Talk:List of NCAA college football rivalry games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College football (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A much longer list?[edit]

"For a much longer list..."? It's a much better list. I know next-to-nothing about the topic, but what's the difference between these two lists? Would they be better off as one? Or is this a list of trophies that have failed to inspire a proper rivalry between the two teams? :) 12:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The use of this page is that once complete, it can have a redlink to missing articles to assist in article creation. Further, this article can have information about each rivalry whereas a category cannot. BigDT 12:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorder list by date of first game[edit]

The reformatted list looks great (thanks for the hard work!). I propose reordering the list based on when the first game was played. I propose this as the order because with two teams involved in each game and some rivalries having no official name, it is difficult to alphabatize. Comments? I may try my hand at this in a couple of weeks if nobody responds to this.Kgwo1972 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Sorting by date will lead to duplicates arising if there is a conflict about the original date or if an editor is unsure of the date first played. I added the Textile Bowl before having a chance to look up its date of first playing. I think name of game/trophy is a good primary sort, with first team listed alphabetically a secondary sort (for games like Georgia–Georgia Tech, where there is history but not necessarily a formal name to the game. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the table as it stands is difficult to read. While the order makes sense, having the gaps can be a bit confusing. I like the idea of sorting by year first played, though disputes over the first game could cause issues. I would imagine that the web sites for each university's athletics departments would be a valid resource, though. If a game date comes up as disputed, a reference is the best way to resolve it. An alternative would be to break it into two or three tables. Named Rivalry Games, Rivalry Games with Trophies, and Named Rivalries with Trophies would be an option. Of course, after it is broken up like that, we may as well split it into three articles. I'll keep thinking about it. Z4ns4tsu 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I really don't like the idea of ordering by the date of the first game - it's really not much use. If you are searching for a game, you are either going to look up the name of the school involved or the name of the game. Since there are two schools involved, sorting by school would be annoying - thus, sorting by game name seems reasonable. As far as breaking the list, originally, this list was just trophies. One of the things I was trying to fix when I redid it was having so much duplication. If there are three lists, that's three lists to maintain and invariably, someone who doesn't know the obscure name for a game and only knows the name of the trophy is going to duplicate the school. If blank space is confusing, we could just have one column that would contain the game and the trophy. If you have both a game and a trophy, then the trophy gets put in parentheses. If you just have one, then you put what you have. That change could mostly be accomplished by only changing the template. (Only the special cases of the three-way trophies would need to be edited.) BigDT 02:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with BigDT. I like the table sorted by name of the rivalry game. I don't find the blank space confusing at all. However, I'd also be OK with combining the game title and trophy title into one column to remove the blank space. Johntex\talk 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the combination of the titled game and trophy onto one line, with a <br> tag to separate, so something along the lines of:
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
Governor's Cup
Georgia Georgia Tech 1893  
Textile Bowl Clemson North Carolina State    
How does that look? —C.Fred (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's any better. While it looks better, we'd have to have a pretty arcane rule for getting things in the right order. Z4ns4tsu 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really. It would just be whatever was the first thing listed on the game/trophy page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it looks good except that it is hard to know if the table is showing one thing that has word-wrapped to two rows or if it is two seperate things. I recommend putting dask or something between them:
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate -
Governor's Cup
Georgia Georgia Tech 1893  
Textile Bowl Clemson North Carolina State    


*Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
*Governor's Cup
Georgia Georgia Tech 1893  
Textile Bowl Clemson North Carolina State    

or maybe putting the trophie in parentheses:

Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
(Governor's Cup)
Georgia Georgia Tech 1893  
Textile Bowl Clemson North Carolina State    

I think I like the parentheses best. Johntex\talk 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't like the hyphen at all. My order of preference is (1) leave it the way it is now, (2) parentheses, (3)Use <br /> BigDT 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • In retrospect I agree with BigDT. My hyphen idea is no good because hyphens are sometimes used just to illustrate wrapping. My order of preference is (1) parentheses (2) leave it the way it is now. Johntex\talk 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So if we do parenthasis, which I agree looks the best, how would we do games without a name? Some options:
(Floyd of Rosedale)
Iowa Minnesota 1935
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
(Governor's Cup)
Georgia Georgia Tech 1983
(Floyd of Rosedale)
Iowa Minnesota 1935
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
(Governor's Cup)
Georgia Georgia Tech 1983
Floyd of Rosedale Iowa Minnesota 1935
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
(Governor's Cup)
Georgia Georgia Tech 1983
  • I think I like the first one best. (signing my last, too) Z4ns4tsu 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I also like the first one best. Johntex\talk 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like having "unnamed" in there ... for two reasons: (1) the vast majority would have "unnamed" and (2) it's not really factual - if the rivalry doesn't have a name apart from the trophy, it's usually known by the trophy. For example, VT's game with UVA is the "Dominion Virginia Power Commonwealth Cup" or whoever they get to sponsor it in a given year. There are a few games with obscure trophy names (for example, UVA and FSU have one that the name escapes me and you'd never know unless you play NCAA 2006), but for the most part, if there is only a trophy, the game is known by that name and so it really isn't "unnamed". Of these, I like #3 the best, but I still suggest leaving it as is. BigDT 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed, nontrophy rivalry games?[edit]

