User talk:Cbl62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your work on Tip O'Neill (baseball) and other 19th-century baseball articles. Thank you. - PM800 (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The 1000 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal[edit]

Dyk1000CE.svg The 1000 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
While playing the game, Cbl62, you have scored this monumental total of DYKs to brighten up the Main Page of our encyclopaedia, and you are hereby garlanded with the community's thanks and congratulations. You are the fourth monarch of the DYK world, and its first king! Moonraker (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations from me, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well-deserved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Edgar Allen Poe.jpg The All-American award
For starting the All-American campaign. Also The picture is Edgar Allan Poe from the 1889 College Football All-America Team. You could have just clicked on the image but anyway. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

College football barnstar[edit]

College football TT USNA.jpg College football barnstar
Keep getting linking notifications from you making the useful All-Conference pages lol. Thx for your message on my page too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 350 fellow editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
Buster Seven Talk 16:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your work on Harry Heilmann and other Detroit Tigers articles. Thank you. - PM800 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

All-America Teams[edit]

Do you plan on continuing to add full All-America selections past the 1983 team? Lizard (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's a process that I've been working away at for several years. If you or anyone else wants to assist, any help would be appreciated. Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to. Looks like my account is six months old now so I should be eligible for I'll see if I can get it. Lizard (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually that looks like a hassle. I'll see what I can find with google newspapers and other sources. I'll list the ones I can find here. Lizard (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you think I should bold the official selectors' second and third teams? e.g. AP-2. I'm not sure what year the bolding started with, but there aren't any I can find as a reference. Lizard (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. The earlier articles don't use bolding to designate official selectors. My initial gut reaction is that only first-team selections by official selectors should be nominated, but let me ponder that over night. What do you think? Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think, if not get rid of the bolding altogether, we should bold all the official selectors' selections including second and third teams. Bolding the official selectors only for the first team seems a little convoluted. But I'm like 40/30/30 bold all/remove bolding/bold first-team. I do think the official selectors should be accentuated somehow. Lizard (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've worked mostly on the pre-1985 articles. In those cases, we've emphasized the distinction between official and unofficial selectors in four ways: (1) clearly stating in the lead which selectors are official; (2) putting official and unofficial selectors into different columns in a consensus chart (see 1971 College Football All-America Team#Consensus All-Americans); (3) listing the official selectors first in each player's list (see 1971 College Football All-America Team#Receivers); and (4) clearly distinguishing official vs. other in the "Key" (see 1971 College Football All-America Team#Key). The question is how many times do we have to repeat the distinction to make it clear. Cbl62 (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, somewhere along the way the consensus charts stopped. See 1994 College Football All-America Team. And then there are ones that go way off the standard format (2009 College Football All-America Team), for which I have no idea what we'll do with second and third teams. And then starting with 2010 there's only a unanimous chart. I think firstly we should firmly establish a standard with the 2015 team, for future teams to reference. Lizard (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the consensus chart for the 1971 College Football All-America Team is a pretty good model. I've experimented with a number of variations over the years and think this is pretty good. I've been slowly building them out. Cbl62 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeh a consensus chart is a must, I'd say. Unanimous picks are definitely special, but consensus is what we should be stressing. That's what we denote in Template:infobox college football team. Lizard (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

After some thinking, methinks we should only bold the first-team official selections. Since that's what's used to determine consensus selections. Lizard (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Joe F. Carr Trophy[edit]

Can you find anything that supports the claim here that the Carr Trophy is "the only MVP Award the NFL has officially sanctioned."? I'm not having any luck. Lizard (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I do know that the Carr trophy was officially sanctioned by the NFL. This is confirmed by my research in rewriting the Carr article. As for it being the only MVP award officially sanctioned, I have no sources but it seems logical since later MVP awards were sponsored by outside organizations like the AP, TSN, etc. Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I'm currently re-working the NFL MVP page to be a little less slanted toward the AP award. It's undoubtedly the most recognized today, but the page gives off the impression that it's the only award that has ever mattered. Lizard (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1934 Michigan State Normal Hurons football team[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 1934 Michigan State Normal Hurons football team requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Laxnesh LOKEN (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for a bit of help[edit]

