Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

New roster template

A few weeks ago, I created a roster template for college basketball articles (like this) based on a similar template for NBA articles. I really liked the functionality that allowed you to sort by various attributes. I was thinking about bringing this over to the CFB world but the number of players on a team was definitely a hurdle. I knew I couldn't have each player on one row and so I knew I couldn't have as much info about each player (no height/weight, home town, etc). But then how best to break up the columns. I thought about leaving the structure the way we do it now where we pretty much break it up by each position. But that would be too difficult to code. So I figured the easiest way to break it up would be offensive players, defensive players, and special teams (obviously the latter column would be incredibly short compared to the other two). So, what we lose in dropping the numerous separate categories, we regain with the ability to sort by position. Then I had to figure out how to code this multi-column list as it couldn't be done the same way as the CBB template.

So, I think I got it all finished now. I have used the new template in the 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team article, so check it out and let me know what you think. I have parameterized the year column so it can be dropped and used in an NFL article (I'll let the NFL project know later). I will work on the help documentation tomorrow but you can get a good feel for how it works by looking at the example above. I think it ended up a little longer than the old format, but again, I love having the ability to sort (I did compact it a little to save a bit on vertical space).

• Template:American football roster/Header
• Template:American football roster/Player
• Template:American football roster/Footer

—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Documentation has been created.—NMajdan•talk 14:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No feedback? Will this template get any use?—NMajdan•talk 03:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just coming to this discussion after (oops) creating my own template which I'm testing on 2009 Central Michigan Chippewas football team. This template ({{NCAAFootballTeamRoster}} is based on the existing bare html and the roster templates used for professional baseball (e.g. {{MLB roster}}). Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New York and college football

(I asked this question over on WP:Reference desk/Entertainment, but I thought I'd also ask over here since that RefDesk seems rather music-dominated, and there might be more people knowledgeable about college football on this WikiProject talk page.)

Why is the state of New York so bad at college football? This result is surprising considering that New York has at least two strong reasons to be good at college football:

First, American football is certainly a very popular sport in New York. Consider that it has not one or two but three professional teams: the New York Giants, the New York Jets, and the Buffalo Bills.

Second, New York has the third-highest population of any state in the United States, so there should be a large pool of high school players from which New York colleges can recruit. Consider that almost all the other high-population states have historically elite or near-elite college football programs (this list is descending by population):

1. California - USC Trojans
2. Texas - Texas Longhorns
3. New York - glaring lack!
4. Florida - Florida Gators, Florida State Seminoles, Miami Hurricanes
5. Illinois - okay, this is the other exception besides New York, but even the Fighting Illini and the Northwestern Wildcats are better than anything New York has
6. Pennsylvania - Penn State Nittany Lions
7. Ohio - Ohio State Buckeyes
8. Michigan - Michigan Wolverines
9. Georgia - Georgia Bulldogs

Who does New York have? The Syracuse Orange? The Army Black Knights? The Buffalo Bulls? Even if we include New Jersey (as right next door to NYC and where the Giants and Jets are actually based), we only get the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Putting it charitably, these are not exactly elite football programs. So why is New York so bad at college football, considering that they should have popularity and population advantages over most other states?

I can account for Army's weakness -- being a military academy makes for stringent admission standards which make it difficult to recruit an elite football team. But the question is why New York doesn't have elite state university system football programs like other high-population states do.

