Talk:Bobby Bowden/Archive 1

Regarding the references to "Shoegate" which is a made up term possibly derived from Steve Spurrier's "Free Shoes University" joke, it's not relevent to the coach. If the former player or agent in question has a page, it would best be suited there. Regarding the BUrt Reynolds Hall piece that was removed, that is no longer a footbvall only dorm, pre ACC rules, and has not been for years now. The references to graduation rates, which are on par with the national average (FSU's is 49% the average in D1 2 and 3 is 55%), and off the field indiscretions are not encyclopedic in nature but rather fodder for rival sports fans. See the paragraph below for more on that subject.- June 3, 2005 (me)

Regarding the April 8, 2005 removal of "Despite his many successes, his coaching accomplishments have come alongside numerous off-the-field infractions by team members.", this could honestly be said of any coach. There is not a single NCAA division 1 school that has not had an "off the field infraction" by a "team member". Joe Paterno, Bear Bryant, Tom Osborne, all the great coaches in college football history, have had players off the field get into some sort of trouble. FSU has never been put on probation or sanctioned by the NCAA under Bobby Bowden, and implying that his teams are marred by off the field infractions is a petty attempt at college rivaly gone astray.

I moved the following information posted by 24.165.164.55 from the article to here (it's not that the information is irrelevant, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia in its present form). Feel free to integrate it into the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 09:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is horrible, First off…. What about the amount of games he has one? He is the all time NCAA Div-1 leader! You say… “While widely recognized for his coaching skills, his teams have often been mired in controversy. Numerous FSU players have had high-profile arrests, and his teams' academic graduation rates have been poor.”

This is a over statement on many levels. High-profile arrests? Who McPherson? He was a good QB, but high-profile? Then there is Warrick and Coles, they took advantage of a sales person who was breaking the law by purchasing clothes way below the value. Not exactly what I would call been mired in controversy” If this is so contriversial how whould you describe Lawrence Phillips? Or the Michagan player who was masterbating on girls porches this year? If Bobby Bowden is so careless about these things going on in his program then please write a wiki about Gary Barnett!

You should check the NCAA average graduation rates for football programs, they are all poor! But did you know

FSU’S ACC ALL-ACADEMIC SELECTIONS 2000 OG............................................................................... Justin Amman FS...................................................................................... Chris Hope C....................................................................................... Jarad Moon QB................................................................................. Chris Weinke (Heisman Trophy winner)

1999 QB ................................................................................. Chris Weinke (Heisman Trophy winner) TE................................................................................. Ryan Sprague FS...................................................................................... Chris Hope 1998 P ..................................................................................... Keith Cottrell DB .................................................................................... Chris Hope OL............................................................................... Jason Whitaker QB ................................................................................. Chris Weinke 1997 WR..................................................................................... E.G. Green C .......................................................................................Kevin Long DE.......................................................................... Andre Wadsworth DT.................................................................................. Jerry Johnson LB ..................................................................................... Daryl Bush FS................................................................................ Dexter Jackson 1996 LB ..................................................................................... Daryl Bush RB................................................................................. Warrick Dunn C .......................................................................................Kevin Long 1995 OL...................................................................................... Lewis Tyre LB ...................................................................................... Daryl Bush LB ..................................................................................... Todd Rebol 1994 LB .................................................................................... Darryl Bush

ACADEMIC AWARD WINNERS Academic All-Americans (Selected by the College Sports Information Directors of America) First Team 2000 ........................................................................... Chris Hope (FS) 1997 .......................................................................... Daryl Bush (LB) 1996 .......................................................................... Daryl Bush (LB) 1994 ................................................................. Derrick Brooks (OLB)

NCAA POST-GRADUATE SCHOLARSHIP 2000 ...................................................................... Chris Weinke (QB) (Heisman Trophy winner) 1997 .......................................................................... Daryl Bush (LB) 1995 ......................................................................Danny Kanell (QB) 1994 ................................................................. Derrick Brooks (OLB)

please feel free to check my sorces...http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens

