Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CFB)

Shortcut

More colors to delete

[edit]

Per recent discussion of other list articles using team colors, can someone knowledgeable about the coding get rid of the colors on these pages?

Cbl62 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are pretty egregious cases of overuse of overwhelming colors. It would be great if someone with knowledge of color coding could jump in and delete the colors. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on these egregious colors. These are also rampant on conference season articles (e.g. 2024 Big Ten Conference football season. And what about the use of colors in the tables of the "game summaries" sections of team season articles, e.g. 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team#Game summaries. I think we could so without the colors there too. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider making a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. It seems a matter of stripping out based on the color pattern. Unless someone wanted to do manual brute force.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to give it a shot. I'll make sure that I preview everything before I submit it to make sure I did it properly and not screwing anything up.Greenday61892 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I was able to take care of 2024 Big Ten Conference football season. However, whoever added the colors in was totally inconsistent with their piping from section to section (some versions of their piping being used literally once), so find and replace was almost entirely useless... so I have to sit and take a bit of time to consider whether I have the time to volunteer in order to continue this task for other articles. I'd love to because I'm in complete agreement that the colors are major eyesores, but if no one else is able to take it on it might be a bit before it's done. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I think I figured out a way to still be able to use F&R. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did most of NCAA Division I FBS passing leaders with a series of regular expressions. There's a few that didn't get captured that need to be cleaned up. Also, now that we can actually see the red links, there are some typos to correct (which were always there). Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this same vein, in the process of removing the unnecessary colors from Big Ten articles I've noticed there's multiple different templates that fill colors by calling a team name, some with borders and some without. What does everyone think in regard to the current state of rivalry game/trophy/series articles and coloring of the results tables? I personally feel like color does look fine (and honestly even enhancing) when it's just two or three (such as Commander-in-Chief's Trophy, Beehive Boot, et al) teams in the same table, but some matchups where the colors are similar (such as Kansas vs. Kansas State) might benefit from switching to the templates that include a secondary color as a border. Interested to hear peoples' thoughts on that. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add now that I think of it too, if it's decided to switch to the templates with borders, it should of course be for all matchups for consistency, not just the ones that need them more. Greenday61892 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone has objected to team colors for rivalry articles when it's just two or three different colors. The rivalry articles use Template:NCAA color cell, which has a border field that can used to add a border with the secondary team color. But I don't think adding borders is a great idea for rivalry results tables because we'll be going from two colors to four, getting closer to the rainbows we're trying to avoid. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. What should we do about the instances like Kansas/KSU where the colors in the table as they currently stand are very similar? There's some that I can't think of off the top of my head at the moment that are even closer than that pair. I was thinking that the borders would create a contrast to better distinguish them, but I get the not wanting to add even more colors as well. Greenday61892 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering using a tool to compare the four sets of possible combinations between two teams (primary/primary, p/secondary, s/p, s/s) for best possible accessibility contrast; I couldn't find anything in the MOS to tell if that would be a worthwhile venture (or if it'd even been MOS compliant), but perhaps I missed something. Anyone think it wouldn't be worthwhile? Greenday61892 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some example infoboxes

[edit]

Below, from left to right:

1) current infobox with heavy banner area
2) really thin banner area
3) compromise (?) banner area
4) same as number 3, but with the banners in chronological order, starting with oldest at top.

Input welcome. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would want numbers 2 and 3 to be in chronological order. Conference, Bowl, NCG. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added number 4 above: same as number 3, with the banners in chronological order, starting with oldest at top. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you above that the "SEC Western Division champion" should be removed for teams that end up winning the overall conference championship. The loser of the CCG like 2021 Georgia Bulldogs football team should retain their listed divisional championship. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something other than 1. Seems undue to include the score and opponent name of individual games in the infobox where less is more per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