Hey there cbl62. Given your expertise on the Wolverines and those who got in their way (and sportswriters), I thought I would ask for your help on the articles of Vanderbilt greats Innis Brown, Hek Wakefield and Gil Reese. Feels like I've just about exhausted the sources on Wakefield and Reese, but am unfortunately still left with several gaps in the biography. Several good tales of Innis Brown are stuck behind google's "snippet view". Apparently he was in awe of the size of the 1905 Michigan line. Cake (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Will take a look as soon as time permits. Trying to finish off the single season articles for EMU at the time, and one of them was just with and AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Impressive work on the Normalites. The main EMU football article has potential. Cake (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Eastern Michigan ain't no joke. Went to the LSU-EMU game last year. Was a lot closer than we bargained for. Lizard (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually I just now looked at EMU's record over the last ~20 years. I have no idea how we didn't blow them out of Death Valley. The Miles factor is a blessing and a curse. Lizard (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you especially for the second one on ol' Hek. Do you know when the "honorable mentions" start for Camp? Cake (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI, the Benny to Bennie show is now a GA. Cake (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
On Brown, did Yost have to photobomb the 1905 team picture? Cake (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC) PS Maulbetsch's article seems to have a few ref problems. Cake (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

James M. Swift[edit]

Cbl62, since you recently stubbed out the Eastern Michigan football season articles, I've been taking a closer look and cleaning up the coach bio articles for the program. I suspect that the coach of the inaugural 1891 team, James M. Swift (American football), is the same person as James M. Swift, attorney general of Massachusetts. Apparently he was a U of Michigan alum. Perhaps, you can take a closer look at this and see if you can confirm or dis-confirm my suspicion? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Will check it out. Cbl62 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Nothing definitive so far, but it appears highly likely these two articles relate to the same guy. Cbl62 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems both "guys" can be tied to Fall River High School. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Steve Van Buren's coaching career[edit]

What do you make of the tenures and teams mentioned in this and this? I'm guessing the "Newark Bears" were the Orange/Newark Tornadoes. And the Bulldogs were the Philadelphia Bulldogs (American football). It looks like Van Buren for sure was head coach of the "Franklin Miners" in the "Old Eastern Football Conference" from 1959–1960 and the Newark Bears in the Atlantic Coast Football League from 1963–1965. What became of the Franklin Miners became the "Patterson Miners" for either 1961 or 1962. I'm not sure if he was coach during the years between. It looks like he won an AFCL championship with the Bears in 1963. This all just thrust me into a world of football I never knew existed. Lizard (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Rivalry article[edit]

You've been pretty good at expanding rivalry articles in the past and establishing their notability. Is this rivalry notable? I want a user more experience in this field's opinion before I mark my !vote at the AFD nomination. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

John Henry Johnson 49ers→Lions[edit]

Can you find any details on John Henry Johnson's trade from the 49ers to the Lions? Like why he was traded, who/what was traded in return, etc. His career really took off from that point. Lizard (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Try this on his signing with the 49ers from the CFL, this and this on his trade from the 49ers to the Lions, this one on his trade from Detroit to Pittsburgh, and here is his obit from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Cbl62 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I should be able to fill in the gaps with these. Lizard (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Night Train[edit]

Don't wanna edit conflict, so reminder that Lane had a 98-yard TD reception in 1955. I discovered that when looking up Cardinals franchise records that Gaynell Tinsley still held, and I had to do a double take. Lizard (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's refreshing seeing someone else expanding these articles. I wish the project had more editors willing to contribute to actual article content. I would think that was the fun part of editing Wikipedia. Lizard (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

NFL 75th anniversary team[edit]

What do you think of the NFL 75th Anniversary All-Time Team? Do you think it's held in high enough regard by the NFL community to warrant prioritizing the articles of players listed on it? Mainly, to serve as a starting point for the greater HOF improvement campaign. I'll be honest though, I don't hear or see much about it in modern media. At least not when compared to counterparts like the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. Lizard (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty reputable and a good basis for prioritizing any improvement campaign. Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your continuing good edits. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Recognized national champions"[edit]