Career Wins

• In compiling their official Coaching Records, the NCAA lists "all coaches who have won at least 200 games at four-year colleges (regardless of classification or association). Bowl and playoff games included." (Official 2005 NCAA Football Records Book) This gives Bowden a career record of 351-102-4 in 39 years (1959-2004), placing him atop the "Winningest Active Division I-A Coaches by Victories" and "Winningest All-Time Division I-A Coaches by Victories". He is second to Paterno in the number of games it took him to reach 300 wins. Dystopos 23:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: We need to use the name of the official record, which is "Winningest All-Time Division I-A Coaches by Victories". The fact that many of his wins were earned at a school in a lower division is irrelevant to the way the NCAA compiles its figures. We can discuss a controversy, if there are sources to cite - but we can't just change the name to serve our own point of view. --Dystopos 20:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Trim "Florida State" section?

I would argue for removing most of the last two paragraphs in the Florida State section. The discussion of Bowden's coaching record vs. Paterno's is discussed on the Paterno page, where IMO it more properly belongs. Isn't it enough here to note that according to the NCAA record books Bowden has the record for most coaching wins? The next paragraph on Bowden and Paterno's time supposedly having passed reads like original research. Can anyone find references for any of those striking claims? If not, how about deleting or toning down somehow? Part of the paragraph also doesn't make sense as currently written. Haven't both Penn State and Florida State been nationally ranked as often as not in the past few years? And the table below that section shows Florida State having won the conference championship more often than not and having gone to respectable bowl games. Granted, the season records haven't been up to Bowden's peak, but I see no glaring case for retirement. Jbening 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, having realized in tracking the article history that those paragraphs keep coming and going, I've removed them both and will continue to do so if they come back, unless someone can come up with citations for the last paragraph on calls to retire. And lest anyone think removing the Bowden/Paterno paragraph was a pro-FSU/anti-PSU move, check out my contributions to the Paterno page and discussion thereof.Jbening 23:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Bowden's Wins

Bobby Bowden is the winningest coach in the FBS division. There have been attacks by PSU fans trying to dull down this achievement. No one is questioning Joe Pa's wins when he was in the hospital, at home and in the booth. Bobby Bowden is currently in the lead, Joe Pa is second where the record will end has already been determined by these two men and God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrNole 485 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Revert to the unvanalized version. Screamingtrees' vandalized version is still up! Nolephin 23:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a legitimate dispute over that sentence - it isn't vandalism. --B 23:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} actually there isn't the sources from the NCAA record prove otherwise. the person in question is a Penn State fan and there is animosity that bobby bowden does indeed hold the record for most career wins. once the record was overtaken it was discussed in the media at great length. The line in question has been put in place to harm the legitimacy of bobby bowden's 368 career wins. there is no D-1AA and he is the leader as he coaches in the FBS division. this fact cannot be ignored. That number includes Bowden's non-Division I-A wins when he was coaching at Howard College (today known as Samford) which is in the Division I-AA When Bobby Bowden was coaching at Howard college there were no divisions. Army or Harvard's national championships are not annotated this was because in the past there were no divisions. Are we to now to say those don’t matter because they are not in the FBS division? If the fans of PSU want to give justification on their page that is fine. Attacking ours without discussion is uncalled for. We want to present our facts in a proper manner. UkrNole 485 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you said ... but the fact is, the sentence is not a violation of any relevant content policy. Under the protection policy, an edit is not going to be made to the page unless or until there is a consensus for it. I will ask at the college football project for some guys with no ties to either school (which there are plenty) to take a look at the question. As for the protected edit request, please don't add it again - it's not going to be made. --B 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the sentence is misleading yet why is mine reverted when it is legit. UkrNole 485 00:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I 100% agree with B that the disagreement on this page doesn't even come close to warranting protection or even semi-protection. Have you seen the kind of chaos that happens on some of the more hotly disputed pages? Second, let me give the perspective of someone with no ties to either school. First, the NCAA criteria for calculating the (as of 2006) Winningest Div I-A coach include all wins against four-year schools by a coach who has coached at least ten years at a Div I-A school, regardless of how many wins were racked up either (a) while coaching at (what is now) a Div I-AA school or (b) against a Div I-AA school. BTW, I recognize that Div I-A has this year morphed into Div I-FBS for football, but I don't think this changes things except in name--correct me if I'm wrong here. Anyway, by those criteria, Bowden is two ahead of Paterno, and that's that. However, given how close the two coaches are, I don't think it's complete irrelevant that Paterno's wins have all come at PSU, and only five against schools that are now in Div I-AA, while many more of Bowden's wins come against what would now be considered second-tier opponents (witness, for example, how newsworthy Michigan's loss was). Does that invalidate Bowden's #1 spot in the NCAA record books? Certainly not (IMO). Does it belong on the Bowden page? I would say no, since that sort of nuancing is going to be of more interest I think to someone reading about Paterno, but I wouldn't call someone a vandal just because they disagree with me on that point. Jbening 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement on the record and that it shouldnt be placed on the Bowden page, the problem with this Vandal and he is a vandal is with repeated attempts to contact him to get into the talk page failed he resorted to reverting back to the way he felt the page should be. the bowden page should not have his statement on there.