—Lowellian (reply) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

First, Illinois doesn't produce a huge program because most of the best athletes from the state end up at Notre Dame. Second, I think that historically you are selling Syracuse short, but SUNY doesn't spend a lot of money on athletics, and a lot of those potential "New York State" athletes have gone to Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Boston College, and elsewhere. Syracuse won a national title in 1959 and sports an all-time 673–472–49 record; however, it's been a rough decade since going 10–3 in 2001. Fordham used to be a national power – even winning an unofficial "national title" in 1929[1] – but the decline of Catholic school football post-WWII ended their reign. (Notre Dame and Boston College are the only Catholic schools left in the FBS.) I also think there is just more going on in New York to take away young athlete's attention, namely basketball. Most importantly, are there even a lot of high school football programs in New York City proper? 13,209,006 of the 19,490,297 people from New York state live in New York City or its suburban counties; that's 68.42% of the entire state's population! I'd be shocked if there was enough affordable land for the necessary amount of high school football fields to service that type of dense population. This sounds like a good email topic for Beano Cook on the ESPN College Football podcast, which I highly recommend. Going back to the SUNY-spending-money issue, Rutgers is the same way. They've historically spent next to nothing on their football budget. Only recently have they begun to spend big on their football program, which has reaped benefits in exposure and winning[2][3], but it's been a major bone of contention among those who believe that big-time spending on big-time college athletics is a waste of money, which is a common belief in the northeast US.[4][5][6] The northeastern part of the country simply doesn't spend as much money on athletics as much of the rest of the country. Penn State is the lone exception, but Pennsylvania is the frontier to the midwest. Look at the Big East for additional comparison: it was founded as a basketball-first conference centered around New York City. Many of the schools in the conference get many of their basketball players from in and around New York City. Back to football... Pitt used to be a major player nationally – the school claims nine national championships[7](PDF page 2) – but local public school mergers and the Pittsburgh diaspora – which is a topic that should have its own article but is only briefly discussed at History of Pittsburgh#Reinvention (1973–present) – have contributed to Pitt's historical decline. Pitt's board has almost cut the football program on multiple occasions – around 1940, during the 1960s, and again during the 1980s – due to financial concerns. I love history and social sciences as well as college football, so I could go on about this forever. I'm just going to stop now. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess I'd say it's because kids in New York State (and even more so NYC) don't play football nearly as much as kids in other states. NYC, for example, doesn't have a lot of premium land to give up for college athletic programs and a football field isn't a practical expense of university dollars in that setting. Therefore, there isn't much recruiting base. Just a guess...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can blame Illinois' struggles on Notre Dame: they had 11 players from Illinois on their roster this year. Purdue had more players than that from Illinois (13), not that they were better ... I think it is more the focus of the athletic program and its willingness to spend money on the right coach and the right facilities. Illinois prioritizes basketball over football, as do the states of New York and Pennsylvania. I suspect that is partly due to being in the Snow Belt; around here (Indiana), between November and March you can't be sure you can get outside and have the same kind of practice you could in Jacksonville or Austin or Sacramento, but you could certainly shoot free throws or play five-on-five or run baseline drills. There's also the question of I-A vs. I-AA/lower-division or non-NCAA football. How many students go to SUNY campuses? How many of those are in I-A or even I-AA? Buffalo, Stony Brook ...? (Illinois would have UI, NIU, and Northwestern - FWIW I would say Syracuse has a better history than Northwestern, just ask Jim Brown; ISU, SIU, Western, Eastern all in I-AA. I think that's all?) For what it's worth, Florida only has one historically elite program: UF. Florida State has been solid for "only" 30 years, Miami for maybe 25. -- Zlionsfan (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this reply is coming late, but Pennsylvania most definitely does not prioritize basketball over football. It's huge in Philly in the city, and Pitt's been successful at different times in it's history, including recently, but football is king in Pennsylvania. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Big 12 coaches Featured Topic

One of my long term goals is to create a coaches list for each Big 12 school (then maybe start branching out) and get all of them up to Featured List status. List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches is the only one I've completed so far. However, I just nominated List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches (nomination here). Any comments would be appreciated. Also, if anyone else wants to help, please feel free. Use one of the two articles above as templates.

Baylor

Kansas

Nebraska

Texas

Colorado

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Texas A&M

Iowa State

Missouri

Oklahoma State

Texas Tech

—NMajdan•talk 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If it helps anybody, I made a quick little "template" to get you started. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Style Guide/Head coaches list.—NMajdan•talk 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It did help; I thought I might work on the Louisiana-Monroe page, but start with the coaches page first so that I'd already have that information for the main page, and the template worked very well. (Tracking down stuff like Gulf States conference standings, that'll be another challenge in and of itself.) I think the only thing that wasn't on every line in the template was the winperc code. --Zlionsfan (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently creating one for Alabama in my sandbox. However, I have a question ... what do you consider national awards? For instance, would you include the George Munger Award? Just wanted to get some clarity on awards such as that. – Latics (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would include that award, although I personally had never heard of it.—NMajdan•talk 14:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd assume it's safe to include any of the awards featured on {{College Football Awards}}...? – Latics (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New template request

I am writing the Tai Streets article and realize it would be good if Bowl games had a link like {{cfb link}} that would link to the general bowl game article until the specific year article is created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case, leave the bowl game as a red link. It will show people that the article still needs to be created.—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Red link it. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All-American in infobox