    The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

    Having this info so prominently displayed cheapens and dilutes the encyclopedic value of the whole infobox. Left guide (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel the same about a traditional single-bowl season such as 1973 Alabama Crimson Tide football team? Is it the multiple games or any and all bowl games/opponents/scores? PK-WIKI (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 is my preference. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, yes, I could see maybe dropping the scores of the postseason games, but the decisions and even opponents are more vital than a lot of other stuff in these infoboxes, like coordinators, captains, team MVPs, and offensive/defensive schemes. We have stand-alone articles for 2021 SEC Championship Game and 2021 Cotton Bowl Classic for a reason, because they are of high signficance, and thus they warrant mention and linking in the 2021 Alabama infobox. "CFP National Championship finalist" is not a championship, and thus does not belong in the champion field. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the expanded playoffs, the current approach could yield something like the below. If editors like it, no further action required. That said, I would prefer to see some reduction in line with the less-is-more approach. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 3 but switch hierarchy remove bowl games College basketball has national champion, conference tourney, conference regular, in-season tournament, then in a separate box the finale tournament game result or final four. I would prefer option 3 but with "official" national champions, (runner-ups [BCS, bowl coalition/alliance], CFP appearance,) conference championships. If we have 3 or 4 bowl games that can be unweildy. My rationale:Is a SEC championship more prevalent than a national championship? I do see the idea of what is in the NFL team season infobox as being chronological, but this is a completely separate "playoff finish" parameter.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial statement: Is having coordinators necessary? The NFL infobox has the parameter but it is seldom used, even in current-season articles. Why do we use "team" instead of "season" anyway?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1986 New York Giants season and 1994 San Francisco 49ers season, two memorable Super Bowl champs that popped into my head, list coordinators in the infobox. I would keep the coordinators. They are often pretty key to the identity of a team. If and when we list multiple posteason games, they should be listed in chronological order. But championships should be listed in order of promience: 1) national 2) conference 3) division 4) bowl 5) regional (e.g. Lambert-Meadowlands Trophy as in 1982 Penn State Nittany Lions football team). As for why we use "team" instead of season", that was a convention decided upon nearly 20 years ago. I suppose we chould change it if we wanted to, but that would require renaming tens of thousands of articles and updating hundreds of thousands of links (if we want to be neat around it and avoid redirects) across multiple college sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is having coordinators necessary?"—of course not, in the context of almost nothing on Wikipedia being "necessary". Useful such that it justifies the consumption of infobox space? I'd say no, especially co-something coordinators. There are specific examples of various people/events/ephemera associated with a specific team or game that could arguably be placed in an infobox; that doesn't justify it for the general case. Ultimately, either editors here believe the infobox, especially for recent teams with extended postseasons (especially this upcoming CFP), is bloated to the point that a trim would be an improvement, or not. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW information is incorrect

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denny Field

[edit]

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

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

1904 Arkansas Cardinals football team

[edit]

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

General manager

[edit]

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

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

Good article reassessment for Forbes Field

[edit]

Forbes Field has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-12 in bowl games article

[edit]

Neutral question: the Pac-12 should still appear in the table of "Bowl record by conference" in the 2024–25 NCAA football bowl games article, yes? As Washington State is going to play in some bowl and will need to be accounted for somewhere. Just making sure. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmoore5556 I'd say so - I'd treat it the same as if a normal-size conference only had one bowl-eligible team for whatever reason. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dmoore5556. No reason to exclude the Pac-12 even if it will only have one result. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something. I've (re)added Pac-12 to "Bowl record by conference" in the article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two stand-alone articles for Georgia Tech games worth assessing

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

Standalone CFP first round articles

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Mexican college football champions

[edit]

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

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

First-round CFP games, bowls?

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bowl game articles -- text and links for naming sponsorships

[edit]

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

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

AfD heads-up

[edit]

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

2025 season articles

[edit]

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

Motdattan, heads up here regarding the offensive and defensive schemes in the infobox. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Will delete them from now. I get the point that they may not run the same scheme even though the staff doesn't change. Motdattan (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we had agreed not to create the next season's articles until the current season is over. That's my recollection as well, and we should not be creating season articles way in advance. However, I think it's fine once the "regular season" is over at the end of November. Especially with the new playoff system prolonging the season all the way out to January 20 (the championship game), I don't see a need to wait until January 21 to start creating 2025 season articles. That said, any 2025 season article will be vulnerable to deletion or draftification if it lacks appropriate sourcing. So any articles created should be supported by the best sourcing available. And if good sourcing is not available, probably best to create the article as a draft until the sourcing becomes available. Cbl62 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-South independent football teams

[edit]