thank you Jbening

UkrNole 485 01:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't believe that B ever said that the page doesn't warrant protection. Rather, he said that he will NOT change the page to revert. Second, Admins don't get involved in content disputes, ever. I strongly suggest that you all come to an agreement on this or take it to dispute resolution. Admins will not change a protected page unless there is consensus. That's what B was telling you, and I'll reiterate it. Third, the very definition of vandalism does not include edits made in good faith. Since at Wikipedia we assume good faith, unless you can prove to me that this edit was made in bad faith - and speak slowly and use small words, because I'm not a football fan and don't follow it - outside of my OU Sooners - then this is not vandalism. - Philippe | Talk 01:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it’s frustrating as hell when someone pops in to make changes without having the decency to talk it over, but I still wouldn’t call that vandalism or editprotect a page because of it. It’s often possible to reach a compromise even with undiscursive hooligans. For example, I’ve been mulling over a change to the beginning of the article to read something like “Bowden’s 368 wins put him in first place in the NCAA football record books for most wins by a Div I-FBS coach.” That may still not satisfy the JoPa fans, but it’s a more carefully stated point than what’s there now, and it limits its claim to the NCAA record books, which establish clear criteria. Sometimes, even a seemingly small change either reduces or eliminates the hit-and-run edits. Then it’s up to the FSU fans (who are bound to check the page more often) to keep reverting edits by people who won’t even get involved in the discussion. When I’ve done that, I’ve annotated my undo with something like “SEE ARTICLE’S TALK PAGE”. Jbening 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Philippe is correct ... I never said that the protection was incorrect and I apologize if anything I said implied it. The protection is 100% correct. --B 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad (quick reading). But how could such a negligible dispute have gotten a page protected in the first place? Maybe I need to read up more on how that happens. Jbening 01:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got to think there is a PSU or FSU message board somewhere driving people here. If you take a look at the article history, there has been some pretty bad weauxfing all around. (See [1] for example.) The current sentence in there is fine in my view and it isn't a bad idea to include something like it. But I would bet that there is a message board egging the thing on. There are a handful of SPAs creating a disruption. Philippe is nicer than I would have been had I gotten here first. --B 01:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just looked at the article history--I hadn't realized there were some bad boys violating the 3RR. So do they get a stiff talking to by an admin? And UkrNole, I do credit you with trying to get the other guy to the talk page from the beginning, but nothing's important enough to violate the 3RR. Also, I can't agree with the implied idea that this page somehow belongs to FSU fans while the Paterno page belongs to PSU fans. Jbening 01:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head ... at WP:CFB, I think we've done a great job of keeping rivalries out of it. Here, it's all about creating an encyclopedia, not about promoting our respective schools. --B 01:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to B, and to Jbening for the comments. Rest assured, I issued several warnings on this one. I appreciate B's involvement as a disinterested admin who is familiar with the subject matter. - Philippe | Talk 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

“Bowden’s 368 wins put him in first place in the NCAA football record books for most wins by a Div I-FBS coach.” is a great beginning and would be an acceptable compromise to have the Comment about where the wins come from taken out. Nolephin 02:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ... that doesn't really give any information. When the media reports on it, they usually do mention the Samford wins just as a clarification, not to take anything away from Paterno. Why not just use a footnote? Use something like your sentence, with a footnote at the end noting that x number of wins came while he was at Samford, which is currently a 1-FCS school. --B 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