CFBdatawarehouse has a "recognized national champions" which maybe we can use to avoid WP:OR but not have odd MNC recognition like with 1916 Georgia Tech or 1925 Michigan. Still 1908 LSU, say, but it looks better. Cake (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna have to object to using this until I see a flag with "1908" emblazoned on it hanging in Tiger Stadium. What are we, Bama? Lizard (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Probably hard even to find a Southern champions pennant that year with Auburn claiming it. Cake (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is really only an issue in the Pre-AP Poll era. With respect to this era, I cannot support recognizing CFDW as a more authoritative source than the NCAA when it comes to which national championships should count. CFDW is one guy (David DeLassus), whose credentials and expertise are entirely unknown, expressing his personal opinion. I far prefer relying on the "official selectors" recognized by the NCAA. BTW, and even though Michigan doesn't claim it as a national champion, I really don't regard 1925 Michigan as much of an oddball; the team outscored opponents, 227-3, had five first-team All-Americans (Benny Friedman, Bennie Oosterbaan, Harry Hawkins, Robert J. Brown, and Tom Edwards), and Yost considered it "the greatest football team I ever saw in action" (i.e, superior to his Point-a-Minute teams). (If Yost's 1925 team had played 1925 Alabama, a team that had not a single first-team All-American, I'd have put my money on Michigan for sure.) Cbl62 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • One can respect that 1) it's only the pre-AP Poll era with this problem and 2) In general, the NCAA is more authoritative than CFDW. I edited the '25 Michigan article to get it to GA after nominating your work. Well aware of its credentials. It is an oddball since the team did not go undefeated nor did it win the Rose Bowl. As for who would be favored in a head-to-head matchup; I don't think that is the way to go about it. Michigan would probably have been favored over Alabama, but then so was Washington, and Dartmouth would have been favored over Michigan or just about anybody. As for All-American, Camp had just died, the "northern bias" was alive and well. Billy Evans honor roll is your best bet for including the South in any national weighing of talent. Alabama outscored opponents 297 to 26. The Tide had its own version of Friedman and Oosterbaan in Pooley Hubert and Hoyt Winslett. Got Bill Buckler and Cupe Perry and Sherlock Holmes in the line (Wade made his money for his defenses as a line coach; managed Yost pretty well in 1922.), not to mention Mack Brown and Red Barnes in the backfield. Cake (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My point is that, while it's fun to debate these things, we cannot legitimately apply our personal opinions to determine which team is the most legitimate as a national champion in the pre-AP Poll era. Nor do I think DeLassus' opinion is a valid way to go. My view remains that the only legitimate way to handle pre-AP national champions is by reference to the "official selectors" recognized by the NCAA. As for All-Americans, Camp did not have a "northern" bias. In fact, Midwesterners were among his strongest critics on account of his constant overlooking of great Midwestern players. Camp's bias in selection of All-Americans was actually an "eastern" bias in favor of the Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Dartmouth, Cornell, etc. As for Benny Friedman/Bennie Oosterbaan vs. Pooley Hubert/Hoyt Winslett, I don't think the comparison is apt. Friedman is recognized as the greatest passer of his generation, and Oosterban is likely the greatest all-around athlete in Michigan history. Cbl62 (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I respect that; just making you aware there seems a semi-official link which better fits our (or my) understanding of the history. Fair point about Camp's eastern bias, but to Southern writers it was a northern bias, as I covered on the All-Southern article. Hubert was no Friedman indeed, but considered a ruthless leader and an all-time great defensive back. Winslett was no Oosterbaan, but the South's first AP All American, and like Oosterbaan was who to throw it to in the flats. If Mack Brown got loose, it would be interesting. With all due respect to Friedman, I'd take Andy Oberlander. Cake (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Frankly I'd be ashamed if I was a BC fan to say the school claimed this one. I'd say that's worse than Bama claiming 1941, since this just looks like BC trying to put a trophy in an empty trophy case. Lizard (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

