Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks

Gentlemen, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding User:DragoLink08's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch to continue his sock-puppetry for the past three years. Many of you have had to deal with Drago's disruptive editing of the color schemes for navboxes, infoboxes and tables. Your input at ANI is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

College Basketball Navboxes

The football team navbox format has begun to spread to other sports, college basketball, although no discussions where had pertaining to those sports before mass edits were implemented. This time, I hope to get a real consensus on a format, with a lot of input, not just the usual handful of editors that normally participate. Hopefully that can lend good suggestions to the other navigation templates. Interested parties please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject, with the hope that this can be settled by adequate participation and consensus building. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Users table additions to conference articles

Today user DMB112 added Head football coach compensation tables to several conference pages which I believe is not needed as the information has nothing to do with the conferences at heart can we please form a consensuses as to whether these tables are necessary for these pages.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Dcheagle could ever come to the conclusion that head football coach compensation is not integral to the article. I would be hard-pressed to find someone who felt that football wasn't "at the heart" of the SEC, PAC-12, BIG 10 or BIG 12. Football teams are arguably the most important part of athletic conferences, so much in fact, that many refer to them as "football conferences" rather than "athletic conferences." The reason I placed the data on the main page is because the reader will have ready access to the content. (Note: the reader may be a student, alum, a fan, a parent, a viewer, an economist, an administrator, an athlete or anyone) Economics is integral to college athletics(see work of Stefan Szymanski). For a number of years, the endowment of the universities was listed, I presume for the very same reason - to show financial components of football conferences. There is a number of correlative aspects of college sports on the income and revenue distribution of universities(hence my table with profit, expenditure and revenue), academic enterprise, giving, development, alumni relations and endowment and also the marketing/governance of a university. The tables give readers more insight and more content which in turn better the encyclopedia(don't forget, Wikipidea is just that, an encyclopedia) with relevant and up to date data. A reader viewing the table could then turn to use the encyclopedia to learn other aspects of higher education, a university, a coach, a team - what have you. It's a small table with good, safe data that can be updated annually. Along with the revenue and profit tables, the coach compensation data table really delve into the economics of football conferences at large. I am in the process of adding such tables for all FBS teams. Adding this table to the football specific pages don't give readers nearly as much ability to discover new information on Wikipidea. Furthermore, the revenue and endowment tables make the football coach compensation a good fit for comparative purposes.DMB112 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

1990 I-AA rankings?

I just created 1990 Georgia Southern Eagles football team, the national championship season for 1990 I-AA. I don't know where to find game times, weekly rankings, or attendance, so if anyone can assist it would be appreciated. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The NCAA record books have some of this info, attendance for playoff games are on page 15 of this and the final poll is on page 50 of this. I know the Sports Network was releasing polls in 1992 though the NCAA didn't recognize them, but I'm not sure about 1990. Billcasey905 (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jrcla2

Division Co-Champions

What is the consensus regarding divisional co-champions? Do we recognize them in the templates even though their respective conference official websites may not explicitly have a provision for divisional champions, or only recognize them if the conference officially provides for it (which no conference clearly does anyway)? Affected/applicable articles: 2011 Oregon Ducks football team; 2011 Stanford Cardinal football team; 2012 Oregon Ducks football team; 2012 Stanford Cardinal football team; 2013 Oregon Ducks football team; 2013 Stanford Cardinal football team; 2012 Florida Gators football team; 2012 Georgia Bulldogs football team; 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team; 2013 Auburn Tigers football team.
Ben^Yes? 02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was an error when I first saw that Auburn was being called division co-champions. To me that's crazy. They finished with the same record as Alabama and beat then head-to-head. ~ Richmond96 T • C 20:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So what is the definition of divisional co-champions? If every team in the division plays each other, how would one get to "co-champion" status? Should the 2012 Florida Gators football team not be considered "co-champions" of their division? I was under the assumption that a division co-champion was one who finished with the same record as the other co-champion, however only one would be the representative in the championship game, thus giving the 2012 Georgia Bulldogs football team the "x" and "y" parameter in their standings template. Ben^Yes? 20:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