These titles are arbitrary and made by the NCAA - because they could just as easily make up a title for the coach that has worn a green hat in the most Division IA games. That could be a title. So why not let everyone know what these titles actually mean? The NCAA can make up the title "winningest coach", but it's fraud to not allow people to know that the definition of the title includes wins from schools that are in lower tiers. It's just deceitful to make up titles and throw them around without explaining what's behind them. The fact is the college football coach with the most wins, period, is Ed Robinson from Grambling (yes, Grambling is a school in a lower tier). The fact is that the college football coach with the most wins against Division IA teams is Paterno. If anything, Bowdens title is confusing unless it's explained what it actually means. It should be defined that the "winningest coach in Division IA" does not mean that he won the most Division IA games (as some people assume when they hear that arbitrary title). If these "titles" were defined correctly, then it might lower the tone on both sides. Ed4321 11:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How about some of these options for the language?

• With nnn wins, Bowden is recognized by the NCAA as the winningest coach in Division I-FBS (formerly I-A), though when his nnn wins while the coach of Samford are excluded, he trails Joe Paterno by nnn.
• Bowden's 368 wins put him in first place in the NCAA football record books for most wins by a Division I-FBS coach.[1] (The footnote would say that nnn of his wins were while he was at Samford.)
• Add a table showing the top 5 or so coaches, breaking down their total wins, wins while coaching a school that is currently I-FBS, and wins against teams that are currently I-FBS?

Thoughts? I don't really have a position one way or the other on anything ... I'm just throwing this out there to try and get a discussion going. --B 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed4321, your complaint is with the NCAA and how they calculate one of their records, and let's be clear - Bowden and Paterno are only in contention for FBS Winningest Coach All-time by Victories - the FBS Winningest Coach All-time by Percentage is Knute Rockne who is unlikely to be toppled from that position. (FYI, Pete Carroll is the FBS Winningest Active Coach by Percentage.) At this point, I feel it's necessary to invoke WP:RS. WP is merely reporting the record as stated by the reliable source of the NCAA (see 2007 record book: [2] warning, 3.72MB pdf). The record with which you wish to crown Paterno would be considered WP:OR unless you can find a reliable source that calculates a ranking/record that way. (In which case, you would place that in the Paterno article.)

As to how to present the information, describe the NCAA record by its full and accurate name and simply add the record book reference where an interested reader can read all the criteria for the record, not a WP-created footnote highlighting a minority criticism of how the NCAA sets the criteria. AUTiger » talk 18:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, my complaint is as much with how these titles are being thrown around, but with no explanation to the reader. Most readers see the phrase "winningest coach of Division IA" and assume incorrectly that Bowden has the most Division IA wins. That's just incorrect. This would be akin to using the home runs of a Minor League player towards his Major League stat and dubbing him, instead of Barry Bonds, the "home run king". That is dishonest. The stats are the truth. When anyone asks (not the MLB officials, but someone on the street) "Who is the Major League Home Run king?", they are not asking for you to answer with a player who would be dubbed "king" if and only if his Minor League home runs were added to the number. It's deceitful to hide behind Bowden's wins against schools of a lower tier. Do you want to know how deceitful Bowden fans are? It was stated TRUTHFULLY in Paterno's site that he had the most wins against Division IA teams and someone edited to say that Bowden had the most wins against Division IA teams. FLAT OUT LIE. That shows how dishonest Bowden fans can be when it comes to acknowledging the truth. Ed4321 15:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed4321, you need to dial things down and be careful not to violate WP:CIVIL. Bowden fans didn't create the criteria for the NCAA's coaching records. The NCAA doesn't make a distinction between subdivision wins - they don't care about the difference (Lloyd Carr's/Michigan's loss to Appalachian State is still a loss, no less because it was a FCS school) and the bulk of college football fans don't either, save apparently Penn State/JoePa fans. Be satisfied that regardless of whether he finishes in front of Bowden, that Paterno will be remembered as one of the best college football coaches ever. You don't need to synthesize a ranking just for him to come out on top. Also, remember the I-A/AA distinction is a relatively recent creation and when talking about the All-Time record (see Knute Rockne above) how would you compare Paterno/Bowden to Rockne/Bryant/Heisman if you always had to discount I-AA/FCS wins?