At least ND doesn't claim 1927. For the navbox, any southern national champions before 1917 look weird (i. e., wrong). So, 1908 LSU, 1913 Auburn, and 1916 Georgia Tech look silly. 1914 Texas and 1915 Oklahoma look just as strange, as do 1919 Centre, 1920 UGA, 1921 Vandy and 1922 Vandy for that matter. 1925 & 1926 Michigan perhaps less so but it would still look better without them. '33 OSU and '35 LSU and TCU as well. With the rest, I can deal. Curious if there is any stock put into e. g. in 1923 Michigan and Illinois were both national champs, and in 1924 Red Grange kicked butt, so Illinois claimed the '23 title outright. Of course, that would ruin 1917 Georgia Tech, but perhaps the war makes that different. PS two of my favorite guys took it to Leahy in 1939. Cake (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Josh Cody and Jess Neely, I'm guessing. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Cbl62: Does Yost have a particularly famous pre-game or halftime speech which you have covered in an article? Your article on the 1922 Wolverines inspired me to annoy wikipedia with my presence, and I cannot seem to get an idea on how to handle McGugin's speech before the 1921 Vandy/Texas game, his most famous. My only options seem to be tl;dr or leaving it out entirely. Cake (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing comes to mind as far as famous Yost pre-game on halftime speeches. And "annoy" is hardly the word I would choose. Perhaps "grace" is more on point. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
You flatter me. Maybe if Rockne or Heisman got expanded, I could see what to do for McGugin's oratory. PS You seem to have some interest in sports writers, and Blinkey Horn is your man for Yost-McGugin-relations-stuff. Cake (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
When you are done with Kent State, can you clarify the Phillips Haymakers? There are the Cappon and Maulbetsch articles differing in records, and a recent Afd for the navbox. Cake (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you clarify what inconsistencies you are referring to? Cbl62 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Cappon's article says they lost a game in 1919, but Maulbetsch's says undefeated with one tie. Need more Phillips seasons but I am reluctant given such cloudy history. Cake (talk)
Hmmmm ... will put it on my to do list. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Check this out. Can see the touch even there. Cake (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Perry UPI POY[edit]

Hope you don't mind me asking again, but I can't find a contemporary source for Joe Perry being UPI's player of the year in 1954. Lizard (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This article announces him as the United Press Pro Player of 1954. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Eben Wilson[edit]

Cbl, I see you moved Eben Wilson to its current title, from "Ebin Wilson", a few years back. All of the sources aside from those census records appear to refer to him as "Ebin", not "Eben". Should the article be moved back? Or maybe have an explanatory note about the multiple spellings? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I honestly have no recollection of the move. To have moved it, I must have had a good reason. Give me some time to look into this. I am circling back to some of the Point-a-Minute players and will see what I can find. Cbl62 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Steve Gleason's blocked punt[edit]

I plan on creating an article for Steve Gleason's blocked punt, but I'm not sure what to title it. I feel like "Steve Gleason's blocked punt" might be too vague, or it might imply that he was the punter. Another option is "Domecoming", but that one only seems to have developed recently. Your thoughts? Lizard (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the play but looked it up and wonder why this subject can't be adequately dealt with in the Steve Gleason and/or 2006 New Orleans Saints season. Generally, we don't allow stand-alone articles on individual games let alone individual plays. IMO a play would have to meet a very high threshold of historical importance to warrant such treatment. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In New Orleans, I promise you this play is tantamount to the resurrection of Christ. It's widely seen as the turning point in the Saints franchise. And Gleason is revered as nothing short of a folk hero. I understand that a single play must meet a significant threshold of notability. I fully believe it meets that threshold. Among other things, there's a statue of the play outside the Superdome. Lizard (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Conference season articles[edit]

Cbl62, I see you started a few new Big Ten season articles. Some of the style you're using conflicts with the other pre-existing conference season articles out there. I think it make sense to work on one article, say 1980 Big Ten Conference football season, and really hash out the format and style before stubbing a bunch of others. For one, using {{CFB Conference Schedule Entry}} for that bowl game section doesn't seem to put enough emphasis on the names of the bowl games. It's buried as a parenthetical in the site field. The more recent conference seasons used a manually rendered table for bowl games. Perhaps a new template is needed here. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A lot of what I see in the 2015 Big Ten Conference football season looks like marginal clutter. For example, the week by week detailing of each game played. My intent is not to create marginal stubs but to include core information in past season articles. Suggestions are welcome. If you can apply a bowl game format to the 1980 article, I will try to follow it for further articles. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that these articles fore more recent conference seasons are rather clutter-laden and need more thought. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Do you want to work together to try to develop the 1980 Big Ten Conference football season into a model? Cbl62 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was my thought. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent! Cbl62 (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I've given the article my initial pass. If you have comments/suggestions, let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this guy for real[edit]

Check out some of these. Cake (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

McElhenny 1952 ROTY[edit]

Can you find a contemporary source for Hugh McElhenny being NFL rookie of the year in 1952? His PFHOF page says he won it but I don't know of any entities giving that award at the time. Lizard (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Here you go. Cbl62 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like he didn't necessarily "win" a rookie of the year award, but was just generally recognized as that season's best rookie? That's what I'm taking from this. Lizard (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Conzelman[edit]

