Talk:UCLA Bruins football
|WikiProject College football||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject University of California||(Rated C-class)|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
No individual season pages yet?
I know there are aspiring Wikipedians out of the massive UCLA population. You guys ought to get on board doing individual season pages like other programs have done. --Bobak 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
1971 Pac-10 Season Standings
Lou Groza Award
- Pictures of past uniforms have no purpose in this article on the football team. The players play the game, not the various uniforms used in the history of the Bruin football team. The throw back uniform against Washington and USC are the same, except the helmet. How many years are we going to have pictures? Why not go back to 1945 when the team won the championship. The article is about the players. Why not have a picture of all the players on this page? When is too much too much? Why not a picture of all the coaches? How about all the logos that have been used by team? etc. etc. Ucla90024 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Image deletion discussion
Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_29#File:UCLA.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want to put all of this in the edit comment and there wasn't really a great place to put the note in the source. UCLA was listed as having 17 conference championships, which someone updated to 18 to reflect the table in the article. This is untrue, however. According to the Pac-12 media guide (http://catalog.e-digitaleditions.com/i/350165) page 81 and 82, as well as the UCLA media guide (http://www.uclabruins.com/fls/30500/pdf/14_FB_MediaGuide.pdf?&&SPSID=749897&SPID=126928&DB_OEM_ID=30500) page 113, there are only 17. Figuring out the error was not difficult. UCLA was listed as champion in 1939 in the article, but this wasn't true. The Pac-12 guide shows USC, which makes sense. USC was 5-0-2, and UCLA was 5-0-3. Embowaf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- After the conference changed to the Pac-12 in 2011, it is unclear that the column presumably has the finish in the division of the conference, i.e. South Division, as opposed to previous years where it was the overall conference finish.
- Prior to 2011, first-place finishes list "1st", whereas the current version lists "South Division Champions". There is no consistency whether to list "1st" or "XYZ Champions"
There is an FL, List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons, which has
- Separate columns for conference and division finishes.
- Lists some division finishes as 2nd but marks them with a division championship when the team that finished 1st was ineligible e.g. 1993.
- Has the conference finish based on the results of the conference championship game, where applicable e.g. 1994.
- Sorry it took me so long to respond to this; I haven't had time to write this all up for the past few weeks. I think it can be argued pretty easily that my edits were correct. A few points.
- Writing "South Division Champs" is not consistent with the rest of the table. The entire table uses numbers, not descriptions. It ALSO stretches the table out in a way that is visually problematic.
- The Pac-12 media guide very clearly shows that ucla finished 2nd that year, in the south. The official Pac-12 standings are pretty much inarguable, and they are used for the rest of the table as well. The Pac-12 is the authority here.
- The blue highlight of the column already indicates that they were the division's "champion" and represented the division in the conference championship game. As such, changing to a 2 does not remove relevant information, it actually includes more.
- There is a consensus across Pac-12 teams. Across the whole conference, none of the tables have "South Division Champs" or "North Division Champs" listed anywhere.
- Arizona does not seem to have a year by year table
- Asu shows "1st (South)" or "T-2nd (South)"
- Colorado shows "6th (South)"
- USC shows "1st (South)" or "T-2nd (South)"
- Utah does not have the same table, but still shows a number and a divisional finish
- Cal shows "4th (North)" etc
- Oregon shows "1st (North)"
- Osu has a slightly different table, but still shows "4th (North)" etc
- Stanford shows "T-1st (North)"
- Washington has a different table, but still shows "3rd (North)" etc
- Wsu does not seem to have a table
- User Ucla90024 cited Ted Miller's article as a reference... thought he article also clearly points out that USC finished first.
- USC clearly calls themselves the division champions that year, and there are many articles that show others call them that as well: http://www.ocregister.com/usc/strong-475334-usc-south.html
- So, in conclusion, putting a "2nd" in place of the "South Division Champs" would match the rest of the article, the rest of the conference, the Pac-12 media guide, and would show more information than the current version. Ucla's participation in the championship game would be indicated by the blue highlight.