Also, Wikipedia is about reliable sources not necessarily the "Truth". AUTiger » talk 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote for B's second option (with the details clarified in a footnote)--partly because I think it's most likely to lead to a truce in this embarrassing partisan bickering between FSU and PSU fans. I'd write up such a solution, but frankly I'm not confident it would survive more than a few hours. Also, I disagree with Autiger's contention that comparing Bowden and Paterno's number of wins against teams that are now I-FBS would be OR. The relevant numbers are easy to calculate from publically available information, and have been reported in media discussions of the subject. Saying something like the NCAA should calculate it that way would be OR, but simply stating the number of wins in each case is factual. Jbening 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying it should be calculated that way wouldn't be OR, but rather an NPOV violation (expressing opinion). Creating a new ranking because you don't like how one ranking is calculated to push a POV (JoePa is better) is a violation of OR, specifically WP:SYN. Read the example there and I believe you'll see the parallel. AUTiger » talk 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the parallel. The number of wins each coach has against Div I-A teams is an established fact. The rudimentary calculations needed to add up number of wins from raw data would not amount to OR. Moreover, there are published articles in reliable sources that have already tallied the number of wins. Saying Paterno has 361 victories against teams currently in Div I-A (or I-FBS) is not OR, nor is saying Bowden has 319, nor is saying that Paterno has 42 more victories than Bowden against teams currently in Div I-A. Saying Paterno's the winningest Div I-A coach would be either wrong or OR, since it entails some definition of what a Div I-A coach is. If one were to use the NCAA's definition it would be wrong. If one were to arrive at one's own definition it would be OR. But there's no OR in tallying number of wins against Div I-A teams. It's a matter of how you word it. That said, I doubt any resolution of this is going to satisfy all the FSU and PSU partisans tangling up this mess. Jbening 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on the matter - in the lead, it should say that "he is recognized by the NCAA" as the winningest Div IA coach in history. Don't mention the Howard controversy in the lead. However, somewhere in the article, include a mention of the IAA controversy. This is not necessary in the lead, but should be in the article somewhere.--71.6.12.114 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask a silly question ... is it really a "controversy" outside of message boards? In other words, does PSU itself (not fans, but the school itself) claim that Paterno is #1 in wins or use any language like that in his official bio or their media guide? I think it's important to get the facts right, but it's also important not to give message board rantings more credit than they are due. --B 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The PSU official bio notes he is second, but doesn't call out any distinction on subdivision nor do any lobbying for counting wins differently. [3] AUTiger » talk 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If Bobby Bowden's Howard/Samford wins count, can someone tell me why Eddie Robinson wouldn't be 1st? TimBilly1224 16:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bowden/Paterno: Time for a resolution?

This USATODAY article offers a good brief discussion of the issue:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2005-12-12-wins-bowden-paterno_x.htm

As I've said before, my personal opinion (as someone affiliated with neither FSU nor PSU) is that the caveats to Bowden's record don't need to be included in Bowden's bio on Wikipedia. That said, if there's no mention of it here then I suspect there will always be pro-PSU editing, leading in future to more change wars. So here's my proposal:

Keep the first sentence more or less as it is, with a footnote that reads something like this:

(1) According to the NCAA criteria for determining the winningest Division I-FBS (formerly Division I-A) coach, individuals qualify if they have coached at least ten seasons for a Division I-FBS school, and any victories against four-year colleges or universities count towards their total. Thus, Bowden's 31 victories coaching at Samford from 1959 to 1962 (then known as Howard College) count towards his total even though Samford is now in Division I-FCS (formerly Division I-AA). This is a longstanding NCAA policy, applying also to calculating coaching records in other sports. It has been defended by the NCAA because it would be hard to draw a clear-cut distinction given the number of schools that switch between Division I-A and I-AA.

The above-cited article can serve as the reference for the claims in this draft, none of which is OR.

Even if we were to include this, I'm guessing there would still be caveats added to the body of the article from time to time, but less frequently than they have been recently. Sensible pro-PSU readers would likely be satisfied by the acknowledgment of the issue in the footnote. Sensible pro-FSU readers would likely be satisfied by the NCAA's justification of their policy.

