. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support at least for now. I'm open to the possibility of a categorical restriction here, but I don't see a satisfactory one among the other options, as yet proposed. Specifically, none of the options proposed address the the run of historical seasons as we cross the introduction of tiers by the NCAA in 1956 and 1973. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There doesn't seem to be any rush to create all these small college season articles, so I really don't see the need to devise any special notability rules. The main difficulty in writing them is that there's often little documentation, and since a lack of coverage would fail GNG, the potential problem takes care of itself. Zeng8r (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – though it may seem disorganized now, I think it's definitely better than the two extremes (create and maintain all the stubs, which would be a pain and indeed a mismanagement of resources, or ban them completely, not leaving room for any exceptions) and I think we can leave it to the community and our editors to determine whether the lower-level articles pass GNG and any other notability guidelines. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 11:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Honestly, I think this is the only way. I don’t think it is appropriate to presume notability below D1. But there are some power programs at D2, NAIA and even D3 that get covered at the level of D1 programs so there needs to be some leeway here. It’s not always just the team that wins a title or goes to the final four - other factors exist. GNG is the only way to determine these in my opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support GNG is the best way to handle a case-by-case basis and I support case-by-case basis for this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support GNG is probably the best way. I've done a few lower level articles, but only when they make sense in terms of a larger project (for example, to have a record of all intercollegiate football played by all campuses of the University of California). Ocfootballknut (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is the obvious answer, but it doesn't solve the problem - what sort of coverage qualifies a season for WP:GNG? As I've noted in a couple recent AfDs, my local amateur team receives press coverage - we have a bunch of clippings hanging all over the clubhouse - but in no way would we consider this notable. Furthermore, many teams, especially at the lower levels of football, receive a similar and sometimes often lesser amount of press coverage than high school football, which is clearly non-notable. I don't think the issue here is WP:GNG as such but rather being able to distinguish which types of articles demonstrate notability for the season - for instance in the San Diego Toreros article, consensus is GNG is met even though there's only two feature articles on the team, both from local newspapers, and most game coverages are either box scores or brief two-to-five sentence recaps. I would exclude this type of coverage myself. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    There's a difference between rootine game coverage for a bio vs for a team. For a bio, it's often just passing mentions. The same coverage is routine if trying to establish notability for an article on a single game. But consistent routine coverge for many games of a season for a single team may be sufficient for an article on that entire season. Think of WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. If the only sources we have are stat lines, there's really not much interesting to write about.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    Also, generally speaking two such feature articles are often considered enough for an article on any topic--not just college football.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Option 2: Ban lower level season articles completely[edit]

  • Oppose A complete unconditional ban like this doesn't make sense. Some programs in the "lower-levels" actually have (or at least could have) notable seasons and even games. Such a hard line like this does not need to be drawn.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doing so would conflict with Wikipedia-wide GNG criteria, if specific lower level seasons happen to be notable for any number of reasons. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the two above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 11:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Option 3: Limit lower level season articles to national championship seasons[edit]

  • Support I think we can presume notability for D2, D3, and NAIA national championship seasons, but anything less than that should rely on GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A blanket ban is inappropriate - if they pass GNG, they should have an article. Smartyllama (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 4: Limit lower level seasons to final four in each division[edit]

  • Support. This seems like a reasonable compromise and provides some bright-line guidance to deter proliferation of masses of stub articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 5: Limit to playoff teams[edit]

  • Leaning Support and extended to any conference championships for teams that win a conference but who's leagues bar postseason play. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose sometimes teams and organizations can gain notability through the news not because they are great but because they are so bad at what they do they generate press. Ours is not to judge the press, ours is to build an encyclopedia from the results of that press.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Option 6: Limit to conference championships[edit]

Option 7: Require regional or national coverage for lower level teams[edit]