There is discord among the editors of Brandon Graham about how to discribe his All-American Status in his infobox. The disagreement is between whether it should say

"All-American (1st-team: Rivals, Scout; 2nd-team: WCFF, TSN, AP, SI, CFN)" or

"First-team All-American"

According to the five lists that are recognized by the NCAA he is a consensus second team All-American with no first team recognition. His only first team recognitions are by "unofficial" lists that do not count towards consensus or unanimous AA status. I feel it provides disinformation to the reader to describe a consensus second team player with no official first team recognition as "First-team All-American". Opinions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The main thing is that wiki is not a rubber stamp for what the NCAA considers official or not official. The standards for wiki is verifiable. NCAA standards for official and unofficial are sketchy, they have changed over the years, such as Sporting News is now "official" and it was not two decades ago. There have been times that the AP or UPI was included and times they were not. Sometimes Time magazine was and other times it was not. So, rather than go by what the NCAA does at the moment, we should follow the Wikipedia standard, which is verifiable. Footnotes are there for a reason, so if a guy is a first-team AA and it is verifiable. I am also in favor of accuracy, so if it is noted in the infobox and in the text of the article it is not misleading. I just don't want wikipedia to have restrictions based on a myopic view of what is and is not an All-America team. If a player is consensus and that is verifiable by using the NCAA website, fine, that is verifiable.

Please note that what I am trying to do has nothing to do with the NCAA. I hope to include the four recognitions that are not recognized by the NCAA. If a guy is mostly second team, that is verifiable and should be shown, not hidden as you would like.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there could be a potential "homer-ism" that could come into play. Where a guy who likes College Team A and they have a player who is a consensus AA, and his hated rival has a guy who was on the Scout.com or ESPN.com AA team and he opposes the inclusion of the "unofficial" team not for principle or loyalty to the NCAA but out of partisanship for his team. I have found with younger editors (none have posted here) they will puff up things their "guy" did and discredit things a rival may have done. With the big-name athletes like Tebow or McCoy they have to be semi-protected.

I am about the biggest Michigan football fan by wikipedia activity (aside from possibly Cbl62 (talk · contribs)). My problem is that your insistance on First Team only is homerism. It misrepresents a consensus Second team All-American as a First team All-American. Rather than mislead the reader, it would be better to give him all the information. Describing him as a first team AA is O.K. on his University of Michigan Bio page, but here the reader wants to know how he was recognized. I attempted to tell the reader he was mostly 2nd team with a few first team recognitions. You are attempting to hide the fact that he was mostly second team. That is homerism.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I write so many Michigan articles that I actually look at everything I write and ask myself would a Michigan State Spartans or Ohio State Buckeyes fan agree with what I am saying. My point here is that an MSU or OSU fan would say. "Graham ain't $#!t. He is only consensus second-team and his Michigan fans are fronting like he is first team." This is an international encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So, I am in favor of accurate notations and verfiable information, which is the wiki standard. I am not in favor of puffing up or tearning down what the NCAA does. NCAA standards have no bearing as to what Wiki editors should be allowed to add in an infobox or in the text of an article. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not attempting to only include what the NCAA includes. Note my attempt is to fully describe all recognition, including the four publications not recognized by the NCAA. You are attempting to only include the ones that make you happy (1st team). Wikipedia is an attempt to synthesize all knowledge. It is not an attempt to edit it in a way that says what you want. I wish Graham was first team. He is mostly second team and we should synthesize that information for the reader.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The body of the article accurately notes which selectors chose him as first-team and which chose him as second-team. IMO, nothing misleading about that. As for the infobox, the reference to first-team status is referenced by two footnotes that clearly identify the selectors awarding him that status. Again, given the precise referencing, I don't think it's misleading. Rather than a question of it being misleading, I think you're raising a policy issue as to whether the project wants to adopt a rule limiting which kinds of AA selections can be referenced in the infobox for player awards. On that policy issue, there has been consensus that team infoboxes should be limited to consensus All-Americans, if my memory is correct. However, that discussion was intended to achieve consistency in comparing team totals, i.e., we don't want one school's AA total to be based on a different set of rules than others. In the case of player infoboxes, I think that, so long the referencing is accurate and verifiable, it's fine to include references to significant awards other than the specific AA selectors who go into consensus determinations. If you do have concerns about it being potentially misleading, how about modifying the infobox reference to say "First-team All-American (Rivals and Scout)"? Cbl62 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your proposed wording above is probably the most accurate alternative. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So you support the first of the two alternatives above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'd favor the first alternative mainly because it tells the reader who selected him what. The second could certaintly be considered misleading since he wasn't a first-team all-american across the board. The second alternative should only be used when the player is a consensus first, second or third all-american.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The debate about which All-American selectors are legitimate or official will never end to everyone's satisfaction. As expressed in prior discussions on related topics, I'm in favor of more, fuller information as the best way to avoid bias. My main concern is that the body of the article accurately and fully identify all of the notable, verifiable AA designations. An infobox is supposed to be a quick, accurate overview. Where there are numerous AA designations for a player, listing each one in the infobox will create infobox over-crowding and somewhat undermines the purpose of the infobox as an overview. I'd be inclined to go with something like this:

• If someone is a "2009 consensus first-team All-American", just say that without identifying the selectors.
• If there are a handful of designations (i.e., one to five?), list them all in the infobox per Tony's suggestion: "All-American (1st-team: Associated Press; 2nd-team: WCFF, TSN)"
• In cases with numerous designations (i.e. more than five?), and there's a split among the selectors, the details should be reflected in the body of the article and a short form statement could be used in the infobox along these lines: "2009 All-American". In other words, don't say-first team or second-team but include a wiki-link to the article detailing the specific selectors' choices. Just a thought.Cbl62 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Cbl62 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Unanimous and Consensus First-team are well understood by most aficionados. Saying All-American is generally understood to mean first team unless otherwise designated, so I am not sure just saying All-American would resolve the issue. Furthermore, the 2009 College Football All-America Team does not detail anything but first team selections. So sending the reader there will also give less information. Keeping in mind that both ESPN and Pro Football Weekly teams have yet to be announced and could add more text, what about using font change to something like

"All-American (1st-team: Rivals, Scout; 2nd-team: WCFF, TSN, AP, SI, CFN)" (2009) or

"All-American (2009)
(1st-team: Rivals, Scout; 2nd-team: WCFF, TSN, AP, SI, CFN)"

instead of

"First-team All-American (2009)"

• All players list should fit on two lines in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I tried plugging in your small font version into a preview of the Graham article, and it looks fine to me. This version certainly conveys the most and accurate info. I'd go with that. Cbl62 (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Which one? All on one line or with the detail underneath?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul of List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums

I have begun a little overhaul of the above list as the current list is a little messy and doesn't sort correctly. This was discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page. I'm doing several things in this overhaul, including verifying the numbers that we currently have are either accurate, up-to-date and/or verified by the source (I've already found several discrepancies). Also, I'm archiving the sources and switching to LDR reference format. At my current pace, I'll have the list ready to go in 2011, so any help would be appreciated. With the season almost over, I'm sure we'll all have a bit more time to devote to these articles. The development page for the list is here: Talk:List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums/Dev.—NMajdan•talk 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this article needs images? Take a look at what I have done to List of American football stadiums by capacity and List of current National Football League stadiums. Would you like to use the same table for this article? --Pgp688 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Heisman Trophy template

Not sure which (if any) of you may have the {{Heisman Trophy}} template on your watchlist, but I just made a suggestion on the talk page and would like some feedback (either here or there). :) – Latics (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

TFA nomination for 2000 Sugar Bowl

Just a heads-up I nominated 2000 Sugar Bowl for Today's Featured Article for January 4, the ten-year anniversary of the game. I thought this especially appropriate since Bobby Bowden is retiring three days earlier. The request can be found here. –Grondemar 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: MWC to auto-bid and national championship game selection: Boise State, or Tulsa + Houston; Colorado and Iowa State/Kansas State; Washington State?

Discussion (collapsed)

MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. Suggestion: MWC to auto-bid and national championship game selection: Boise State, or Tulsa + Houston; Colorado and Iowa State/Kansas State; Washington State? MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. If Boise State joins, the MWC should also consider extending an invitation to Washington State University. WSU's program is in the dumps; WSU is also closer in size and culture to the Mountain West schools than the Coastal and California schools. Its incentive would be similar to the Big 12 North schools. The addition of one or two of these schools would add significant depth and legitimacy to the conference, filling out the middle of the 'pack'. Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State or Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses.Mwcadv (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) The addition of one or two of these schools would add significant depth and legitimacy to the conference, filling out the middle of the 'pack'. Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State or Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses.Mwcadv (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwcadv (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Uhhhhh... WTF? DeFaultRyan 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, dude, but this isn't a message board. And why did you re-paste your comments repeatedly? I'm sure we all have ideas as to how to solve the problems of the college football world or even the Mountain West Conference, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. However, if you're interested in improving Wikipedia, we've here for that. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving Brian Kelly (American football coach) to Brian Kelly