So if you're reading this and you approve, please weigh in to that effect, so we can establish consensus for the admins and get this article unlocked! Jbening 00:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Replies

• I disapprove of the footnote.

• First, the cited USAToday article actually serves to debunk the necessity of such a footnote and alternative method of determining the "Winningest" record holder since "The issue for some Penn State fans, as they have related in letters and e-mails..." indicates the concern over the criteria is seemingly limited to, and manufactured by, PSU fans. The article further indicates that neither the PSU Athletic Department or JoePa himself consider it an issue.
• Second, the distinction of Bowden's wins at Samford(Howard) is artificial since the governing body (NCAA) of the sport doesn't think it matters, the subdivisions are a construct created after he coached there, and unlike the baseball home-run record-holder (as argued by the PSU fan above) since Bowden is a coach not a player and there was no large talent disparity as between a more talented baseball hitter against weaker pitchers since his Howard players were playing against similar talent.
• Finally, I will resort to original research to show how this must be original research: the number 31 in the article is incorrect as the number of Samford wins that were against current FBS schools (as has been argued should be the criteria) since three of the wins were against now-FBS Troy University.(see [4]) I couldn't find where CFBDataWarehouse.com has published a ranking of coaches' wins sorted by subdivision nor (obviously) does the NCAA publish a record based on that criteria. The only way to derive that ranking is to either manually examine (i.e. research) each season for the coaches in question for FCS/FBS games, or to query a database containing the required data by the criteria that has been decided upon to derive information (the ranking).

I continue to assert that creating a new criteria as a basis for an alternate ranking (unpublished by any other source) to a long-established institutional ranking is original research. Thanks, AUTiger » talk 03:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, AUTiger. By way of cordial response, two things:

1) The points you raise in (1) and (2) are actually in general terms the sort of thing I was trying to get at in my draft footnote. So the question is how could we reword the footnote in a non-inflammatory way that would make that clearer? And once again, my rationale for having a footnote is not that the idea of undercutting Bowden's record in that way is justified. Rather, I think that this article is bound to be unstable as a result of PSU/FSU carping unless a footnote is provided, acknowledging the issue while explaining the NCAA position. If I were writing the article in Jbeningpedia, I'd leave it out, but that approach has led to chaos in this article and will likely continue to in future.

2) I'll say again that I really think you're too broadly interpreting the idea of original research. OR is a technical term in the Wikipedia universe and doesn't merely refer to anything that would colloquially called "research". The article WP:OR says:

"An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

• It introduces a new theory or method of solution;
• It introduces original ideas;
• It defines new terms;
• It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source."

Gathering together established facts, as in a table or calculation, might be research in the colloquial use of the term, but not OR according to the above WP:OR definition. So your subtraction of 3 from 31 is not OR because it doesn't introduce a new theory, method of solution, original ideas, analysis or synthesis of established facts etc., or neologisms; nor does it define new terms or provide new definitions of pre-existing terms. And the draft footnote isn't even close to OR because (unless I've erred in some way I can't see) it just rewords points made in the USATODAY article, which is in a reliable media source (see WP:RS). Jbening 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But introducing the alternate definition of the record is "providing a new definition of a pre-existing term", and is "introducing an analysis or synthesis of established facts ... in a way that builds a particular case". This "issue" is driven by a small, vocal minority who are motivated by their bias for JoePa to invalidate the Bowden's NCAA record under the established criteria. Beyond the OR question, including the footnote would be a violation of WP:Undue weight (part of NPOV). AUTiger » talk 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I approve the footnote

Jbening's resolution seems to be a wise solution to the problem. I believe that people are allowing their passions for PSU and FSU to get the better of them. They certainly are not acting in an unbiased manner. This is an issue that will probably not die anytime soon. Hopefully enough reasonable editors will be monitoring this article during the edit war, hopefully the articles will maintain their integrity. Dincher 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I like the addition of the footnote

if only to satiate the pro-PSU folks and avoid further edit wars. I know the pro-FSU folks don't want it, and in their shoes, I wouldn't either.