Can you explain that revert? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you edit without notifying you, but there was a discussion about this some time ago, with participants including you, me and an MOS guy (I think Tony1 or something like that). I thought the consensus from that was that where an American city has a standalone article name (e.g., Chicago, Houston, Seattle, Detroit, St. Louis), we ought not be linking it in the way you did, that it should either be Chicago, Illinois, or Chicago, Illinois, or just Chicago, but NOT Chicago|Chicago, Illinois. Can you find the link to that prior discussion? Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure the exact conversation you are talking about. Was Colonies Chris involved? Seems silly to link to the state in cases where the city is so well-known it gets a standalone name, given that we don't link to the state in cases where the city is lesser known, and the article therefore carries the state name. I don't see the problem with the Chicago|Chicago, Illinois form in an infobox field like this. In fact, it seems like the best option because it 1) direct links to the city article in question 2) doesn't overlink with a superfluous link to the state and 3) provides city, state formatting consistent with other analogous fields. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
That's how I've been doing it. One link is better than two. Lizard (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Breaking through"[edit]

Yost's book on football has a bit on "breaking through", and I wonder the term for block shedding through-the-line, or how an encyclopedia might address that (see e. g. Carlos A. Long). Cake (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term, but my guess would be the same as yours. Cbl62 (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It's probably this. Lizard (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It's more likely what Lizard suggested than this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is one source, and more my style. Cake (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

All-ACC and Big 12 teams[edit]

Is there a reason we don't have articles for yearly All-ACC or All-Big 12 teams? Otherwise, I can start them for this year. Lizard (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Jim Taylor 1962 NEA MVP[edit]

I'm here to make my weekly request of a contemporary source for an MVP winner, this time Jim Taylor winning the NEA MVP (Jim Thorpe Trophy). Lizard (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

On another note, Taylor was perhaps the meanest player that ever played. And i mean, actually mean. Cruel even. You should read some of this stuff, he was pretty heartless. Made guys cry. Lizard (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Meanest guys in NFL history would be a fun list to compile. Every generation has a few. I will look for the source you requested. Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Bueller? Lizard (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

How notable are Sporting News' football awards?[edit]

Sporting News is one of the most prolific handers out of awards in both college and the pros. Yet, I consistently have trouble finding independent sources giving any recognition to their awards. I've nearly only ever seen first-party references. National Football League Comeback Player of the Year Award#Sporting News Comeback Player of the Year award all first-party; National Football League Rookie of the Year Award#Sporting News NFL ROTY Award mostly first-party, an almanac, and a Giants blog for Beckham's win; Sporting News NFL Player of the Year Award, a first-party source and a dead link to HuffPo (nothing of value lost there, I'm sure); National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award#Sporting News none; Sporting News College Football Player of the Year one link to first-party list of winners (I've searched extensively for independent mentions of this one, to no avail); National Football League Coach of the Year Award#Sporting News NFL Coach of the Year none; American Football League Most Valuable Player Award not a single external link on the page. Additionally, Pro-Football-Reference, which is fairly inclusive, doesn't recognize any Sporting News awards. Lizard (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The Sporting News archives are available on-line for a small subscription. See here. When I was doing more baseball work, I used to buy the subscription but let it lapse a while ago. Maybe you could buy a one-month subscription and track all that stuff down. A one-month subscription is $12.95 (a lot less if you buy multiple months). Cbl62 (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, it's not that serious to me. Although the fact that we have to dig so deep to find independent sources reporting on their football awards (if there are any) seems to imply they were never given much credence. I can't find one mention of Bert Jones winning their College POY award outside of the list published by SN, and LSU's media guides. I thought it might justify his recent CFHOF induction, since everything else about his LSU career seems rather underwhelming. Lizard (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