I have requested that Brian Kelly (American football coach) be moved, because I believe this article is the primary topic for "Brian Kelly." I would appreciate the comments of my fellow editors on its discussion page. Thank you in advance. --Pgp688 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I chimmed in, if it isn't supported, I would still recommend moving the article to Brian Kelly (coach) per WP:NAME. Iamnothuman (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, if this move fails, I'll request a move to Brian Kelly (coach). --Pgp688 (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Leach's coaching status

Not wanting to get in a revert war, I'm bringing this here. In light of Leach's suspension from Tech, another editor added the DC as the head coach at Template:Big 12 Conference head football coaches. I feel that Leach is still the official head coach as he has not been fired, but suspended. I reverted the change to the template, restoring Leach as the coach but the editor reverted it back. What are the thoughts of others on this issue?—NMajdan•talk 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Leach is still officially the head coach and should remain on the template until such time as he quits or is fired. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears Leach has now been fired according to this ESPN article and Ruffin McNeill appointed as interim head coach. Guess that clears things up. Geologik (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, guess so. Thanks TT for clearing up this dispute!—NMajdan•talk 19:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject College football to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus All-American Template

Colege basketball has a series of American college basketball Consensus All-American templates. I was going to make one for the 2009 College Football All-America Team. Is there a reason why we do not have such templates?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things come to mind (well really three, but I can't find a reference for the third). Mainly they both go back to the fact that a navbox of this kind would be crowded. First off, would they be any All-Americans, or simply those that are consensus? (I would assume the latter) Second, there are only ten basketball All-Americans, first and second team, whereas in football you would need at least 25 players, not to mention organizing them all into their respective sides (Off/Def/Special)  –Nav  ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 06:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would probably use a format like {{2010 Pro Bowl AFC starters}} for first-team consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my draft of it {{2009 NCAA Division I FBS College Football Consensus All-Americans}}

edit: I see the first issue has already been resolved (I should try to read things through more often)

NOTICE unless there is objection to this draft, I will begin copying it to bios in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Odds

I can see point spread format confusion in the bowl game articles and some reversions and edit wars. Users are being directed to this discussion, with nothing started yet. The example in the Template:Infobox_NCAA_football_single_game shows "WLSU favored by 2.5 points" as the example. Is there confusion being created by having to refer to the sports betting article just to understand a stat that would seem simpler to others? The example shown is clear enough to both those who make book and those who do not. Although, it may seem to simplistic to those who know betting lines. Also, is just the spread sufficient, or do over and under and other lines belong too? There seems to be some references needed too, but what organization is the supreme authority in gathering the betting lines legal or otherwise? Is someone collecting the consensus legal books, and at what point, right before game time? Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if we can succinctly word it to where it doesn't require a link to the sports betting article, then that should be the approach. Someone who is not the least bit familiar will not understand what "USC –8" means. Does it mean USC will have 8 points less than there opponent? No, it doesn't. As you stated, "USC favored by 8 points" is much clearer. All articles should be written as if the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject. As far as the authority in betting lines, I don't believe there is one. Each betting house will have their own line, but they are typically similar. There is one website that I used to use a lot that listed every sports house's line and I would use either the average or majority. Typically now, I can find a newspaper article that mentions the line and I'll use that.—NMajdan•talk 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Favored by X points has been used for many years in the bowl game articles and it is much simpler to understand. Only this year someone wanted to promote sports wagering, betting or gambling by keep changing them. That's not the purpose of the bowl game articles and it has very little to do with the games. I posted most of the odds of the bowl games after reviewing the previous way of doing them and they were based on the L.A. Times listing, which were listed by separating the team and the points with a ",". User X96lee15 said: "Doesn't really matter to me which way it's represented," but hypocritically reverting them. They were good for years, but not this season. Bband11th (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: You are correct, I do not care how it is represented. I did care though that you kept reverting changes without participating in any discussion. The situation had WP:OWN written all over it. That is why I kept reverting your changes. Just because something has been done for years does not mean it is the correct way to do things. There was nothing hypocritical about what I did, nor was there any reason to bring up my comment here. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• First let's start by examining the notation in the template itself. The word "odds" is not an ambiguous term at all. The very nature of sporting events to this term is predicated by the odds or betting line of that event assuming it is an event that has a betting line.