Should they be included? (Think Michigan v. Ohio State). Rkevins82 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just given your example, they have to be. --NMajdantalk 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added it as "The Game" and am starting a talk on the current The Game article about name changes. Rkevins82 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--Shouldn't Pitt Penn State be on the list as well it was played for 91 straight years starting in 1905 and only went on hiatus in 2000 because of a scheduling disagreement. I know it doesn't have a trophy but it's one of the oldest rivalries in Division 1A or Bowl Subdivision whatever it's called now.

-- What about the Princeton-Yale game? It doesn't have a special name or special trophy as far as I know. But it was started in 1873 and is the second-longest still-running rivalry in college football (after Lehigh-Lafayette). Poldy Bloom (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the list is currently defined for named rivalries and/or rivalries with trophies to keep the floodgates from opening too wide. I think Princeton-Yale is a notable game, but without a name, I think it's outside the scope of the list. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Defined where, and by whom? Right now, the article reads "This is a list of rivalry games in college football in the United States. The list also shows any trophy awarded to the winner," not "named rivalry games." Princeton-Yale, Kansas-Nebraska, or Oklahoma-Nebraska are/were great rivalries, and I think they should be included, even if they don't have a name.
I'm going to concur with the point of disagreement here. Nothing about the article name implies such a restriction (and on top of that, what defines a "named game"? The trophy requirement is pretty cut-and-dried, but would one of the colleges involved slapping a moniker on the game be sufficient to get it listed? Likewise, notwithstanding the fact that it is one of the most well-known rivalries, there's no moniker attached to the "Army-Navy Game" other than...well, "Army-Navy Game", which would arguably be insufficient in most other cases).Tyrenon (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Final Date[edit]

Wouldn't Series Record be a better field here? There are only a handful of discontinued rivalries and these could be mentioned in the page of the respective rivalries. I think Series Record would be a much more relevant and interesting statistic. --Cliedl 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the discontinued ones could almost be explained well with footnotes, e.g. the Slab of Bacon being replaced(?) with Paul Bunyan's Axe. The main issue I see with series record is notation: can we just do it first team listed–second team listed–ties for space reasons, or are people going to list the team leading the series, which will widen the field? Short fields are easier on the eyes. Secondarily, what series record will be used when some games aren't counted by both sides (e.g. WWII games for Clean, Old Fashioned Hate)? —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be very careful about adding a series record ... think about (1) the challenge of keeping it updated here and (2) its usefulness in a printed/CD version of Wikipedia. Frequently, I have encountered old records in articles. Unless it's something essential, I prefer not to add content that we plan on being obselete. BigDT 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Swapping in records would not be a big deal; you could just have an "as-of" date as well (i.e. the record is X-X-X as of 2010).Tyrenon (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


I think the SEC has a few more rivalry games. Auburn-Alabama and Florida vs someone. One may be called the Battle between the hedges and the other may be known as the largest outdoor daquari party (off the top of my head). This is a great article. Keep up the good work. TonyTheTiger 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Auburn/Alabama is huge. And you're thinking of the largest cocktail party.--NMajdantalk 21:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, officially, you're thinking of the Georgia–Florida game. Unofficially, though.... But both of the games you mentioned are listed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. both games are listed, but something is known as the Battle between the Hedges that isn't listed. What is that? Also, coordinate with this page: College rivalry TonyTheTiger 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge suggestion[edit]