When teams in the same division or conference finish the regular season in first place with the same record, they are regarded as co-champions whether or not they have played each other.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Do you know of any sources or consensus that addresses this? Ben^Yes? 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to get clarity by consulting the rules of the various conferences. Regrettably, this only muddles things more. The SEC (see page 4) rules declare division co-champions. The Pac-12 (see page 121) and Big Ten rules do not nor do the C-USA rules (see page 83 of the 2011-12 rules; I couldn't find more recent rules). The ACC rules seem to have changed from 2012 to 2013. Mountain West Rules 6.4 and 6.4.1 seem to conflict on the status of division co-champions. Strangely, the MAC Handbook is password-protected. OCNative (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tie-breaking rules for the MAC football: "If two or more teams are tied for the championship, they shall be considered divisional co-champions. The following tie-breaking formula shall be used to determine which team will represent that division in the MAC Championship game:" The Big Ten rules simply lay out the procedures for who will represent the division in the conference championship game, but are silent about the use of "co-champions". As far as I know, they would still be "co-champions" of the division as that was the previous way of doing the conference championship prior to creating divisions. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not to make things more convoluted, but here's an ESPN article that touches on the Big Ten co-champion issue tangentially. OCNative (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My vote is that any teams tied for first place in a conference or division are called co-champions, even if one team beat the other head-to-head. UNLESS the conference specifically says otherwise. The only thing I can think of is the 2012-13 Toledo Rockets men's basketball team where the MAC said Toledo was not division co-champions because of their APR sanctions. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So what I see after reading the materials brought forth by OCNative (thank you) is that we have the SEC and the MAC as the only two conferences explicitly awarding divisional co-champions, and then using a tiebreaker to determine the championship game participant. Should the conference standings "end" template's documentation be changed to clarify this? Ben^Yes? 22:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

While the conferences don't explicitly call out division co-champs, I still think teams tied for first place should be awarded co-championships. They don't explicitly forbid it. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not seeing this discussion earlier. I believe they would be co-champs if neither of them faced one another but they both ended up with the same record at the end of the year; but only one could go to the conference championship game. Hope that makes sense. —  dainomite   18:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dates on standings templates

On the vast majority of conference standings templates, the calendar date of the most recent game (or the most recent rankings) are used, and I've been updating them that way for as long as I can remember. However, benhen1997 started using the quintuple tilde (~~~~~) to add UTC time to the templates, and he cited Template:CFB Standings End/doc as the reason why. This seems very odd, as UTC time is the next day by the time you hit 7 PM ET/4 PM PT, and most conferences have games finishing after 7 ET/4 PT. Is it time to change Template:CFB Standings End/doc to reflect the general convention, or should we just follow the instructions at Template:CFB Standings End/doc? OCNative (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that there should be a consensus to change it (yes, change it) to reflect simply the day only. This way, the user changing the template doesn't have to change the time every single time as another game of the day concludes. So yes, I'm the one who started it, but I would agree with a consensus that would support reporting the date only, as this not only makes it easier for the editor, but also the reader, as 04:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC) can be confusing to those unfamiliar with UTC. Until then, however, I will follow the documentation.
Ben^Yes? 04:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I support just using the date ("As of December 1, 2013") ~ Richmond96 T • C 20:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Just the date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I do prefer just the date. I completely understand Benhen1997's rationale since that's what the documentation says, and I'm glad to see he supports changing the documentation to do just the date (assuming we get a consensus to do so). OCNative (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The current Ohio State win streak

Due to the fact that Ohio State has NOT played a bowl game as others have in the same time period I can not accept it's validity and feel it deserves an asterisk next to the record.