Next, let's look at the nature of the wording and the line itself. Bottom line is that any line that you see is set by a sportsbook. Furthermore anyone who reads the sports betting article or any other offshoots would realize that betting lines which you see printed in papers or any other publication are NOT meant to suggest which team WILL win the game. The very nature of spread betting is done in such a way to balance the amount of wagers placed on one or the other team. To list a team as a "favorite" by a certain amount of points suggests that said team is expected to win by that amount of points, that is incorrect as a odds line set by a sportsbook isn't meant to signify a winner.

Next, if you will note on the template itself in article view, if you click on the favorite link guess which wikipage it takes you to? Answer ... Spread betting. It seems pretty obvious to me that the intent of that line is to denote the spread of the game as set by whichever or the consensus of vegas and/or various other sportsbooks. As such because that line is meant to notate the spread of the game it only makes sense to notate it in the correct format which is used by the sportsbook, in this case "-" for the favorite and a "+" for the underdog which is not used in the infobox.

Finally, as it was noted earlier, just because bowl game articles in past years were incorrectly notated does not mean that current and future articles need be notated incorrectly as well. The fact that one or more people finally decided to notate them correctly this year shouldn't have any bearing on past years. I find it somewhat amusing that someone would believe that changing odds lines to their correct notation would have anything to do with promoting gambling or sports betting. Wiki would be the last place someone would come to if they were interested in placing a sports bet, especially given the fact that betting lines can and do change (sometimes rapidly) prior to the start of a contest, and I'm fairly sure that someone isn't sitting around updating 35+ bowl games in real time for the purpose of promoting sports bets.

Either way this year's notation of '-' is and should be the correct notation on that line in accordance with the article for which it is wiki linked to, both now and in future years. Should someone wish to go back and correct these notations in previous years to the correct notation I would have no problem with that. Tigerman81 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• If I didn't know anything about odds (as I didn't before I saw Two for the Money (film)), then I would say that yes, the notation "Alabama –3" would mean absolutely nothing to me. But if one were to say "Alabama favored by 3 points", then it would be much more clearer and I would understand what it meant. The former is too short and easily misinterpreted.  –Nav  ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Tigerman's argument is that "Alabama -3" does not mean Alabama is favored by 3 points, or at the very least, that is not the intention of the sportsbooks setting those lines. As this is an encyclopedia, we need to agree on the actual meaning of "Alabama -3" as dictated by those providing the number. Are they in fact saying that Alabama is favored by 3 or are they not. Tigerman is arguing the latter. It may very well be all semantics.—NMajdan•talk 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Tigerman's explanation of how and why betting lines are set is correct. It does not mean that "Vegas thinks Alabama will win by 3 points". What it does mean is that "Vegas thinks it can make the most money for itself by collecting bets against a spread that gives three points to Texas". I don't bet on sports, but anyone who does understands how it works. Anyone who is ignorant of sports betting won't really understand it by either suggested notation – "Alabama –3" doesn't explain enough for the novice and "Alabama favored by 3 points" is slightly misrepresentative, but that might just be arguing semantics. Linking to the "Spread betting" article is a good way to help people to undertand and should not be eliminated. I think that keeping it simple is a good way to go. For example, the infobox on 2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game simply states "WVU by 28". From my way of understanding, you could possibly expand to "WVU favored by 28" but again, I think that is putting more weight into who Vegas thinks will win, because that's not what spread betting is about. However, if you were to abbreviate it to "WVU −28" then, as NMajdan's already pointed out, I'm not sure that the sports betting novice would understand how to interpret the "−28". If you were to expand that to say "WVU favored to win by 28" then you would be totally misrepresenting the meaning of a 28-point spread. Now, in the example I'm using you could say that "of course Vegas thought WVU would win – they were favored by 4 TDs!", and I would agree with you in this instance. But what about the aforementioned 3-point spread for Alabama–Texas? A poll on ESPN's SportsNation showed that in every state but Texas, more people thought Alabama would beat Texas than the reverse. But why only a three-point spread if so much of the country thought Alabama would win? Because it's all about balancing the bets and optimizing profits. (A lot of people would probably bite on it because they could still expect Alabama to win, but just in a close game.) So to say "favored" or especially "favored to win" in misleading as to the meaning of the spread. Another example that I think is even more revealing is the record of certain teams against the spread. I read an article earlier this decade about gambling that explained how after Sports Illustrated picked (I believe it was) the Miami Dolphins to win the AFC in a season. That year, the Dolphins were 1–15 against the spread, though their actual record was much better than that. Why? Because casual sports betters were convinced that Miami was good because SI said so and that they should ride them out. However, in reality, one does not equal the other. An inordinate amount of bets in Miami's favor pushed the spread beyond what Miami could cover, so even though they were a good team they were being given spreads that didn't indicate "how many points better than the other team that they were". It may be semantics, but let me know if I am not expaining myself adequately. This is why I think that "[Insert team name] by [number of points]" is the best way to do it. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe as the article template continues to use sports betting lines, then they should be represented as they are by the sportsbooks and betting houses which set them. In this case you will not find a sports betting line set by any sportsbook which lists the line as "(team) by (points)" As the template already includes a wikilink to spread betting, those who may be confused by this have the opportunity to figure out what it means, as opposed to being mislead into thinking that a particular team is indeed predicted to win by a certain number of points which is incorrect and not the purpose of a betting line in the first place. I guess the main discussion here is which display style is accurate and which one is misleading. It should be noted that the spread which is represented in the infobox is NOT a prediction of a winner in any way, it is in actually just a representation of a handicap placed on one team in order to even the bets placed on a particular event. To present a team as a favorite by points conveys a message that a team is picked to be the winner of that contest which it is not. If that was the case then there would be NO reason to even include the points in the notation ie (Favorite: Alabama)Tigerman81 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• It says "Favorite" team and by how many point. Nothing to do with odds on betting. Let's change to "by" and keep with tradation. Why make things complicated? and promote sports gambling? Some people just love to bet, a sad society. By giving the number of points, it indicates how close or how far the game will be. Or just say the favor team. 206.170.104.63 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again any line you see regarding a football game is set by sportsbook and thus have everything to do with odds on sports betting. The fact that it is included in the infobox does not have anything to do with promoting sports gambling. Your suggestion that notating a game by number of points indicates how close a game will be is faulty at best. Bottom line is you can't consider a team to be the favorite when the points which you want to notate are listed by a gambling agency and once again not mean to suggest the winner of a game, but the handicap by which a sporting event has. If you want to note point spreads then either notate it correctly or leave it out all together.Tigerman81 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 schedules?