If it were up to me, Bobby Bowden's article would say "winningest Division I-FBS coach", as it should since the NCAA is the ruling body here, and Joe Paterno's article would say something like "passed Bear Bryant on xxx xx, 2001, to become the winningest Division I-FBS coach but was passed by Bowden on xxx xxx, 200x, and currently stands as the second-most" since those are the actual encyclopedic facts that matter, but to quote Jbening, this isn't Billmapedia.

If we need asterisks, then we need asterisks, cuz without an asterisk it'll just continue to be very disruptive. Billma 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving an extreme minority opinion voice in a way that serves to discredit an official record just because the minority is loud and disruptive is a bad idea. WP:Undue weight contradicts it. Furthermore, the editor that caused the edit protection here was a new account whose only edits have been involved in this dispute which seems to indicate the account was created only to advance the minority opinion and not to edit WP in good faith. To reward such behavior is irresponsible and sets a troubling precedent. AUTiger » talk 02:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read my footnote draft text over and over again, trying to reconcile it with your characterization of it, and I just can't see how it discredits an official record. I certainly had every intention of writing it by way of clarifying in a factual way the basis for calculating that record, while also presenting the NCAA's (rather compelling, IMO) explanation for why the record has to be calcuated in that way. I try to read it from the perspective of someone seeing it for the first time, and I think I would come away thinking, "oh that's how it's done," and, "makes sense to me." Could you look it over again and (1) let me know where you think I've failed in achieving that effect, and/or (2) what modifications you would make to present the NCAA's position more clearly while also preserving a dispassionate tone? BTW, I just had a great time reading WP:LAME--by the end I was giggling like a complete idiot. Jbening 02:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Been a while since I've read LAME, but this isn't close to the heights reached by most of those. But anyway, my issue was not really with the specific text of your proposed footnote but rather with the existence of the footnote at all beyond a cite to the record book. As to your specific text, I think the length of what you proposed is unnecessary and it could be characterized as an attack on the record due to the calling out of Bowden's Samford record specifically, as well as saying the NCAA defends the criteria (implying a controversy or need for defense).

That being said, if a footnote beyond the record book cite (where the criteria is explained) is deemed necessary, I think it would be sufficient to merely explain the criteria without an example. e.g.

(1) Individuals qualify for the NCAA's All-time Winningest Division I-FBS (formerly Division I-A) Coaching record if they have coached at least ten seasons at a Division I-FBS school. Once qualified, all victories against four-year institutions regardless of division count towards their total.

Regards, AUTiger » talk 04:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That shorter version of the footnote would work for me. Another option would be a version with the sentence specifically mentioning Samford removed, but keeping the "NCAA defends" sentence that you don't like. Any of them would, I think, have some deterrent effect against edit wars. A more complete footnote might have more deterrent effect, but could also be viewed more as undermining. Given that other people haven't been weighing in, and your shorter footnote is probably the least controversial approach among those who have, would you care to ask Philippe to remove the editprotect? And BTW, I didn't mean to imply that this discussion has come even close to approaching the status of the edit wars on WP:LAME. I just found that page so funny after coming across it yesterday for the first time. Jbening 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will see about getting rid of the editprotect to add the criteria footnote. AUTiger » talk 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Pointing out the difference between stating numbers & using labels or titles

I don't think some people are understanding the difference between referencing actual numbers & specifically identifying what teams those wins are against (as Paterno fans want) -- and -- referencing a contrived title or "label". It's Bowden's confusing & byzantine "crown" that is vague and warrants some kind of explanation. What does this "winningest" title exactly mean? Either people do or do not realize that Bowden's wins include those against lower tiered schools. If it's the former, then stating it in the article won't hurt. If it's the latter, then it's debunking a popular held myth in the sports world [ and I know from personal experience that there are sports fans out there that have incorrectly assumed that Bowden won more Division I-FBS (formerly I-A) games than Paterno due to this contrived title that he's been given ].

JBENING did a fair job when he changed a sentence in Paterno's bio to read that he has "won more football games against teams currently in NCAA Division I-FBS (formerly Division I-A) than any other coach in history." No contrived "crown" or "label" is given. It's precise & just stating fact. Contrived titles such as "Winningest" or "Super Great" or "Best ever coach in the whole wide world" don't mean anything unless their definitions are stated. It's Bowden's camp that wants to hide behind a title without any explanation of what it means - it's Paterno's camp that wants to state actual facts and acknowledge where the wins came from.