  • Support per WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1: what's a "lower-level" team? That's determined by opinion. What's a regional or national coverage? That's also determined by opinion. It leaves too much open to strength of argumentation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the presumed definition of "lower-level" here is any Division II team or lower, based on the opening paragraph in this consensus-building discussion; I disagree that it's subjective. I do agree that regional coverage is subjective and should be avoided as a criterion, but on the other side I don't think national coverage is a debatable topic (for instance, if USA Today wrote an article on the 1972 Millsaps College squad, are you going to argue that's not considered national coverage?). SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What I was going for there (and now I see that isn't clear) is that the definition of "lower-level" can change over time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Option 8: Omit D2 from the guidance as it represents a higher level of play[edit]

  • Oppose Division II season articles should not be presumed notable, GNG should be required for inclusion of these articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Eagles247. Each DII article should be judged on a case by case basis. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Option 9: Limits are fine for D2 and D3, but ban NAIA season articles altogether[edit]

  • Oppose the NAIA was the first college level play to have a national championship and the organization was once much bigger than it is now. Many current Division II schools were once NAIA schools. Drawing a hard-limiting line like this creates trouble down the road.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per largely what PaulMcDonald states, but to add: there are a number of present-day FCS and FBS teams that began as NAIA programs. To be pedantic about banning NAIA seasons would be in direct conflict with the established guideline that FCS and FBS programs' articles are deemed notable. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure why "Option 7: Require regional or national coverage for lower level teams" needs to be discussed. A WikiProject would not be able to override a website-wide guideline (WP:GNG). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Couple general comments. First, for the sake of simplicity, I think we can treat NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, and NAIA identically as one bucket named "lower division" or "sub Division I". There's no need to stratify our treatment among these. Second, if there's going to be a policy other than Option 1 above, it needs to deal with the introduction of tiers in college sports, first in 1956 with the NCAA's creation of University of College Division, and then in 1973 with the introduction of Division I, II, and III. It's unclear to me when exactly teams became "NAIA". Take DePauw Tigers football, now an NCAA Division III, for example. Would some limitation on "lower division" seasons articles only apply to DePauw starting in 1956 or 1973? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you would propose. Many teams that are now Division III were formerly major or at least mid-level programs. Chicago, Sewanee, Saint Mary's, Oberlin, Case Western come to mind. Prior to the divisional separation, there was much more cross-over and less stratification. So it would IMO be fatally flawed to say that because a team is Division III in 1973, all of its historical seasons before 1973 should be treated as though they were playing at a Division III level. Cbl62 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Sewanee, Chicago, Saint Mary's, and many others were clearly major programs at one time or another, so I'm certainly not proposing that all historical seasons be treated by the current status of the program. But enforcing some sort of bright-line cutoff at 1956 or 1973 would create some weird situations. For example, how does 1955 DePauw Tigers football team compare to 1956 DePauw Tigers football team or 1973 DePauw Tigers football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
In the era before the creation of divisions, there was no official, verifiable demarcation of notability, and so WP:GNG appears to be the best (perhaps only legitimate) way to determine notability. It seems like you're saying that unless we can develop a bright-line rule for the old, non-divisional era, we ought not to have one for the modern era where stratification is official and verifiable? I just don't get the logic of that. Cbl62 (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
{{{Ping|Cbl62) It's just seems funny to me what we could have an article for every year of DePauw football up through 1955 and then suddenly in 1956 or 1973, because DePauw is then NCAA College Division or NCAA Division III, the individual season no long warrant articles, even though the level of competition and the degree of media coverage is more or less the same as it is for 1955. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

End goal? Are these proposals intended to be advice for project members, essays to be cited at AfDs, or as a change to NSPORTS to supercede GNG?—Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The first two. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully, if project members are creating these articles, they have a good track record on notability, and we can even convince then to cite 3-4 pieces of significan coverage, even if it's just on the article talk page. For those with a bad track record on notability, proj member or not, a WP:TBAN on team season creations can be a last resort option.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

DI teams = automatic notability? Is the corollary of this argument "Division I seasons are automatically notable" because they represent competition at the top division of the sport? (Receiving press coverage simply by virtue of playing in the top level?) I'm not challenging this notion, just verifying this is the policy as it would apply to perennial basement teams like 2018 Kent State, 2018 Texas State, or 2018 New Mexico State that other than their division status, don't seem very notable. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC) (On a side note, I just read the Family of WikiProjects section on this project page and must give kudos to the author(s)!)