I'm not sure what the purpose of 2010 Kentucky Wildcats football team is. It seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTDIR. Others, like 2010 Florida Gators football team seem more developed, but still not much more than a bunch of near-blank tables. My main issue is, is there consensus to create such articles before the season begins? I would like to know whether it would be appropriate to create Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2010 NC State Wolfpack football team and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2010 South Carolina Gamecocks football team? Thanks,  fetchcomms☛ 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have too much of a problem with it. Outside of the schedule, a lot can happen this early in the year with a team that will effect the 2010 season. Coaches (head and assistants) can come and go, National Signing Day is early next month, the NFL Draft is in April. So, yes, I can see a legitimate reason to create the 2010 article as early as February. On an unrelated note, I'm going to go about the game summaries in the Oklahoma Sooners article next year. Summaries for each game are a pain to write, so I may break it down into sections for the non-conference games, conference game, and postseason games. So rather than 2-3 paragraphs per game, I can do 2-3 paragraphs for non-conference, 4-5 for conference, and 2-4 for postseason. Should be a bit easier. Others may want to try it out.—NMajdan•talk 00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it either. They are useful for finding team rosters and schedules. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be preferable if such articles weren't written until this season is over, but we're so close to the end that it doesn't really matter much. Why fight it if all you're doing is waiting on a technicality? Most team's seasons are over, and I agree that off-season staff changes and the approaching signing day make this a good time to gather sources "hot off the press" because they tend to be a little easier to find. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Agree -- after the 2009 season and when the team posted its new schedule. Bband11th (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have created the two articles accordingly.  fetchcomms☛ 21:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for each year's roster of a specific team?