Richard Bruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.200.133 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't negate the fact that they haven't lost. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Touchdown Club of Columbus Male Athlete of the Year

Template:Touchdown Club of Columbus Male Athlete of the Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

New source of financial data

The Knight Commission just released a new tool that has a lot of financial data that might be of interest to some of you. It pulls together information from publicly-available NCAA reports (which USA Today collects) and data from the Department of Education (IPEDS data collected by the Delta Project and reports directly from ED). It has limitations, of course, but it might be useful for some of the articles you maintain or want to develop. ElKevbo (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Rivalry articles

There is an open move discussion that the members of this project may be interested in, please see: Talk:Arkansas–LSU football rivalry#Requested_move. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Coaching changes 2014

Everyone: Here is a reference for head coach changes for the 2014 season... so far.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference articles

A lone editor has been working for an extended period to include some specific academic data ("Schools ranked by academic measures") in table format, within each of the major college athletic conference articles. Here are the six relevant conference articles:

• Atlantic Coast Conference#Schools ranked by academic measures
• Big Ten Conference#Schools ranked by academic measures
• Big 12 Conference#Schools ranked by academic measures
• Pacific-12 Conference#Schools ranked by academic measures
• Southeastern Conference#Schools ranked by academic measures
• Sun Belt Conference#Schools ranked by academic measures

The tables are generally identical, with data columns as follows:

Conference	6-year graduation rate(2012)	Freshman retention rate(2012)	Average SAT score(CR+Math) of first-time freshman(2012)	US News National Ranking(2013)	World Ranking(2013)	Research expenditures, in millions (2013)
ACC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Big Ten	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Big 12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Pac-12	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
SEC	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
SunBelt	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No

While the existing table format, layout, and citations could definitely be improved, I've flagged the six article sections with Template:Off-topic (but possibly better described as Template:Undue-section) to spur a discussion on relevance, formatting, inclusion of content, and removal of content, while hopefully achieving a level of Wikipedia:Consensus moving forward. I suspect our discussion will be applicable to each conference article, but there may be unique circumstance or differences applicable only to specific conference articles.

Stipulated, all of these articles generally establish Name, Location, Type (Pub, Priv), Year of Establishment, Undergrad count, Postgrad count, Enrollment, Mascot, Year of Conf Entry via a Current Members table in the upper third of the article.

6-year graduation rate(2012)

• The university's undergraduate graduation rate is unrelated to the conference's athletics.
• Valid inline citations for each university.

Freshman retention rate(2012)

• The university's retention of freshman undergraduates is unrelated to the conference's athletics.
• No citation per university.
• Unclear citation for column header.

Average SAT score(CR+Math) of first-time freshman(2012)

• The SAT scores of the university's incoming freshman (achieved as high school juniors and seniors) is unrelated to the conference's athletics.
• No citation per university.
• Unclear citation for column header.

US News National Ranking(2013)

• Some dispute the USN&WR methodology, but believe these are generally seen as credible.
• Believe this is most relevant metric within the existing tables.
• This might have a better home in the opening summary table.
• No citation per university.
• Unclear citation for column header.

World Ranking(2013)

• World ranking of the university by Times Higher Education
• Similar to USNWR rankings, but global and less relevance to US universities.
• World academic rankings are unrelated to the conference's athletics.
• No citation per university.
• Citation for column header allows discovery of university rankings.

Research expenditures, in millions (2013)

• Pairs nicely with the Endowment numbers, generally located in the opening summary table.
• No citation per university.
• Citation for column header allows discovery of university rankings.

The conference averages, and possibly national averages, appear to be manually-created via WP:ORIGINAL research.

The editor has been working on these sections, continually in good faith including recently. And the tables have somewhat improved over this period. While not WP:TRIVIA, much and possibly all of these sections are outside of the scope of the articles. I'd like to see some discussion on the relevance, format, and weight of this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am the contributor. I have been a long time editor for topics regarding higher education on Wikipedia. I'm disappointed you don't approve of my tables. However, this is not original research as you suggest. The averages, yes, are self-generated. I suppose I could find a source for that, but I don't think it's necessary. It's hardly acceptable to consider a 14 number average as "original research." The national average is not made up. Thanks for the insult my friend. Again, I suspect conflict of interest from you UW Dawgs. I think you are so against the tables on encyclopedia because of your affiliation to the University of Washington. If that's the case, I see no reason for it. UW is a fantastic institution, and the readers deserve to know more about the member institutions of the Pac-12 and other conferences.