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

My indirect input is the series of articles appear to lack context. They could likely benefit from an "anchor" article that explains the All-South independent teams—what entity bestowed the honor, how were players selected (e.g. a poll of media/coaches/other players), was this only at the University level or did it also include Small College players, did the composition of the "team" change over time (it appears that Special Teams were added at some point), and such. And perhaps a bit of "so what"—did the honor raise the profile of seniors heading to the NFL draft, or might it have raised the profile of underclassmen heading into the next season's Heisman consideration, or ? Clearly someone(s) put a chunk of work into 27 different articles, but a lot of it comes across as a wall of mostly non-notable names. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same criticism could be applied to the All-Eastern teams (88 articles), largely created by Cbl62 and Cumberland Mills. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support consolidating them all at a new article 1973 College Football All-Region Teams to match 1973 College Football All-America Team. Could also do 1973 College Football All-Conference Teams rather than an article for each conference? This would be an "anchor" article that explains the concept of regional teams, and would also allow minor regions/conferences to be easily added without the overhead of a new article or risk of deletion. Would also consolidate a bunch of references and boilerplate, as I imagine many of the selectors are ranking multiple regions in the same article.
Also, IMO articles like 1973 All-Big Eight Conference football team should be retitled to 1973 Big Eight All-Conference football team.
I also think we are missing a lot of history on pre-conference regional team rankings. Some articles like Lambert-Meadowlands Trophy exist, but regional newspaper rankings of teams and regional "mythical" championships were extremely common in the pre-conference era. Tables like Template:1917 Eastern college football independents records collect the teams and standings, but not the sportswriter rankings. Is there a place for regional rankings at articles like 1917 college football rankings, or is that supposed to be national? Should they live at a new article?
PK-WIKI (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PK, I'm pretty sure the common names of the all-conference teams generally take the form of "All-Big Eight Conference", not "Big Eight All-Conference". The phrase "College Football All-Region Teams", if used, should certainly not be capitalized. Same for "College Football All-Conference Teams". Those early regional rankings certainly seem apt for inclusion in the prose of team season and national season articles. Not sure they belong in standings tables. Probably too fragmented to be standardized for that sort of thing. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, there'd be WP:BROADCONCEPT pages like College football all-region teams and College football all-conference teams. However, are there sources that deal with this at a high-level? Otherwise, is it WP:OR? There's existing pages like List of All-Big Ten Conference football teams, which at the very least serve as navigation to all the conference's year-specific pages. In basketball, pages like List of All-Pac-12 Conference men's basketball teams enumerate every years' teams, not merely links to year-specific pages. However, the size of football teams (off+def+special teams) seems to make it unwieldy to combine each years' selection onto a single page (also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 16 § Help needed: All-SEC and All-Pac-12 teams).—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea to consolidate each of the regional teams rather than each one having its own article. Reywas92Talk 20:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created All-East team articles for the period ending in 1979. During that time, All-East teams were a big deal because the major Eastern teams (Penn State, Syracuse, Pitt, Army, Temple, Rutgers, etc.) were not members of conferences, and there weres no all-conference teams to cover an entire region of major college football. The All-East selections became less notable after the 1970s, as the Big East Conference was formed and the eastern majors began to join the Big East or other conferences like the ACC and Big 10. I have doubts about the notability of All-East teams post-1979, but the All-East teams of the 20th century at least through the 1970s received extensive coverage and pass our notability standards. (I don't have the time to look into the All-South independent teams at the moment, but unlike the East, the South was historically dominated by major conferences (SEC and Southern Conference), so I'm less confident in the notability of this grouping. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research help - head coach of a defunct program

[edit]

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

The 1967 football media guide provides some help: [1]. Page 44, in particular, has a historical sketch that discusses the pre-1909 squads. Hinitt is not mentioned. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hadn't found that. I still haven't been able to find anything so I think I'll stick with leaving that stuff out of the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of reportage (e.g., this) on Hinitt when he came to Parsons in the second half of 1900 but nothing that I found about him coaching football. Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look. I'm starting to suspect that the user who added him to the infobox accidentally saw stuff about him "arriving at Parsons" as president and mistook that as him coming to coach. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also just unlikely that the president would be the coach in a time where athletic directors generally coached damn near every sport a school has to offer, especially a 'smaller' school. I have found previous coaches added to numerous navboxes (ie {{Buena Vista Beavers football coach navbox}}) from Bigredlance which, after some digging, have proven to not be accurate. (Not to discredit their effort because there is more accurate data than inaccurate that they've added. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FCS/FBS team playoff navboxes TfD

[edit]

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

Possible spam/advertisement company/fraudulent website?

[edit]

See the edits User:Cfbrivalries [2] posting non-official rivalry websites to pages, first as an external link then as a source. WP:AGF, this is a misguided attempt to be helpful posting an WP:NOTRELIABLE source? At worst, these all look the same and are suspect websites.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on football player leads

[edit]

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

Depth charts in team/season articles

[edit]

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

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

Tiger Bech

[edit]

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

New College Statistics table format

[edit]

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

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

Roster template for one-platoon football?

[edit]

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football&oldid=1267675477"