I, for one, think it's a really bad idea. This article is a table of named football rivalries. The other one is a list of schools that are in some fashion rivals. Merging the two would be awkward. BigDT 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not be too bad of an idea. How I see it working is we would move the contents of this article under the United States section of the other article, deleting the current content. But I do see your point that these are, for the most part, strictly football rivalries and not school rivalries in general. So they might have their place as separate articles.--NMajdantalk 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
don't merge - as mentioned above, this aritcle is NCAA only and football only and the other is global and all sport (and even extends beyond sport). Additionally, the combination of the two would be too long of an article and would need dividing. Brholden 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I will remove the merge banner in a couple of days if there is no objection. Brholden 05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of I-10[edit]

UTEP and NMSU also play for the Brass Spittoon

Rivalry name in the notes - formatting for easier note-reading[edit]

Because the number of notes is so large now, I'm going to boldface the name of the rivalry (trophy, if no name) in the notes so that readers of the notes can quickly determine to which rivalry the note relates. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ole Miss-LSU Game[edit]

Does the Ole Miss–LSU game count for named rivalry purposes? I mean, the Florida–Georgia game should stand because of the historic/alternate name of the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party. As far as Ole Miss and LSU, though, I don't see a historic name. The article on the game is an unreferenced stub with a tendancy toward POV. Does anybody have some history on this game, or should it be dropped from the list? —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

North Carolina ACC games/Tobacco Road[edit]

What about the North Carolina ACC rivalries? Only Duke/UNC is listed because it's the only one with an official "trophy" or "name." UNC and Wake Forest have played 102 times since 1888 and UNC and NC State have played 96 times since 1894. Wake and NC State 100 times since 1895 and Wake and Duke 87 times since 1889. Only the NC State and Duke series (79 times since 1924) from my count doesn't date back to the 19th century. Should these be included? Perhaps under a name of "Tobacco Road" or should that be only for basketball? Naytchrboy 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The requirement that the game or trophy be named keeps the list manageable. Otherwise, every school--even D2 and D3--would be listed for two or three games. That's why NC State's only entry on the list is Clemson, because it's a named game (Textile Bowl).
That said, List of most-contested college football series or something might be its own appropriate article, to get all those multi-engagement games that aren't otherwise named. (That title really needs work, but "longest running college football games" implied something else entirely.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would love to see that done, but I'm not sure I have the resources to pull it off. Nor do I think I want to bear the burden of complaints of those left in or out. --Naytchrboy 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to look into creating a Tobacco Road football rivalry page to encompass all those games. I'll see what I can do.Wolfpackfan1234 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Beehive Boot[edit]

Both the University of Utah/BYU and University of Utah/Utah State games list the Beehive Boot as the prize. Is this a typo or is it part of a three way competition like the Commander in Chief's Trophy? Monkey Bounce 08:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Beehive Boot is actually a four-way competition between Utah, BYU, Utah State and Weber State. Most sources don't mention Weber State as being involved in the rivalry because they rarely play any of the other three teams, but I haven't seen anything that shows that they are no longer eligible to win it. They were eligible to win it as late as 1982 (which is several years after they became IAA) because, that year, had they not been eligible, their loss to Utah State would not have counted towards the standings, and UU, USU, and BYU would have all finished 1-1. If that were the case, the winner of the trophy would have been decided by the Utah media. However, Utah State won it outright (in fact, that media has only chosen the winner in 1973 and 1997). So, the USU-WSU game must have counted that year, which means the Wildcats were eligible. 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I know Colorado and Nebraska have an annual day-after-Thanksgiving rivalry that isn't listed here but I'm not aware of the name. JMyrleFuller (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sewanee v. Rhodes[edit]

Can someone insert Sewanee v. Rhodes, started in 1899. This is the longest continually played rivalry in the South. It is now the Orgill Trophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Added. Verification found at —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oldest series[edit]