These tables are a very important part of the articles. Athletic conferences are made up of universities. The reader should be allowed to learn more about these "football teams." The tables can be improved, admittedly, I have spent many hours trying to perfect them. I have also been the one who has added revenue/profit/expenditure tables, endowment tables(in the case of BIG 12), head coach compensation, spending per athlete and first-time student tables to the related conferences. This user and I have debated this issue previously. Our talk can be found here. I am open to suggestions and comments, but I strongly recommend the tables remain. Also you are incorrect in that THE rankings aren't relevant to US Universities. To level 1 research universities, global rankings are more relevant than US News. My tables add important data to the encyclopedia for the reader. I'm sure much of the information given in the data tables regarding BIG 10, SEC, PAC-12, Sun Belt, BIG 12 universities was known prior to the reader's article reading. I am in the process of adding all these tables to all D-1 athletic conferences, as it is important for those articles and their viewers. Judging from the amount of effort you've put into creating this discussion, I can tell you're very passionate about this subject. Addressing some of your concerns will be easy. I will be able to do so during the holidays as it is. As far as world rankings go, the readers should know that all members of the big 10 conference are AAU research universities with a global reputation. As for the SEC's lacking, well, frankly most of those universities are unranked. I suppose we could add them for consistency, but it WOULD be out of scope in my opinion given those member institutions are not globally renowned and, therefore, are unranked. Most of the Sun Belt schools are not research universities, and I may find trouble in finding reliable, consistent sources.

I think all this information is very relevant. Much as reading an article elsewhere, this isn't "trivia" but basic information about the demographics of undergraduates(and the institution as a whole) at these schools. Football players, their primary patrons and the majority of college campuses tend to be undergraduate students. Adding average GRE scores would be trivia.. mentioning most big 10 schools producing millionaires would be trivia..or borderline boosterism. Naming famous alums of member institutions like Larry Page for Michigan or Tim Cook for Auburn would be trivia. Providing the reader with some institutional characteristics is NOT trivia. The endowment tables have been on the articles for a long time. I simply expanded on information relating to the universities. The conference articles do not do a good job as it is explaining the sports conferences. Key economic and academic components of college athletics is left out of the picture. As for individual citations, that can be arranged if it would ease your nerves. However, I think your primary concern is the relevance. I will be able to elaborate in more detail to make my case. I hope I don't come off as brash or rude, but I've put a lot of time and effort into improving these articles.

In regards to including redundant information like location, most of these flagship universities have multiple campuses. The location is especially key for my tables because it reaffirms to the reader that the given SAT score, 6-year graduation rate and freshman retention rate correspond to University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and not University of Michigan-Dearborn..or University of Washington-Seattle..not University of Washington-Tacoma.

Furthermore, Big 10, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC already included academic components to their articles(ACC has one of the most elaborate rankings table I have ever seen - and I research higher education as a hobby! I also added the information for SECU on the SEC's article.) I expanded on whatever information was there with detailed visuals. I would eventually like to create separate articles for certain academic initiatives like SECU, something few know much about. Academics and college athletics go hand-in-hand contrary to popular belief, especially now. Without getting into the topic of boosterism or conflict of interest, the presented information gives a better idea of the members of these athletic conferences.

DMB112 (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

One problem I have with this response is the allegations of conflict of interest. Please avoid making conjectures like that. UWDawgs has expressed concern with the scope of your edits and if they are applicable and appropriate for conference articles. Many others, including myself, share those concerns.

You state "...and the readers deserve to know more about the member institutions of the Pac-12 and other conferences" but in a later comment you say that "It's not for us to decide what the reader is looking for." First, the articles are about the conferences, not the member institutions. Going into details about the individual universities should be done sparingly. While we don't decide what a reader is looking for, but we do have to stay on topic. I personally think it would be more effective to have, say, an article comparing coaching compensation that shows the differences between schools in a given conference, but also between conferences. That in itself could be an entire article.