Modern sources regurgitate that Tommy Casanova is LSU's only 3-time All-American, but our page states in 1969 he was only selected by... Football News. Who? And their picks aren't even sourced in that article. And LSU's media guide says he was an AP pick, but he wasn't even on their third team. I guess I'll have to regurgitate it as well, but I'm not comfortable about it. Lizard (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Media guides are prepared by sports information departments which are far from neutral and often have errors in assertions that its former players were All-Americans. I would trust the original source material on the AP picks rather than the media guide. Especially where the two are in conflict, the original press announcements are IMO a far more reliable source for AA status than a media guide. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
What about this "Football News"? That's my main issue. If Casanova is considered a 3-time All-American based solely on his being picked by Football News in 1969, I'd like if there was some proof. I know we're not in the business of myth busting here, but I can't in good conscience currently consider him a 3-time All-American. Lizard (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Casanova was a first-team AA pick by Football News in 1969. See here. I am not familiar with the publication, but its picks were widely reported in mainstream media. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Welp, that'll do. I guess I can sleep easy tonight. Lizard (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If I have helped one fellow Wikipedia sleep easy, I have done my job for the day! Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

All Southern team of 1922[edit]

Do we count this one? Cake (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks more like an All-Vanderbilt team than an All-Southern team. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One way to say "1906 and 1922 were Vandy's best years" is that for some the All-Southern team was the All-Vandy team. Given the scores against Vandy, I wonder how '23 Michigan would have fared against '23 Texas. Made this all the more interesting. Cake (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Even in a program's best year, the selection of an All-Southern team consisting solely of players from a single team strikes me as neither balanced nor credible. Do you disagree? As for 1923 Texas, I don't know enough to make a meaningful comparison. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, especially when it comes from a newspaper local to the team. Though 1899 Sewanee and 1906 Vandy have arguments to say it's OR to stop the possibility. Though, according to Fuzzy Woodruff, nobody's All-Southern teams were much credible until 1902 with Tichenor, and Heisman shortly after. Cake (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
PS 500 monopoly dollars and a get out of jail free card to whoever can finish the Texas Tech and William & Mary season articles. Cake (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Extremely long-term goal – NFL 75th anniversary team good topic[edit]

At the rate I work, this would likely take years, but I'm thinking of making National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team into a good topic. I've already knocked out Hutson and Van Buren, and Mean Joe is awaiting review. And you've taken care of Rosie and Night Train, both of which should be GA worthy after some polishing. I just wish there were a few more editors in WP:NFL willing to expand articles. That'd make this goal a lot more realistic. Lizard (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the current ratings for 75th anniversary players:

49 articles
Start-Class article National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team
C-Class article Sammy Baugh
Featured article Otto Graham
B-Class article Joe Montana
B-Class article Johnny Unitas
C-Class article Jim Brown
Good article Marion Motley
C-Class article Bronko Nagurski
Good article Walter Payton
C-Class article Gale Sayers
B-Class article O. J. Simpson
Good article Steve Van Buren
C-Class article Lance Alworth
Start-Class article Raymond Berry
Good article Don Hutson
C-Class article Jerry Rice
C-Class article Mike Ditka
C-Class article Kellen Winslow
C-Class article Rosey Brown
C-Class article Forrest Gregg
C-Class article Anthony Muñoz
Start-Class article John Hannah
Start-Class article Jim Parker
C-Class article Gene Upshaw
C-Class article Mel Hein
C-Class article Mike Webster
C-Class article Deacon Jones
C-Class article Gino Marchetti
C-Class article Reggie White
B-Class article Joe Greene
C-Class article Bob Lilly
C-Class article Merlin Olsen
C-Class article Dick Butkus
Start-Class article Jack Ham
Start-Class article Ted Hendricks
Start-Class article Jack Lambert
Start-Class article Willie Lanier
C-Class article Ray Nitschke
Good article Lawrence Taylor
Start-Class article Mel Blount
Start-Class article Mike Haynes
B-Class article Night Train Lane
C-Class article Rod Woodson
Start-Class article Ronnie Lott
Start-Class article Larry Wilson
Start-Class article Ken Houston
Start-Class article Ray Guy
Start-Class article Jan Stenerud
Start-Class article Billy Johnson

As I listed offense first and moved toward defense on the right, it's interesting to note the disparity in quality between offensive and defensive player pages. Roughly, the left column is skill positions; the middle column is linemen; and the right column is linebackers, defensive backs, and special teams. Of all skill positions, Raymond Berry is the only one below C class (although I'm currently working on Berry and it's probably at least up to C by now). Lizard (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • A noble, lofty, and worthy goal! Cbl62 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Stenerud's article has some potential. Been waiting for Cbl to do the NCAA leaders in kicking and punting to include the few old-timers. Cake (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

All-Conference charts on conference season articles[edit]