Comment Could I potentially add an option, it would be "In addition to articles that pass WP:GNG, conference championship seasons, and/or playoff appearances are notable." This seems like a good compromise, we don't have articles for a season that a team goes 0-11, but can for teams that win their conference, or make the playoffs as auto-bids aren't always granted to conference champs. This way we have a common sense approach for keeping articles that meet WP:GNG and can have a clear cut guideline for everything else. In addition, this also would provide justification to keep the standings templates and conference championship team navboxes that have become recently created. My only question is will this apply to FCS teams, or do they automatically pass notability?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that if it is a conference championship or a playoff appearance, it's likely going to generate the press required to pass GNG. And if it doesn't generate the press to pass GNG then we shouldn't say "oh, and this one too even though it doesn't pass GNG" --00:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Teams that go winless are frequently more notable than middling .500 teams due to the historically bad season they just completed. I know what you're getting at, I just wanted to be devil's advocate that winless teams are more interesting / notable than 6–6 squads. SportsGuy789 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bagumba: Responding to you above which says "If the only sources we have are stat lines..." The 1973 San Diego Toreros football team article, which consensus states clearly passes WP:GNG in the AfD so far, is primarily sourced to the team's media guide. this is four sentences and a box score, [2] four sentences and a box score, [3] eight sentences and no box score, [4] two sentences no box score, [5] three sentences and a box score, [6] three sentences and a box score, [7] seven sentences no box score. This last one is interesting considering the page it's on actually features a full feature story about Palomar College's game against Riverside, a community college - should those seasons also be considered wiki-notable? Likewise here - the community college football game actually ran on the front page! I'm not trying to litigate the AfD here - there's a couple feature stories I've left out here (though a WP:AUD would show they're pretty local) and I don't really care that much - but I think the context is very important here, and I think we're doing a terrible job at the moment at differentiating between routine stories and stories which actually demonstrate notable seasons per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer: I don't judge the article on it's current state, but instead on what it potentially could be (WP:SURMOUNTABLE). While I'm usually concerned about whether stats cited to stats sites or media guides are really significant or trivial WP:OR, the ones listed there at least conceivably could be mentioned by some (yet undiscovered) independent source. The fact that there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage on the season by multiple sources makes the season (not the individual games) notable.—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So if I wrote an article called 1973 Palomar College Football Season, you'd be a keep? SportingFlyer T·C 13:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd have to judge the multiple sources (i.e. different publishers) you find for it.—Bagumba (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My cutoff is based on the sources, not based on any particular threshhold I have for a sport. For LeBron's HS team, IIRC, that was pretty much all about coverage because of LeBron that devolved into WP:NOTDIARY. Sometimes the outcome is a result of who shows up (or doesn't) at a given discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

New article on games[edit]

Found a neat article that can be used as a source for historical games ESPN: The 150 greatest games in college football's 150-year history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul, saw this article earlier today. Seven Michigan games from my tenure as a fan made it—all tragic losses! :( Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Troy–UAB football rivalry[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy–UAB football rivalry (3rd nomination) in which you might be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

AP or CFP[edit]