My other concern is excessive detail. Where does it stop? At what point do we say, "OK, we have enough data here to compare the conference members." On top of that, we have this abundance of charts within an article. Charts are great and all, but too many clutter the page and make it difficult to read. Having too much info in a chart also makes it difficult to read. Another concern with the charts is how quickly they will become outdated and inaccurate since things like endowment, academic rankings, demographics, etc. change every year. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize to UW Dawgs. You understand how I could have jumped to that conclusion.

Yes, the readers decide what to read, the article must provide the data. It's like having a Chinese(or in our case a pac-12, SEC, Big 10, big 12, ACC etc..) buffet. The customer decides what to eat, but everything is offered to them. If it has to do with the topic, shouldn't we include information? Psychology is an article, and Freud is an important person in psychology. Shouldn't we address Freud? I do agree with you that the articles are about the conferences and not the university of ____. As far as where does it stop, for the academic tables, I think the rankings are unnecessary. Those metrics I provided in the table are more reliable than those used in US News rankings which accounts for nonsense such as acceptance rate. Well, U Kansas has a 100% acceptance rate not because it's an open-enrollment school but because there aren't that many college-aged students in Kansas. I only included them because the articles already include that and endowment. Even small time conference articles include the information. As for the inconsistent world rankings, that was a decision I made on my own. Most SEC schools are not globally ranked. So why include the measure? In contrast, all pac-12 and big 10 schools are globally ranked, so I wanted to give the reader that perspective. You don't think of football U being a global research university, but it often is. I wanted to give that to the reader.

Regarding outdating, higher ed is a passion of mine, and I expect I'll be editing for quite a while. I'll take the unofficial responsibility of updating numbers. It's no different than the winning percentages for a rivalry, school enrollments, endowments, championship totals or conference payouts. Those have to be updated annually anyways. The beauty of Wikipidea is that it can always be made current. I don't see an issue here.

In regards to too many tables, I have been toying with the idea of creating separate articles as you suggested. I want to expand the encyclopedia to include more comprehensive information about the economics of the various football conferences ranging from history to revenue distribution to academic distribution. We could move some of the tables to that article instead and create a "see more" tag. (e.g. Economics of the Southeastern Conference). Similarly, I would want to create "Academics of Southeastern Conference" with hopes of just having the table on the main article to draw the interested reader's attention. The main article(perhaps coupled with the special efforts like Committee on Institutional Cooperation or SECU. The new article would also include legitimate data regarding athlete completion rates, trends and averages. In addition, expanded data on research and academics(% faculty receiving major award, NRC rank, trends, endowment efforts, SAT trends, application trends etc.) All this is provided by the NCAA, Collegeboard or a reliable source. No original research would be done. Would this be a feasible option?

Please don't mistake my passion for stubbornness. I'm trying to compromise. As you can tell, I've invested lots of time into these articles, as I have other articles. I mean to help.

DMB112 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the buffet analogy, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of everything. Just because something is interesting or even reliably sourced doesn't automatically mean it belongs in an article. Even in a buffet, restaurant owners evaluate which foods are most popular and decide what to put out so they don't waste space with food that isn't going to be eaten. It's hardly a matter of including everything; it's a matter of including what people are most likely to take. For this, these are athletic conferences. Yes, the universities and conferences have their larger academic missions, but those aren't the focus of an athletic conference article. There are articles on each school that go into greater detail about their academics and research. Conferences like the Big Ten that have an academic arm (CIC) have a articles about those that can compare the academic aspects of each school without having to occupy space in the athletic conference article. We certainly wouldn't put athletic charts in the CIC article, of course. Now, the academic arms of each conference should certainly be mentioned in the conference article, but with a summary paragraph and a link to the larger article. The topic is the conference itself, not excessive details about every school in the conference and comparing and contrasting each school in multiple ways. In general, seeing the enrollment numbers, colors, locations, facilities, and sports offered seems sufficient to compare the athletic aspects of each school and give the reader a general idea about the conference facilities, sizes, and locations, since conference members typically share similar characteristics.

I'm sure you're a very dedicated individual, but having been editing Wikipedia for several years, I've seen it's very difficult to keep stats up to date consistently (I try my best). Life gets in the way, interests change, and motivation comes and goes. I have seen far too many charts and articles simply stop being updated because the primary editor either loses interest or no longer has the time to devote to upkeep. Not every piece of info has the same amount of devoted editors who will pick up when someone loses interest. Articles on rivalry games, though, typically do have quite a few active editors (whish is a two-edged sword). Just bear that in mind.

