Jump to content

Talk:Quarterback U

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Altoona Mirror article

[edit]

One line is more than enough weight for that particular article from the Altoona Mirror (a newspaper which doesn't even have its own article yet). The term is colloquial, which means there is no standard accepted definition, and therefore the statistics are without direct relevance. The stats the Altoona Mirror article used are simply one person's personal opinion as to what "Quarterback U" should mean. Conflating the term and those stats here would be original research.

It is a fact that BYU and Maryland were each referred to by that term by many different media sources at different times in the past. The opinion that Purdue might be "Quarterback U" because it has the most NFL starts is nothing more than that, and I have seen that mentioned in no other sources. I think it may even be generous to give that a full sentence.

If you can find additional references that claim to use those metrics (number of NFL starts, Heismans, etc.) to determine usage of the term, and cite independent sources for the raw data (the statistics themselves) rather than the Altoona Mirror article, then I am not opposed to its inclusion. Otherwise I don't think its appropriate for the above stated reasons.

Cgsports12, you wrote a well-researched interesting article, but this is not the appropriate place to promote either it or your particular view as to what "Quarterback U" actually means. If you disagree, we can bring the discussion to the talk page for the College Football Project to get more editors' input. Strikehold (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strikehold, you make the assumption that my updates are lobbying for Purdue or anyone else for the title. They are not. They merely present facts about schools and the NFL. Wikipedia is designed to present facts, and these are cold, hard facts. The sampling of statistics does not make a case for any school. The sampling merely provides comparative facts. The most recent updated version does not suggest anything about how to read the facts or to interpret them. They are merely presented.
Clearly, COI is present here. Can't deny that. But these are facts and statistics that have nothing to do with the presenting source. They are football facts that give Wikipedia readers details about the subject. We can bring in additional editors for their input. Cgsports12 —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I never assumed you were lobbying for any particular school, and that is not one of the issues at hand. I mentioned Purdue only in reference to your comment that information on BYU and Maryland was outdated. Here are the real problems: Firstly, the statistics themselves (for instance, the number of starts per school) are not referenced. Since you did the research, I assume you can cite secondary sources for them, other than the article you wrote. So that is not that big of an issue, but it must be done. Otherwise, this information is in the realm of original research.
Second and more importantly, it needs to be established that the stats themselves are relevant as related to the term "Quarterback U". In other words, who says that number of Heisman winners is a criterion for that term? I'm certainly not opposed to the inclusion of relevant facts or statistics, but they must be shown to be relevant in the first place. That these stats were used in your article for the Altoona Mirror does not show that as a general trend per se. We must present source(s) to show these (or any) statistics in particular have been used by reliable sources to define the term (which I think is plausible). Provide the sources to support a relation between those particular statistics and the use of the term "Quarterback U", and we can go from there. Strikehold (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The beginning of the existing Quarterback U article states, "Generally speaking, this has the implication that many of the schools' former quarterbacks continue on to successful careers in professional football." The stats I presented address that topic specifically, thereby making them relevant based on one of the primary premises of the article. The existing article also had components discussing Brandon Dorman, Robbie Boscoe and Gino Torretta. None of those three ever started a game in the NFL, so why give them notable mention when they directly contradict the "generally speaking" statement?

Looking at the original article, much of it was based on conjecture, old arguments and speculation by various writers based on less than all the facts and opinions. What I have attempted to do is include comparative facts that were not present before, based on a sizable period of time such as the Super Bowl era. Cgsports12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgsports12 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research at all. It is a compilation of statistics. It's like looking up all of Barry Bonds' home run totals, adding them up and then posting the total. The starting statistics, number of games, alma mater, Super Bowl titles and Hall of Famers can be verified on pro-football-reference.com. The Heisman winners can be verified on heisman.com. Cgsports12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgsports12 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "Quarterback U" is not a technical term or one with any objective meaning. The rules of Wikipedia prevent us from manufacturing any metrics with which to measure that term. Although obviously done in good faith, your attempt to apply objective standards to a subjective term is not allowed here as it is considered "original research" on the part of Wikipedia editors (please see the policy concerning that).
Recognizing that this is a subjective term, the only way that Wikipedia can define it is by relating how the media, analysts, or other outside sources define it. In your words, that means "conjecture, old arguments and speculation by various writers". How many Super Bowls won or Pro Bowl appearances by a school's alumni may be a great way to define the term, but unless it can be shown that outside sources have actually done this, it doesn't belong here. Please also see the policies related to this and on the use of reliable sources.
To address your comment about Gino Torretta et al: The lead (first paragraph) qualifies the NFL part with "generally speaking" for good reason, meaning it is not a hard and fast rule. So it doesn't contradict the "generally speaking" part, it is the very reason for it in the first place. Generally speaking, the sources have cited NFL experience as the reason for bestowing the term upon a particular school -- with exceptions being guys like Gino Torretta. Strikehold (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading all the stats and thinking about it, it's my opinion that the stats, while interesting, add very little of use to the article. The only thing I'd probably keep is the number of NFL starters, which I think I would sum up by saying "In the Superbowl era USC (15), Notre Dame (13), Washington (12), Miami, Fla. (10), Stanford (10), and UCLA (10) have each produced 10 or more starting quarterbacks." Ryan2845 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me as well, but how would you recommend wording it? I think it needs to directly reference a specific secondary source that equates NFL starts with the term Quarterback U. The Altoona article itself could be used for this, such as:

"In August 2009, the Altoona Mirror published an article that sought to name the most appropriate "Quarterback U" in relation to player achievements, such as NFL starts, Pro Bowl appearances, and Heisman Trophies won. It found that in the Super Bowl era USC (15), Notre Dame (13), Washington (12), Miami (10), Stanford (10), and UCLA (10) each produced at least ten starting NFL quarterbacks, while Purdue recorded the most combined NFL career starts (704). The article concluded that no single program deserved the title significantly more than others."

I think that is more than fair compromise. Strikehold (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before deleting the stats, I recommend you guys do one thing. Check various ESPN college football blogs, Dennis Dodd's blog from cbssports.com, the Kansas City Star blog and numerous other college football Web sis that have cited and linked to the research project, commented on its qualities, used it for various purposes of their own and received tons of feedback about it in the past few days. This story is being cited all over the Internet for its research value as it relates to Quarterback U. So clearly a lot of college football experts seem to be in agreement that the study and statistics have merit. I would hope you guys consider those peoples' opinions instead of making an independent call of your own to take down the information. --Cgsports12 (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant -- No one said the Altoona article wasn't interesting or useful, but you still ignore all of the concerns I point out above related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article is still centered upon presumptions of opinion -- i.e. that Heismans, Pro Bowlers, etc. are what is related to the term "Quarterback U". That is fine to reference as related directly to the Altoona article, but as a general trend it requires further references to other secondary sources. Also, the start point of 1966, the Super Bowl era, is arbitrary. As far as I know, that long predates actual usage of the term "Quarterback U", so, as long as it is unreferenced, any connection is tentative and speculative. Strikehold (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'll delete it. I'm not going to fight City Hall here and your incredibly limited view of what's pertinent information. Your original article is so weak that it's barely informational at all on the subject. I'll kill my updates, but please, get rid of the garbage information you have on there that doesn't give any insight at all into the discussion. I also noticed you made sure you included Maryland in there, while also appearing to be a Maryland fan/follower or whatever with all the Terrapins pages you've worked on. Maryland doesn't even belong in the current discussion when the two best QBs from that school are Esiason and O'Donnell and then barely anyone else of note. So be sure to check your COI at the door when trying to debate what should and should not be on here. And BYU? Way to keep the page 20 years outdated. All I did was try to give the very weak original article -- which had a C rating, mind you -- some pertinent information and comparisons that people all over the Internet have found interesting and informative, except for you.

I read an article on the Wikipedia editing information that says the site is becoming more and more stale because of elitist editors who get so nit-picky about information and updates that most people don't bother fighting the small-mindedness and just quit trying to post updates. That is clearly the case in this instance. You win the fight. I quit. And your article will continue to be weak and based on outdated, pointless conjecture. --Cgsports12 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As was pointed out above, I would argue that the inclusion of the University of Maryland is a stretch. I would imagine that if one were to conduct a national poll as to whether or not the University of Maryland could ever be described by the term "Quarterback U", only people in the state of Maryland would agree. Looking at the list of quarterbacks the paragraph cites for inclusion, only Boomer Esiason could be considered by any measure as being worthy of this list. One QB is not enough to call a school "Quarterback U".

Time period

[edit]

Some of the schools mentioned in the article give a time period, others do not. Could each person who added a school state the time period associated with this nickname? Racepacket (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami

[edit]

I could not find any official action by the University of Miami declaring itself to be "Quarterback U." Admittedly, I don't have access to the UM Board of Trustee minutes, but I am sure that if there was such an official action, I would find some news report. What are your sources for attributing this to the University instead of just someone who happens to work at the University or is otherwise connected to the University? Racepacket (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone is reverting this article to make it more University-of-Miami-centric. This article is about the term "Quarterback U", not any one school. Recent "Quarterback U"s should be discussed before historic ones. Racepacket (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the current version of the article is the same that existed after the lengthy discussion above and before you decided to wage your UM-war on this page, too. Traditional "Quarterback U"s are listed first since those are the schools that are most widely known by the title. Nor is it wrong or contentious to say that the University has "adopted" the moniker when it appears on its official web site and in its media guide.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the order which covers the recent uses of Quaterback U before discussing the older uses (which may no longer apply). A college's media guide may not be a reliable source if the statement made is self-serving. Racepacket (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flattening of article

[edit]

Previously, the article was grouped into an "Early Usage" with five team sections and a "more"-type section with references to various stats and another four teams. The Early Usage section included teams with "early" links to the term, but each team section carried content through to the present day -not "early usage." The "more" section held another group of teams with appropriate and current citations. As the article content itself was not structured in a "early" format and was current to present day, I delineated it as nine team sections and moved all of the broad summary info to the top. Bold, but open to other ideas. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quarterback U. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quarterback U. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quarterback_U&oldid=1204423915"