Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

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]

Mass changes to stadium capacities

[edit]

Editor S085427 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a large number (looks to be 100+) of changes to college football team and stadium articles, modifying capacity figures. The ones I've looked at are all unsourced, or differ from cited sourcing. This editor's only contributions are these edits, all made on 5 October. This is an unusual behavior, possible vandalism, so I wanted to advise this community, as members here may be more familiar with capacity figures than I am. Dmoore5556 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their last edit at California Memorial Stadium contradicted the exisitng source. I left them a talk page message about sourcing their changes. It could be a technicality about tarps, but it needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That editor quite possibly may be a sock of 72.228.166.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who made similar edits, was previously banned, and just got banned again. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has resurfaced today, apparantly, making dozens of unsourced changes as 67.241.182.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Dmoore5556 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone articles for 100-point games

[edit]

Iamsogoodatchess1469 recently created two articles for 100-point scoring games in sub-FBS play: 1980 Delaware State vs. Portland State football game (I-AA/FCS) and 2003 Trinity Bible vs. Rockford football game (D3/NAIA). Are these notable enough to warrant stand-alone articles? Or are we better off merging to 1980 Delaware State Hornets football team, 1980 Portland State Vikings football team, etc? Thoughts about these? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how many 100+ point games have there been? Neutral question; it would help clarify how extra-ordinary such games are. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot all-time. But only three in the last 50 years. See List of 100-point games in college football. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable enough for their own articles. Rockford beating Trinity Bible 105-0 is the biggest Margin of victory in d3 football history! Portland State beating Delaware State 105-0 is the biggest Margin of victory in modern D1 history(since FCS and FBS was created in 1978) Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jweiss11, the list is quite helpful. Given the rarity of this occurring in the past 50 years, and what looks to be a good number of citations, articles about these two games doesn't strike me as problematic. In contrast, content about such games in earlier years, when it looks to have been non-extraordinary, would seem better placed in team-year articles. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but to establish that, we need to have WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources ... and it needs to be "enduring" beyond reportage in the immediate wake of the game. Cbl62 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that "100 points" scored by two teams is a good marker of stand-alone notability. It has happened several times in the modern NFL/AFL: (i) 2018 Los Angeles Rams 54, Chiefs 51; (ii) 2015 New Orleans Saints 52, Giants 49; (iii) 2004 Cincinnati Bengals 58, Browns 48; (iv) 1966 Washington Redskins 72, Giants 41; and (v) 1963 Oakland Raiders 52, Oilers 49. None of these games has a stand-alone article. If an NFL game with > 100 points doesn't warrant a stand-alone article, a lower-division college game with the same point totals is even less likely to warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's games where a team has scored over 99 points by themselves Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying that it's not a basis for automatic notability. Especially for the lower levels of amateur football. Season articles are and should be the norm. For stand-alone games, we need enduring SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. I asked at the outset: Do we have that here? Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    there are multiple reliable sources cited in both articles Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked several times: Which ones represent WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources? Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Opta Analyst site doesn't appear to meet WP:USEDBYOTHERS to be considered reliable (and the site appears to rely on AI).—Bagumba (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the other ones are reliable Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Cbl62 mentioned, sources also need to be WP:INDEPENDENT to establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    which sources that I cited would qualify as independent? Iamsogoodatchess1469 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, media guides, press releases, websites, student newspapers and other sources published by the school, its students, athletic program, alumni association or conference, and the NCAA are not considered WP:INDEPENDENT. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of us have other obligations on Wikipedia and in real life, so instead of wasting community time bickering over useless WP:Subjective importance arguments, we should be collectively searching for appropriate sources on these topics. If they're available, show them or add them to the article. If searches are performed and insufficient coverage is found, then PROD them or send them to AfD. I found these two books discussing the 1980 game, but not sure about the reliability of those publishers. I'll try to search for more when additional free time is available, I invite others to assist also. Left guide (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions about notability are not "useless". To the contrary, such discussions help ensure that project participants have an understanding of what's needed to satisfy WP:GNG. If you find such disussions to be "wasting community time", don't worry, there's no obligation to participate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I agree that the three paragraphs on the 1980 Portland State game in the book on "Oregon Sports Stories" (here) is SIGCOV, and I don't see why Arcadia Publishing would not qualify as reliable. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize that History Press is an imprint of Arcadia, which is a publisher the community seems to have a complicated relationship with. It may be necessary to scrutinize the individual book and author to judge reliability. See RSN discussions: 1, 2, 3. Left guide (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the 2003 game, there's this which is paywalled, and this book from a publisher that's a subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield so it's probably reliable. This also might count. Left guide (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's actually very little in the WaPo article specifically about the 2003 game. —Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the book. It's description is a bit dubious, referring to the 2003 game as part of the 2004 season:

    An account of a year in the life of the 2004 Trinity Bible College Lions, the worst college football team in the United States. Off to an atrocious start--losing the first game of the year 105-0--the Lions find themselves fighting for victory, but more importantly, dignity.

    —Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of individual bowl games

[edit]
I believe many individual bowl games would fail WP:NEVENT and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. And indeed, while any editor is free to nominate etc. etc., I have no current intent of doing so. I'm looking to understand the application of criteria. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event notability criteria applies the same as it does any other topic area; how well-enforced it is depends on how much folks care about holding the line on notability for quality control, and how much effort they're willing to volunteer in such an endeavor. One possible idea would be to merge the non-notable ones into each season's article for bowl games collectively i.e. 2017–18 NCAA football bowl games. But one big hurdle is that it would probably take a lot of time researching per WP:BEFORE since the community may not take kindly to merges or deletions being done willy-nilly en masse. Some may look non-notable on the surface, but actually have good-quality secondary coverage when perusing through Google Books, etc. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of college football history is best told IMO through season articles rather than thousands of articles on individual games. For this reason, I think we should limit game articles by strictly enforcing guidelines such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. As for bowl games, WP:SPORTSEVENT, prong 2, unfortunately doesn't distinguish between major bowls and things like the 1972 Pioneer Bowl. Cbl62 (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: bowl games, I'd assume that the host city's press combined with those of a game's respective teams, at a minimum, would account for CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps that's changed with the watered-down bowl system. A few AfDs that deleted individual bowl pages could cause SPORTSEVENT to be revisited. —Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The host city's press is typically WP:ROUTINE coverage, and sources published by the game's respective teams wouldn't be considered independent. Left guide (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the local press for the respective teams, not the school's themselves. Re: the bowl city's coverage, I used to live in a city that would write about past matchups often—not sure if that's the exception or the norm. —Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
write about past matchups often Yes, that's the type of secondary WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that would satisfy WP:NEVENT, compared to routine previews and recaps published less than a week before and after the game. Left guide (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review of football coach (Ashley Cornwell)

[edit]

Would someone who is able to approve pages be willing to review the draft for Ashley Cornwell? It should meet all of the guidelines including relevance. Please let me know what needs to be improved upon, this is a current Division 1 FCS coach who has had prior experience at Oberlin, Wisconsin, and the NFL. Patwomfcs (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is located at here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any feedback? When and how should I resubmit this page? Patwomfcs (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Patwomfcs I'm not an AfC/draft submission expert, but it doesn't look like it's currently submitted and available for review; you can resubmit it by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button on the AfC template at the top of the page and following whatever further instructions there are. Just make sure the feedback from the previous two declines have been addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that someone who does not review sports pages will be in charge of submitting it. I was looking at the standards for college football coaches and this does met requirements for this community, but not others. Will submit right now with a note. Patwomfcs (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page was declined again due to the ESPN Feature being cited on Youtube. Any guidance? Can anyone help get this approved? Patwomfcs (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patwomfcs, why don't you remove all the citations to YouTube videos and any content that can only be attributed to those citations? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The next step should not be finding someone that will accept the article as is, the next step should be improving the article so that it meets the guidelines and can get passed by any reviewer. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear why extended discussion about a single declined draft is happening here on a WikiProject talk page (which could be seen as WP:FORUMSHOP) especially without notifying the reviewers, when the draft talk page (which is currently empty) at Draft talk:Ashley Cornwell is the appropriate venue for this. The proper approach would be to start a thread there pinging the three reviewers, and leaving a notice here if wider input is desired. Left guide (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout

[edit]

I feel like I brought this up before but I can't find it. I think the current team season format lacks an appropriate place for a prose discussion of in-season events. Take 2024 Florida State Seminoles football team--the firing of three assistants should be mentioned, but the only real place to do it is in the lead. Similarly, the Stalions controversy is in the lead of 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team but not otherwise discussed in prose. Looking at 1917 Georgia Tech Golden Tornado football team, a good article, maybe it's as simple as renaming "Game summaries" to "In-season" or something like that? Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format need a bunch of updating, but I'm not sure the standard "Game summaries" is a problem. There are a number of places the firing of assistant coaches could be mentioned on 2024 Florida State Seminoles football team, like in the "at No. 10 Notre Dame" section, since this happened in the aftermath of that game. Or in the "Coaching staff" section. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template for media guides and programs?

[edit]

Is there an existing citation template that works well for media guides and programs? Doing some updating of basketball articles and hard to find a good fit. Alternatively, should sports projects collaborate to create a template for citing sports periodicals - these are often an excellent source for factual info about players, coaches and teams. Thanks for any thoughts. Rikster2 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use either {{cite web}} or {{cite magazine}} - one example is at 2014 Texas Bowl, FN 5. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Bow Down to Washington:
<ref name="FirstPrinting1915Program">{{cite magazine |magazine=University of Washington Football Programs |title=Souvenir program, football game : University of Washington vs. University of California, Saturday, November 13, 1915, Denny Field, Seattle, Washington |publisher=University of Washington Associated Students |url=https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/pioneerlife/id/5519/rec/ |date=November 13, 1915 |access-date=January 24, 2022 |location=[[Denny Field (Washington)|Denny Field]] |page=26}}</ref>
PK-WIKI (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've used {{cite book}} for offline media guides before (because cite web requires a url). —Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the media guides I've cited are ones for recent seasons that are available online. For those I've used {{cite web}}. I've used {{cite journal}} for yearbooks, e.g. at 1920 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team. PK-WIKI, note that the citation for 1915 Washington football program above is misusing the location field. That's intended for the city location of the publisher, not the location of an event covered. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I typically use "cite magazine" for team media guides and I believe it is sufficient here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:2024OPENLETTER

[edit]

Of interest to the community as a whole. Cbl62 (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recording the 12-team College Football Playoff in infoboxes and head coaching record tables

[edit]

Now the the College Football Playoff has expanded to 12 teams, some teams will be playing three and possibly four playoff games. We need to think about how we are going to capture this in the infoboxes of team season articles (using {{Infobox college sports team season}}) and head coaching record tables. For teams that made it to the national title game during the four-team playoff era, we've noted both the semfinal bowl game and the national title game; see 2023 Michigan Wolverines football team, Kirby Smart#Head coaching record. We've achieved this by hacking the bowl/playoff fields, intended to report just one result, with break tags. We've done the same for some rare examples from decades back when teams played multiple minor bowls; see: 1948 Hardin–Simmons Cowboys football team, Warren B. Woodson#Head coaching record. Note that for sub-FBS playoff tournaments (NCAA and NAIA), our practice is to only record the result of the final playoff game that teams played, see: 2021 North Dakota State Bison football team, Matt Entz.

I think we are going to want to report each CFP result in these infoboxes and record tables given that the quarterfinals, semis, and champinship games will all have their own stand-alone articles. For the first-round games, I think we going to detail those at 2024–25 College Football Playoff, but that's another article there. So we should probably add some fields to {{Infobox college sports team season}} (bowl2, bowl_result2, etc) and {{CFB Yearly Record Entry}} (bowlname2, bowloutcome2 etc). In the head coaching record tables, we also use a dagger (†) to note bowl/playoff games the were part of the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS, and CFP. This notation is driven by the field named "bcsbowl". That should probably be renamed and reworked, so that when it is activated, the daggers will apply to all the mutliple bowl/playoff results. For the four-team playoff era, we've also hacked this by manually entering a superscripted dagger.

Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally don't think we should include every playoff result in a season infobox. Otherwise, we could have four game rsults in an infobox which seems like toom much. How does basketball handle it? Just the Final Four? My inclination would be to limit infobox to Final Four. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought would be to note the furthest a team advanced in the bracket: CFP first round (4 teams), CFP quarterfinalist (4 teams), CFP semifinalist (2 teams), CFP finalist (1 team), or CFP champion (1 team). That they happened to play in the XYZ Bowl is now secondary in the overall scheme of CFP. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl, for college basketball, only the final game is recorded in team season infoboxes and head coaching record tables; 2017–18 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team and Jay Wright (basketball)#Head coaching record. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthest advance makes sense, as Dmoore suggested. Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each round in the basketball tournament isn't a named, historic Bowl Game. This year in the 2024–25 College Football Playoff a team will be, say, the Rose Bowl champion and Orange Bowl champion. Both should be listed in all relevant infoboxes, just as those same historic New Year's Six bowl game championships are listed in every past CFB team's infobox. The unnamed on-campus games are a different matter and can likely be excluded. PK-WIKI (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62 and Dmoore5556, would you keep things as is for the four-team playoff era (2014–2023)? What about the head coaching record tables? PK-WIKI, for teams that lose in an on-campus first-round playoff games, I think we'll certatinly want to reflect that in the infoboxes and head coaching record tables, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to the above question from Jweiss11) Yes, I would go back and trim infoboxes for playoff participants in the CFP era. Take for example 2021 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. All that needs to be said in "banner" area of the infobox is about 1/3 of what is there: SEC champion, CFP National Championship finalist. That they won the SEC's Western Division on the way to becoming overall SEC champion, or won the Cotton Bowl to get a berth into the CFP final, is detail that (in my view) doesn't belong in the infobox and is amply covered elswhere (note in particular the complete standings for both SEC divisions apearing just below the infobox). Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with removing "Cotton Bowl Classic champion" from 2021 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. Not sure if that's what you're referring to, or the games/scores in the section below that. I would lean towards possibly removing those; the information is contained elsewhere and it's too busy with multiple post-regular-season games. But we must at least list all championships/bowls won, plus a single line below indicating their final placement in the CFP: CFP National Champion, Finalist, Semifinalist, Quarterfinalist, 12-team participant, etc. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the College Football Playoff, the bowl games that serve as the semifinals (and now quarterfinals) are superfluous to the overall CFP outcome. The 2021 Alabama team was a CFP finalist; that's their key accomplishment with regards to postseason play. That they won whichever bowl game was designated to serve as their semifinal that season, is certainly part of the team's history and the bowl's history, but it's now a distraction (especially with the score quoted) in the individual team's infobox. As I said below in a parallel reply, if that's a bridge too far, let's find what we can agreed to trim back in order to address "banner" area bloating. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could also save some infobox space by removing the results of the games (perhaps just displaying "Rose Bowl champion" and "Orange Bowl champion" which would take two lines instead of four), though we'd have to come up with some way to display a loss in one of those games. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dmoore5556, I don't see a problem with the 2021 Alabama infobox. It seems like you're suggesting that we kill conference division titles and conference championship games from the infobox. Would you want to do that across the board, even for teams that won a conference division title, but didn't win the conference, like 2022 LSU Tigers football team and 2022 Alabama Crimson Tide football team? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a team wins its overall conference, as Alabama did in 2021, I see no need to display that they also won their division. SEC champion is sufficient, in my view, without adding SEC Western Division champion right below it. If that's a bridge too far, I would at a minimum remove the score of the SEC championship game. Same for bowl games—list the winning team as "XYZ Bowl champion"; no need for quoting the game score. I hope we can come to agreement that the infobox "banner" areas are bloated and take some reasonable actions to thin them, else it will just get worse. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purplebackpack89, this is not just about coaches. This issue also strikes a fundamental difference between college football and basketball: the stand-alone bowl game. Furthermore, we should note that college basketball is way behind college football here on Wikiepdia in terms of standardization and integrity of templated content. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we keep doing what we're doing in the stand-alone bowl game, and we treat the CFP tournament as we would March Madness or the NIT. pbp 18:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to merge Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography into Template:Infobox NFL biography

[edit]

Discussion here ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 18 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]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football&oldid=1264492797"