If you do create "daughter" articles, then yes, you would move the charts to the appropriate article and have a summary paragraph on the conference article, similar to a notable alumni or notable people list where the article about a city or school has a summary paragraph (prose) and links to a much longer chart or list. I think that would be a more workable solution. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Remove all. Academic rankings are not appropriate for an athletic conference article. --GrapedApe (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. This is college athletics, unlike the NFL, the member colleges have plenty to do with athletics. In fact, another dataset will include academic payouts from college athletics. Please see work of sports economists and higher ed scholars. These are universities. That means there are students. That means it's relevant. UW Dwags recommending including figures for the athlete graduation rates. I think that's a good idea as well and will add them. I must insist on keeping the table, tweaking it yes, but keeping it nonetheless.

As I said before, the Pac-12 already has an academic section

The SEC has an academic section

The BIG 10 has an academic section, as well as numerous academic references in its article.

The ACC has an academic section.

The big 12 does not have an academic section, but it certainly needs one. I have to beg to differ. Academics have plenty to do with college athletics. There wouldn't be college athletes if it weren't for the universities themselves. The reader gains invaluable information that's hard to discover elsewhere on the internet. It is not independent research, it is all there. However, the tables significantly supplement the article. It's a staple of American higher education(see work of Philip Altbach). Direct examples: How many of you knew that Ohio State had 800 million dollars in research expenditure? So close to Michigan? Power football conferences are comprised of the leading flagship, research university in the state. How many of you how much of a lead conference member universities have over the national average? I live in the South, and it was news to me when I heard Bama was above the national average! It is also news to the readers and editors of the articles.DMB112 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

These are college athletic conferences, not academic conferences. Should we note the athletic success of members of the Annapolis Group? Associated Colleges of the Midwest? Nope.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The entire article isn't about academics, just one section. Universities can do without athletics, if the universities go away, college athletics are SOL. I'm amazed at how much opposition you all are creating. The point of athletics is competition, so in that sense, the academic competition is all the more welcomed. These conferences wouldn't exist without the universities and higher education. They are one. It's not like I'm trying to compare SAT scores with NFL players here. This is COLLEGE football.

DMB112 (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Remove all:There nice and all but they do not belong in an article about conference athletics they would be better off being added to the individual university articles where most individuals would go in the first place to find such info. Once again people don't go to an Athletic conference page to find info on academics they go there to find info on athletics. Remove all the tables and move any information to the university pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcheagle (talk • contribs)

But that's just it. It's not for us to decide what the reader is looking for. Our job is to maintain a quality, comprehensive encyclopedia. I'm going to expand on the academic component for all the athletic conference articles. Twenty years ago, I would agree with all of you, but these days in times of dwindling financial support and academic competition, sports conferences DO double as academic peers. Also, by adding any tables to the individual articles won't allow the readers to get the full picture of the academic nature of athletic conferences. This is about knowledge guys. I hope I don't come off as overly assertive, but I must insist the tables stay. The concept of athletic conferences doubling as academic conferences is a notion held by board of regents of universities across the nation. In fact, when examining even rumor-mill on say, BleacherReport, people often cite BIG 10's reluctance to add non-AAU members to their ranks. From Provosts to ADs, academic components of college athletics has been noted, and I'm not just talking about athlete graduation rates. All the articles we're talking about reference the prestige and academic reputation of the member universities in some manifestation, I've checked. These tables provide an excellent, reliable, standardized visual to go along with the main article. One reason the college athletic conference pages are so popular is probably due to the numerous comprehensive tables. Nowhere else on the internet can the reader find a more reliable database. I think I'm also going to create a separate article that expands on academics of athletic conferences. Initiatives like SECU or the Pac-12's health initiative need their own articles and mini-sections on the main article, but we still need general academic information for the member institutions.