Should a new article be created with a list of simply the oldest match-ups? This seems to always come up and I haven't seen a table for it on wikipedia. Ivy league matchups like princeton v yale aren't on here, and games like nebraska v kansas (since 1892) are unamed/non-rivarly so aren't on the list. Thoughts? Anyone know of any existing reliable lists to use as a source? Ryan2845 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My first thought is, what's the criteria? How regularly does a game have to be played to count, and for how long a stretch? Or, is the criteria the number of times the contest has been played, in the style of List of longest running United States television series? I like the latter becuase it's easier to make the list finite and cut it off when a series has been played fewer than a given number of times. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say probably limit it to series that are currently being played either annually or on some sort of bi-annual schedule (in the case of conferences with 2 divisions), in other words active, yearly or scheduled conference matchups. Since the majority are played only once yearly, there probably aren't many cases where the number of times played is significantly greater than the number of years old. So it seems like you could probably use both as a criteria and make the table sortable by either one. Would look similar to this table, but sortable Big 12#Rivalries Ryan2845 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
There are still plenty of great or even important college rivalries that are played annually or biannually without a specific name or trophy. I don't see why those aren't included. I know that everyone will want his college's game to be included, but this a difference between a "great" 120-year-old rivalry and a "great" 12-year-old rivalry. If a game has been played for over 100 years, I think it ought to be here, whether it has a marketable name or not. Poldy Bloom (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Some of the dates seem strange. For instance, we give 1996 as the origin of the Virginia/Virginia Tech rivalry. That is the first year of the Commonwealth Cup, but the teams first played in 1895 and have been playing each other annually since 1970. I'd say 1970 would make sense as the year for the origin of the rivalry. When I started at Virginia in 98, it certainly didn't seem like a two year old rivalry with VA Tech. john k (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is something that should be addressed - using my Gophers as an example, with two of our rivalries (Little Brown Jug vs. Michigan and Floyd of Rosedale vs. Iowa) the year listed is the first time the teams played for those trophies and not the first time the teams ever met up. However, with our rivalry vs. Wisconsin (Paul Bunyan's Axe), the year listed is the first time we played them which was long before the trophy ever came about. I would think that the first ever meeting should be what is listed on this page instead of the first time the trophy was played for, so I'll make the necessary changes to this page for the Gopher rivalry games. --Gopherguy | Talk 17:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
And for some of the games, we have a footnote that the first game was played in X year, but the first Named Rivalry Game for the Named Trophy was in Y. I think that's the more cumbersome way of doing it. However, it would be clearer in cased like UVa/VT, though, to say they first played in 1895, have played annually since 1970, and first played for the Commonwealth Cup in 1996. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I am pretty sure that Dartmouth played Princeton before 2004, maybe even 120 years before 2004. It's got to be one of the five oldest rivalries in college football, even if it just got a name a few years ago. Poldy Bloom (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
How about a new column, 'Inaugural Trophy Year' or something like that?
I suggest that we go with the first year that the matchup really became a longstanding rivalry. For example, if the teams meet a few times and then there's a twenty or thirty year break, then I don't hardly see how the earlier dates can be justified considered the title of this article is refers specifically to "rivalry games". I don't see how we can call something a rivalry game until the teams start meeting on a regular basis with breaks of no more than a few years at a time. BlueGold73 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
By whose definition will we select that date? There are likely to be multiple dates from multiple sources. Consider The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party: according to Georgia, there was a game played in 1904; according to Florida, there was no official UF football team until 1906, so the first game wasn't until 1915. And that's for identifying the first game played; identifying when "the matchup really became a longstanding rivalry" adds a subjective element to that mix. —C.Fred (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement through this discussion. It just doesn't make sense to cite the first meeting as the beginning of the rivalry. Consider the Arch Rivalry game between Missouri and Illinois. The teams first met in football in 1896, but even by the most remote stretch of the definition, it couldn't be considered a rivalry until the later 1960s, or even a later date depending on what we agree on. BlueGold73 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There are two dates that are typically used in reference to a series: the date on which the first game was played and the date on which a trophy was first contested. Beyond that, we might run the risk of creating a definition for a rivalry that doesn't match the definition documented within the sport. To my knowledge, "rivalry" and "series" are essentially equivalent. For example, Indiana and Purdue are rivals who play for the Old Oaken Bucket. The first game between them was played in 1891, so the Indiana-Purdue series dates back to 1891. They may not have been considered "rivals" at that point, but defining the series otherwise gives us totals that do not match either the totals in Purdue's 2011 media guide or in Indiana's 2011 record book. I think it's one thing to not include, say, the 1904 Florida/Georgia game because the two sides don't agree on it. Not including the 1891 Indiana/Purdue game (or similar games) because there isn't a demonstrable rivalry aspect might call into question the value of the information. I would prefer to see separate columns for "first meeting" and "first trophy game", but would understand if the page is to focus specifically on the series or specifically on the trophy. Zlionsfan (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Floyd of Rosedale date[edit]

In articles such as Battle for the Rag, the entire series is listed, so it's easy to rely on that for the date of first contest and the date of the first trophy. The Floyd of Rosedale article is silent on games played before 1935. While it stands to reason that games were played before 1935 such that the series got heated, that isn't sufficient to verify the date of the first contest. Does somebody have a source that the series began in 1891? —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Banderson1962 (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