QUOTE ""the subdivisions are a construct created after he coached there""

No. They had levels even back in the dinosaur days of early Bowden & early Paterno. Howard College was (& Samford still is) at a lower division than the Penn States, the FSU's, the Michigans, the Notre Dames, the USCs, etc. Whether or not that lower tier was called "FCS" (instead of "FBS") or "I-AA" (instead of "I-A") doesn't matter. When Bowden was coaching at Howard College, he was indeed in a lower tier than PSU (& all of the other powerhouses mentioned above).

QUOTE' ""indicates the concern over the criteria is seemingly limited to, and manufactured by, PSU fans. ""

No, it is mentioned by sports writers from time to time. Of course, no Nebraska or Michigan or Ohio State fan is going to make a fuss about it (for obvious reasons), but it is definitely acknowledged by sports analysts & commentators. If you want to read an article where an analyst dissects the "mystery" of Bowden inexplicably being given this crown, then read the following by college football analyst Will Harris:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3025337&type=blogEntry

(see below for excerpt)

QUOTE' ""You don't need to synthesize a ranking just for [Paterno] to come out on top.""

That is rich. The synthesizing is exactly what is being done when an artificial crown is being given to Bowden. A title that has many in the public unaware that Bowden has indeed not won more games against Division I-FBS (formerly Division I-A) teams than any other coach in history.

QUOTE ""and unlike the baseball home-run record-holder (as argued by the PSU fan above) since Bowden is a coach not a player and there was no large talent disparity as between a more talented baseball hitter against weaker pitchers since his Howard players were playing against similar talent. ""

Similar talent, but *at a lower level*. The Minor League/Major League is a fair analogy. A batter in the Minor league is batting against a pitcher in the Minor League (same level - but it's lower than Major League). The coach versus player is not a factor (coaches are compared against other coaches whereas players are compared against other players).

EXCERPT FROM HARRIS ARTICLE:

{{{ It's a well-known but little-discussed fact that Bowden won 31 games at Howard College in Birmingham, now Samford University. Samford did not play football at the Division I-A level at that time, nor has the school done so at any time since then. So why is Bowden anointed the winningest Division I-A coach of all time? Beats me. He's simply not.

The winningest college football coach of all time is John Gagliardi. Entering this year -- his 59th as a head coach and 55th with his current school -- Gagliardi had won a whopping 443 games, 419 at St. John's University in Minnesota.

What's that? Only Division I games count? OK, then your leader is Eddie Robinson, who won 408 games at Grambling.

Oh, Division I-AA games don't count either? Well, that rules out Robinson. It also rules out Bowden and his 31 I-AA wins and leaves us with Paterno and his 366 I-A victories.

This is really simple. Either we're counting only I-AA wins or we're not. If not, then Paterno is way ahead of Bowden. If we are, then your leader is either Gagliardi or Robinson, depending on whether we're recognizing anything below I-AA.

The only title Bobby Bowden holds is that of "Coach with most total wins who has at some point in his career coached a Division I-A team." }}}

ed4321 02:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with where you're coming from, and find some aspects of the argument you quote compelling, but I really don't think the Bowden bio is the page for a lengthy consideration of it. Jbening 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Once people get past the whole win argument... here's a good source for early years:

ESPN.com's Ivan Maisel did a good article on Bobby Bowden's early years and love of Alabama football. There's some stuff to mine from it. --Bobak 22:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the article and I agree that it is very good, but what does it have to do with the wins controversy? Dincher 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Bobak was offering it in re the wins controversy, but rather as something to chew on after getting past the wins controversy. Jbening 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs better sourcing

There are only three citations for an article that makes a whole bunch of factual claims. Four references are offered, but they're all from the FSU media guide! WP:RS doesn't specifically preclude an organization's PR materials for biographical details on a representative of that organization, but still they could hardly be considered unbiased. I'm sure there are good sources for most of the claims made in this article, if anyone wanted to track them down. I won't name names, but there's a certain other coach with almost as many career wins as Bowden, whose article is much better sourced. ;) Jbening 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Working on that as we speak 69.246.172.9 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)