For the Big 10, there is barely any mention of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation - which is a huge initiative set forth by, yes you guessed it, the big 10 conference(the title of the article). Let's not forget that the University of Alabama, for example, is a university before it is a football team. We need to improve our articles! I will be going through and fixing the issues UWDawgs pointed out.

DMB112 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Addressing concerns of UW Dawg, I have copied on the citations for each value. I have also removed the SAT subject test data from the tables. There's no need to include information like that. I'll be adding individual sources for rankings and research in due time.

DMB112 (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Addressing further concerns, I have removed the profit columns for all articles. There are too many quantitative variables for these averages. The zeros are too big of outliers. I have also removed conference averages for the academic vs athletic spending components. Because the academic table links all power conferences, there is no need for duplicated averages. FCS and FBS averages have remained. Will continue doing individual sourcing per figure. I'm playing around with the idea of putting the expenditure per student in the academic table and putting the expenditure per athlete in the revenue/expenditure table. Either way, we'll have to make a "economics of SEC/BIG 10" section in the article regardless.. some articles do this better than others..good chance to standardize, update and improve.

EDIT: I did just that. "academics vs athletics" and "revenue and profit" tables have been consolidated and reorganized. DMB112 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Section break

These sections are entirely unnecesary for articles on college athletics. It is not relevant to say anything about the academic standings of the schools that are part of these sports leagues on the articles on the athletics. I've removed them from the articles DMB112 added them to without any consensus to do so. On this page there is a clear disagreement from UW Dawgs on this matter. These sections are clearly disputed and because I have removed them and there is a clearp oposition here from UW Dawg, they should not be added back.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed your concerns and have stated by they are relevant. They don't say anything about the academic standings of the schools? How so? Stop edit warring. We need to reach a consensus. I must insist that the table remain. Please read all I have stated above, and counter my arguments. DMB112 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have addressed zero of my concerns. You are merely pushing your opinion that they are relevant. Articles on college football do not need to have anything on the entire school's graduation rate, freshman retention, average SAT scores, US News ranking, World Ranking, or Research Expenditures. None of this is relevant at all to football which is what these pages are about. It is not about the colleges. It is about their sports teams. Multiple people in this section do not agree with the inclusion. I acted upon it. You are the only one who thinks these figures are at all relevant to a sports page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This guy has been blocked before and has caused much trouble. For all the reasons i've stated above, it's relevant and important to include SOME information about member university of college sport teams. I'm not saying let's go add Rhodes scholars and Marshall scholars. I just want to provide the reader with basic information. I've sourced everything, I've removed content, I've consolidated tables. I'm trying to compromise. You're the one that's acting like "my way or the highway" DMB112 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can a redshirt claim championships as accomplishments?

I'm hoping to fix the infobox of AJ McCarron but I'm not sure how many national championships he has won (2 or 3). Do we count the one during his redshirt year? Technically he was part of the squad but I'm not sure if it should count as a championship for him seeing as he was ineligible to play. Any advice welcome. Thanks. ---Jameboy (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• The 2009 championship during his redshirt year does count per NCAA bylaw 16.1.4.2 as he was eligible to play that season (see this article). Specifically relevant to AJ, late in the season he was officially promoted as the second team quarterback behind McElroy and Saban was prepared to burn his redshirt year during the 2009 season in the event McElroy sustained a serious injury (see this article). Patriarca12 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game up at FAC

Hello, I have recently nominated 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game, an article tagged by this project, for featured article. This is the second nomination for this article; the first nomination failed in part due to a lack of discussion. All members of this project are invited to comment on the nomination at the nomination page. Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 19:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Standardizing enrollment

Many of these schools have some off-base number as their enrollment. I propose using Collegeboard's official annual reports as a means to standardize enrollment. University "points of pride" pages may use enrollment to glamorize the school. The enrollment listed on those pages may or may not include professional students(MD, DMD, PHARMD, JD, NP, PA, RN, DO, OD etc.) and graduate students. Just like how we use NABUCO to standardize our endowment figures, I think it would improve all articles if we used ONE source for every enrollment. It isn't perfect either, but it's more reliable than no source/university specific source. Any objections?

DMB112 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)