What about the nebraska oklahoma rivalry? they did play the game of the century against each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a named rivalry, nor is there a trophy, so it's outside the scope of the list. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
As I asked above, where did name or trophy become the definitive desiderata for this list? Right now, the article reads "This is a list of rivalry games in college football in the United States. The list also shows any trophy awarded to the winner," not "named rivalry games." Poldy Bloom (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Need for new pages[edit]

This page still lacks definition. This page needs to be moved to one that is specifically for named games and trophies. This should be a page that links to all sorts of rivalry pages. Example of new pages or sections that need to be created are: rivalries with most played games, oldest continued rivalries, most consecutive game rivalries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) Revision as of 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Scope creep revisited[edit]

Is this a list for every significant rivalry in college football, or is it to be limited to named games? Or should there be some alternate threshold, like named or has been played for more than (50, 80) years?

Now, the Army-Navy Game is a named game, IMO, so it should stay in the article. I'm looking at the games which have no trophy and no name other than "Foo-Bar rivalry." Do we want to list any rivalry significant enough for an article? Or should we cap the list somewhere tighter? —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Triangle Rivalry[edit]

There is one NCAA Division-I Football rivalry that is a series between three teams: Army, Navy, and Air Force, all playing for the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy (commonly mistaken to be the trophy awarded to the winner of the Army-Navy Game). Can someone cultivate a method to incorporate this rivalry into the List-Only format? Here is quick, raw text I've culminated from the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy page in paragraph/article format, which would be unaccepted in list format:

The Commander-in-Chief's Trophy, originated in 1972, is awarded to each season's winner of the triangular college football series rivalry among the United States Military Academy (Army Black Knights), the United States Naval Academy (Navy Midshipmen), and the United States Air Force Academy (Air Force Falcons). In the event of a tie, the award is shared, but the previous winner retains possession of the trophy. As of the 2010 season (39th consecutive season), Air Force leads with 17 wins, followed by Navy with 12 wins, then Army with 6 wins, and 4 shared awards.

Thanks, Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Both it and the Beehive Boot are on the list. In both cases, all the participating teams are listed in the slot for the first team, and the slot for the second team is left blank. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

William and Mary/VMI Rivalry[edit]

One rivalry that seems oddly missing is the William and Mary/VMI rivalry (though it stands out more for VMI's old habit of inflicting lots of injuries back in the 90s than anything else). The rivalry is noted on the VMI football page in particular.

There was a lesser rivalry with UVA as well, but that one is somewhat dead because of the split in Division I (UVA went I-A while W&M went I-AA), meaning that the two very rarely play one another. Still, as there are a number of defunct rivalries listed, this might also merit inclusion (particularly since there's something of a general rivalry between W&M and UVA).

As a W&M alumnus, I don't want to put this up myself; simply put, I don't have an NPOV on the matter.Tyrenon (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bold in the list?[edit]

I see some trophies and games in bold print in the list. Is there a reason, or is this stray formatting that needs cleaned up? —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nickel Trophy[edit]

I think it's more appropriate to list the rivalry game between North Dakota State and the University of North Dakota in the Division II section. The game has never been played at the DI FCS level, and very likely never will be.GothmogLOB (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Duel in the Desert[edit]

What about changing the name of the Arizona State-Arizona rivalry to "Duel in the Desert?" That name has been used a lot, including the wikipedia page for the rivalry. Bazerko (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There being no objection, the vote is unanimous.Bazerko (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Table formatting[edit]

I propose that we standardize the table formatting as follows. Some of the entries already follow this pattern and some don't.

  • If the game or the rivalry has a name, list that in the Game column, even if it's not the name of the corresponding article (e.g. list "Duel in the Desert" and link that to "Arizona–Arizona State football rivalry"). If the game or rivaly does not have a name, list the two teams in the Game column, in alphabetical order.
  • If there's a named trophy, list that in the Trophy column.
  • Link to either the game/rivalry article or the trophy article, whichever exists. Only link to both if they exist as separate articles, as opposed to redirects.

Here are a few examples:

Game Trophy Team Team First Year Latest Year Meetings
Ball State–Northern Illinois Bronze Stalk Trophy Ball State Northern Illinois 1941
Big Game Stanford Axe California Stanford 1892
Deep South's Oldest Rivalry Auburn Georgia 1892
Duel in the Desert Territorial Cup Arizona Arizona State 1899
Illinois–Northwestern Land of Lincoln Trophy Illinois Northwestern 1892

Mudwater (Talk) 13:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)