- I think it should also be noted that not only did the reverts set the article back to this "South Division Champs" which is out of place, but user Ucla90024 did a complete revert, removing definitely legitimate edits I had made that corrected problems with ucla's conference finishes (mostly there were multiple years in which the article declared a tie when ucla held the place untied, or vice versa). I also want it noted that this is not a new problem. User Ucla90024 frequently reverts legitimate edits that I make if they are at all positive towards USC or negative towards UCLA, often ignoring facts. User Ucla90024's edit history shows a pattern of biased edits such as this one.
- Finally, this is a somewhat different issue, but I think it can be argued that a "division championship" isn't really a thing. The Pac-12 media guide only lists division standings, and then uses the word champion only to refer to Champions of the conference as a whole. It only lists conference champions, and shows each school and the number of conference championships is has, but does not list the number of division wins for each team. There is no trophy, or anything. The team with the highest standing in each division participates in the Conference Championship, and that's all. As such I think it's somewhat disingenuous to use the term "Division Champion" as it doesn't seem to be something that Pac-12 uses in it's official records. There have been, admitted, a few cases of some off the cuff remarks by pac-12 officials that use the term. I have not seen it used officially. I also think I won't win that one, so I won't press it unless I get some agreement. But a more accurate term would be Divisional Representative or Divisional Winner or something of the like. Embowaf (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another editor removed "South Division Champions" from the column. Page 129 of 2014 media guide mentions winners of North and South Divisions, which I guess most people would think is synonymous with a division title if not championship. Not sure if there is an official term, per se. As for your other concerns, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Alternatives to edit warring are starting a discussion here, at WT:CFB, or WP:RFC if all else fails. Edit warring is not tolerated, and can be reported at WP:AN3 if discussions fail.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
In compliance with Wikipedia policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories) forfeited wins should be recorded as such.
In 1977, ucla forfeited 7 wins, changing their 7-4 record to 0-11 (this is 0-11 and not 0-4 because the wins were forfeited, not vacated). This is mentioned in a number of places (http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/friv/forfeits.cgi, and the end of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/03/sports/ucla-comes-east-quietly.html).
In attempting to confirm the overall record, I also discovered that some information was missing from the yearly record total. It did not match the official ucla media guide (http://www.uclabruins.com/fls/30500/pdf/14_FB_MediaGuide.pdf?&&SPSID=749897&SPID=126928&DB_OEM_ID=30500). After looking into it, I determined that this was an oversight due to interim coaches. Basically, the ucla media guide shows an almost yearly record, by showing the records of head coaches. In a few circumstances, there were multiple coaches per year. Since, this article attempts to show YEARLY record, with subsections for each coach, the subsections were shown with just the coaches records, and the total reflected the sum of the coaches records. This doesn't really make sense as it means there are a few missing games. There's no great way to make it work as it, but I think the best solution is to include the interim records with the coaches who's regime they were a part of. So that's what I've done. If anyone has a better solution, I'm all ears. Here's what's added: - In 1958, the first three games (record 1-2) were coached by George Dickerson before Barnes took over for the final 7 games - In 2002, Ed Kezirian coached the bowl game (record 1-0) after Toledo was fired - In 2007, DeWayne Walker coached the bowl game (record 0-1) after Dorrell was fired - In 2011, Mike Johnson coached the bowl game (record 0-1) after Neuheisel was fired
Overall record of missing games was 2-4, which matched the discrepancy between the media guide and the wikipedia table total (when factoring in for the 9-3 record this year not included in the media guide)
Media Guide: 574-389-37 This Year: 9-3-0 Subtotal: 583-392-37 Total (w forfeits) : 576-399-37
Finally, the infobox record was missing the vacated wins, and was out of date. Not sure exactly what was missing, but I updated it to match the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embowaf (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)