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs) has been creating an article for, as far as I can tell, every team fielded by Michigan in history, e.g. 1906 Michigan Wolverines football team, 1908 Michigan Wolverines football team, etc. I recognize that my personal idea of notability in the realm of bands and sports is somewhat more limited than most people's, but this seems like overkill. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists; unless specific rosters had lasting notability (e.g. won a high profile championship), I'm not seeing the justification for these articles. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. These articles are all good. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's way too loose in my opinion. *Any* NCAA team, regardless of division, visibility, coverage, performance, etc.? Applied generally, that's hundreds of articles every year. And since it won't be applied generally, it seems like an excuse for boosterism by creating fifty articles for your favorite school (I'm not accusing you specifically, and I honestly don't care one way or another). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think unless you are going to create a good sized article for, say, the 1905 Michigan Wolverines football team that includes schedules, rosters, game summaries, etc, it is a better idea to group multiple articles together like Michigan Wolverine football, 1900-1909 or Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Knute Rockne.—NMajdan•talk 19:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Eras (defined as a period of time or, better, the presence of a key coach or player) of a sports team can be more than just a list. You can track the development of the team, and I'm sure there are tons of good secondary sources that can analyze the effect of specific players on the performance and style of the team. A year at a time is too fine grained, you lose all context. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First, let's all understand that there is a individual article for every season of every NFL and MLB team; see Category:National Football League teams seasons and Category:Major League Baseball teams seasons. Why shouldn't we have the same for college football, at least for the teams in D-I FBS? One day, I'd like one to see a good sized article for every year of every program. Why not leave the door open for that?

The limitation with eras is that there's no discrete, systematic way to organize them. It's a judgment call, and the way one team is organized by era isn't necessarily going to break in parellel with other teams. The season is a fundamental unit of time and play that applies equally to every team. You do not "lose all context" with a single year. In fact, the single season can provide greater context by linking to other teams, conferences, divisions, games, rankings, etc of of that very same year in a neat and ordered way that the "era" structure cannot afford. Links to previous and following seasons provide context across the years.

And yearly articles can obviously be more than "just a list". Please see 1930 Michigan Wolverines football team. User:Cbl62 has done a ton of work of excellent work of late on this article and others about early Michigan Wolverines football. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As I look at Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season it seems like it is general consensus to create articles for each season of a team and a conference. There is no reason not to create them historically if you can properly wikify them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, having season articles makes biographies more substantive. E.g., when I was writing Cato June, I was able to link his college career to specific teams that he performed against.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe annual articles on (at least) the major programs are appropriate. The major programs receive, and have for more than 100 years, received extensive coverage in the mainstream US media. (Given the lack of substantial media coverage, groupings by decade or era may be deemed preferable for other programs.) An effort is actively underway to create quality articles for each significant season in the history of Michigan's football team. In addition to the 1930 team, other examples of what we're striving for include the 1895 and 1898 teams. A lot of others are just stubs now but even those serve a useful function in filling out the template and providing a base from which to build. Others (particularly those not familiar with American college football) may think this an absurd waste of time, space, etc., but that's a matter of personal opinion and not the standard for inclusion. There's no question in mind that these teams meet notability req'ts; each has a distinct composition of players and key events, and each has been the subject of extensive coverage in the US media. The real issue is the low quality of some of the stubs. That's a legitimate gripe, but IMO the solution is improving them, not merging or deleting them. Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Florida Gators, Nebraska Cornhuskers, LSU Tigers, Oklahoma Sooners, and Ohio State Buckeyes have followed the same year-by-year approach on historic team articles. See, e.g., the year-by-year templates at the end of these articles: 1906 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team, 1906 Florida Gators football team, 1955 LSU Tigers football team, 1955 Oklahoma Sooners football team and 1930 Ohio State Buckeyes football team. I see nothing wrong, and a lot good, with such an approach for the major programs. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with individual articles, but I think it might be helpful to group some of the stubs together (via redirect) by head coach tenure, as other schools have done (see 1920 Georgia Bulldogs football team, 1920 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team, 1970 Utah Utes football team, etc). Doing so provides a more substantial article rather than several little ones with little to no prose. Also, starting the articles as merged "head coach tenure" articles (with individual season redirects) does not preclude the possibility of individual seasons getting split off as appropriate. Personally, I think that if all that can be put in an article is the record and schedule, aggregating the seasons into a collection makes more sense. DeFaultRyan 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Groupings should be done from redirects from the years until each year has an article. Grouping should not be used to replace and delete separate years.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

College Football Performance Awards

User:Obamafan70 just created College Football Performance Awards. Anyone ever heard of these awards? Because I didn't. --bender235 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)