Do we use AP rankings or CFP rankings for FBS games played after November 5 (when the first CFP poll was released). I edit PSU and looked back on previous years where it appeared that we continued to use the AP rankings for whole season, even after the CFP poll was released. Was there a consensus to switch to the CFP and I missed weighing in on the discussion? Just wondering as I see many FBS articles being switched to the CFP tonight. Bob305 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the schedule tables? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I've seen this in both the schedule tables and on at least the Big Ten conference's standings box. I reverted the changes on the pages that I'm actively involved in editing as it seems detrimental to me to have rankings flip part way through the season, both in terms of understanding context for the progression of a team during the season and when comparing a team's performance year over year.Gopherdan (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seeing it scheduling tables. Some diffs like [8] and [9], as well as [10] and [11]. Also here is an example in a game summary box: [12]. (Thanks, GDan for your reverts. Looking forward to a great game this weekend.) Bob305 (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the "CFP after November 5" model either. Just keep it consistent with the AP throughout the year. Ostealthy (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer the switch to CFP after November 5 since that's what TV broadcasts use in their score bugs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I never noticed that. Perhaps it's time for a change. It still seems a little odd to switch polls mid-season on the schedules (only because the CFP starts in the latter half). Even though it's noted in the footnote, how would we feel about a symbol or superscript notation after the rank number to indicate a change in poll? Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think switching to CFP makes sense as it is the most meaningful poll. I think denoting it in the schedule beside the rank is a must. Either way it can cause confusion. KD0710 (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In places where we only show one poll, we should go with AP only for consistency. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In the final AP poll of 2014 before the playoffs and bowl games were announced, Baylor was #4. However, Baylor was #5 in the CFP ranking and was not included in the playoffs. Wouldn't it be confusing for a reader to see Baylor ranked #4 on our schedule and yet not play in the semi-finals? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • comment I have both feet firmly planted in "you guys decide and tell me what you figured out."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eagles247:, less confusing than switching polls mid-table, and the confusion will be inherent in the subject itself (which we can't control), not in our presentation (which we can). There should also be sufficient description in the prose of the relevant articles about playoff selection. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It should not even be a question. Per WP:RS, wikipedia goes with what reliable sources use. If the NCAA and the media switch over to the CFP ranking, then the articles should reflect that as well. It doesn't matter if someone finds it confusing, it's what the sources reflect so we go with that.--JOJ Hutton 19:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It should be noted that the NCAA officially recognizes both polls, the CFP is not affiliated with the NCAA. The media does switch over to CFP so I have no problem with also doing so as long as it is noted in the footer of the schedule tables as it currently is.Mjs32193 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Well if the media switches then they would be considered a Reliable Source, and WP:RS is a core content policy, which should not be ignored.--JOJ Hutton 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What about adding a second column (when applicable) for CFP rankings? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about the schedule tables here? That's an interesting idea. Are CFP rankings presented for the opponent too? Do you need separate columns? What about something like the table at 1950 Michigan Wolverines football team, which shows both AP and Coaches Poll rankings? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to the schedule tables, and I suppose CFP rankings would need to be shown for opponents as well in this case. I'm not really a fan of how the 1950 Michigan table looks, but it could just be because I'm so used to the other layout. I'm also not sure about adding at least two more columns to these. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Part of me wonders, is this simply a case of trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? There's already a section of the standard CFB team wiki that displays rankings from the CFP, AP, and Coaches Poll. So the rankings are already present and available for tracking. My vote is also AP, this historical relevance and consistency are most important to me, and trying to capture the nuance of the changing source of rankings in footnotes just doesn't feel satisfactory to me to prevent confusion.Gopherdan (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Has anyone done a survey to see which poll the major sports networks and web sites use? Seems like that should be the starting point. If most of those sources use AP throughout the season, we ought to follow that. If they switch part-way through the season when CFP becomes available, we ought to follow that. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    From what Ive seen, they switch as well.JOJ Hutton 01:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think it's worth being a bit cautious about referencing the rankings on various media networks, as they aren't objective in this instance. Go to USA Today, for example, and you'll see them use the coaches poll as that's run/sponsored by them, and similarly all AP news stories use the AP rankings. As for the CFP rankings, ESPN switches to the CFP rankings because they pay millions of dollars for the rights to broadcast the rankings shows and have a vested interest in legitimizing them. I recall that when they first came out, there was viewer confusion because of the differences in rankings from one network to another. Given ESPN's dominance, eventually the TV networks switched over to using the CFP rankings as well. In terms of a reliable source to reference, I'm more inclined to follow Sports-References' lead as a historical source for information without any sort of financial entanglement with a given ranking, and that site has chosen to use the AP poll when referencing rankings.Gopherdan (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
When the Penn State radio broadcast came on the air for the pre-game show this morning, they made no mention of the CFP ranking, but rather announced it was a game between #5 Penn State and #13 Minnesota (which are their AP rankings). I'm more inclined to use AP throughout the page(s). Bob305 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Miami–South Florida football rivalry AFD[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miami–South Florida football rivalry in which you may be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)