I supplied the height and weight and such to mimic the other charts on All-Conference articles. Was that a mistake? Maybe you could be so kind to edit one of the All-Southern charts in the way you feel is right. Cake (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. Could you provide a link? Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I am contrasting how you've handled them versus how I've handled them. Cake (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
There are a few differences in the two versions:
  • Your version uses abbreviations for position. Mine spells out the position. I don't feel strongly about this, but believe spelling out the position may be marginally better since not all viewers will necessarily understand the abbreviations.
  • My version identifies which selectors chose each person as a first-team, all-conference player. I think this is important data to include. (In the 1928 Southern case, I'd probably limit the selectors to the two big ones [AP, UP].)
  • Your version includes columns for the height, weight, class, and hometown of each player, I am on the fence; I like to see such information in rosters on the team/season articles, but am ambivalent as to whether to include these fields on the conference/season articles. Of the four columns, I'd say "class" is the most apt in the context of such a chart, but I have no real objection to including all the data fields if they can be filled in. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also your version displays the team names in bold. I'm not sure why that is. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input, and glad you don't want to brush aside e. g. hometowns on roster entirely. Again, I was mostly mimicking how it was done before by other editors on e. g. conference season pages, though I know that's not the best excuse for why e. g. the bold team. Cake (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Are they any better now? Cake (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so. Cbl62 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


Anything on why Raymond Berry's stats declined so abruptly in 1967? The snippet view of his autobiography mentions a "bad knee" but I can't see much more than that. Lizard (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Pope and Michigan[edit]

Amazing how many coaches come out of Yost, especially if you consider McGugin's tree as part of his. With your interest in sportswriters, a favorite just died. Also, an editor has been working on John Henry Wise and you might know more than I do given the Michigan game. Cake (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What say you[edit]

User:Lizard the Wizard/Pre-1961 AP MVP. Looks like it'll come down to either having a ton of explanatory notes in the article or listing multiple winners for each of the years in question. Lizard (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Lizard the Wizard: For these types of things, contemporaneous sources are the most reliable. Here's what I found:
1957 - Jim Brown was the AP Player of the Year. See here.
1958 - Jim Brown was the AP Player of the Year (for the second consecutive year). See here.
1959 - Johnny Unitas was the AP Player of the Year with Conerly finishing in second place. See here.

Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I ended up going with, with the exception of Van Brocklin. There were apparently no AP MVP stories in 1960. Lizard (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: For 1960, the AP awarded separate offensive and defensive player of the year awards. Van Brocklin was chosen as the most valuable offensive player, while Schmidt was named defensive most valuable player. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that changes everything. I don't know how you dug that up. Lizard (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC), baby! Don't know what I'd do without it. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The story is by the AP, but was it an AP award? Lizard (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I assumed so since the UPI separately reported on its choice of Van Brocklin as its MVP, and the only coverage on the Van Brocklin/Schmidt MVPs was from the AP. But you are correct that it is not as explicit as it could be. This example here (also here) says the announcement was made by the NFL Players Association. My "inference"/"guess" (i.e., possibly WP:OR) is that the AP had the Players Association pick its offensive and defensive MVPs for the 1960 season. If there were not an AP tie to the award, there would be at least some reportage in UPI or NEA sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This and this change everything. It is a UPI story reporting o the selections of Van Brocklin and Schmidt by the Players Association. This probably squelches my hunch that there was a tie between the NFLPA selection and the AP. Cbl62 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Weird. The NFLPA? I didn't know they ever gave out awards. Lizard (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Anyway, if the AP hadn't decided to be revisionists this mess wouldn't have happened. Instead of owning up to their mistake and trying to rectify it they did their best to sweep it under the rug. Lizard (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Independent source?[edit]

Since Murray Olderman (side note: wow he's still alive) created the Jim Thorpe Trophy for NEA, would, say, this be considered a primary source? As in, not sufficient for establishing notability of the Jim Thorpe Trophy? (not to be confused with Jim Thorpe Award) Lizard (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

TCC awards templates[edit]

See the navboxes at Touchdown Club of Columbus. I recently merged Sammy Baugh Trophy and Chic Harley Award into that article simply because an exhaustive search (even with found only passing mentions of a couple winners. So the if TCC's two most well-known awards are so lightly regarded, we can probably assume all those other awards are at least just as trivial. So I think we should nuke all fourteen (14) of those navboxes. I'm sure Jonathan M. "The Facebook Investigative Journalist" Weiss would agree. Lizard (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Let me start with the Baugh Trophy. One way to test your hypothesis is to compare the coverage between the four national quarterback awards:
Award Inception hits Google search hits
Sammy Baugh Trophy
Sammy Baugh Award
1959 137
Davey O'Brien Award 1977 3,824 42,900
Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award 1987 2,912 21,000
Manning Award 2004 697 58,900
So, while the Baugh Trophy is the oldest of the bunch, it does (to my surprise, actually) appear to be the most lightly covered. Accordingly, I would not be opposed to eliminating the navbox. A similar action might also be appropriate for the Unitas Award.Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I was surprised as well. It appears the TCC never received nearly as much coverage as other awards organizations like the Maxwell Club and even the DC Touchdown Club. But regarding navboxes, we've definitely been letting some questionable ones creep up for a while now. Lizard (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Now let's try the same analysis with the Harley and other national player of the year awards:
Award Inception hits Google search hits
Heisman Trophy 1935 495,315 422,000
Maxwell Award
Maxwell Trophy
1937 11,854
Chic Harley Award
Chic Harley Trophy
1955 14
Walter Camp Award
Walter Camp Player of the Year
1967 2,067
Archie Griffin Award 1999 44 4,930
Once again, the data shows that the Harley and Griffin Awards are far, far less significant than the others. Accordingly, I would not be opposed to eliminating the templates for both of them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Coverage that low would normally cause me to wonder if the award even exists at all. Especially with the rabbits you've pulled out of your hat in the past when it comes to finding sources. Lizard (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Overall conclusion: In light of the coverage, it seems pretty clear that the Harley, and Griffin awards are not absolutely "career defining" awards. I'd probably say the same about the Baugh Trophy (though it was the only national QB award in the pre-O'Brien years) and the Unitas Golden Arm Award as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yost coaching tree[edit]

At some point we have to cite each one like on Pop Warner's page. Cake (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your efforts along these lines. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. One could probably expand the Michigan section a bit using what you've already done on the "Yost era" article. Cake (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The whole Yost article needs work. It's on my "one of these days" list. Cbl62 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
So he diagrammed plays with groceries for Blinkey Horn and scenes from the Civil War with salt and pepper shakers for students. Not sure where to put that in the article. Cake (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Need to set a standard for single games[edit]

What makes a single-game article worthy for inclusion has been debated for centuries here, and it will likely continue. Is GNG such an end-all guideline that nothing else can be taken into account once it's proven to be met? At some point common sense has to trump guidelines. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Green's silly college stats[edit]

Check out the college stats table on Hugh Green (American football). Do you think that's accurate? Seeing the accolades he received, it would make sense, but those are some ridiculous numbers. 53 sacks? 24 forced fumbles? Lizard (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hugh Green is arguably one of the top defensive players in college football history. His official (here) Pitt bio says he had 49 sacks. I'm not finding a reliable source for his career stat on forced fumbles. With 48 games played, 24 forced fumbles would be a ratio of a forced fumble every other game -- impressive but not so crazy as to be unbelievable. Cbl62 (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

College football schedule score format[edit]

I'm currently in the process of reverting all of your college football edits that you made to "fix" the score format. The format it was in before you changed it is the format that has always been used for every season article for every sport, whether it be football, basketball, hockey, etc. It's a bit ridiculous to just change a few dozen articles' formats when there's literally thousands of articles with the original format.

You cited a consensus decision on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Score format to support your edits. First of all, that discussion was for NFL articles only, not college football. Second of all, there was not a consensus on changing the score format in tables, only in prose.

If you would like to have the scores in the schedule tables in your format, you can start up a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and begin changing the thousands and thousands of articles. But until then, please don't create so much inconsistency. Kobra98 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC) @Kobra98: Your mass reversion is contrary to the overwhelming consensus reached by participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 14#Score format which was linked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 18#Score format and resulted in input from multiple members of the college football project. If you had bothered to actually read the discussion, it would have been apparent to you that the consensus and discussion did explicitly apply both to (a) college football articles, and (b) schedule tables. Moreover, your suggestion that your preferred format "has always been used for every season for every sport" is simply wrong. Cbl62 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kobra98:, please cease your disruptive editing. A consensus was reached. If you have a problem take it up in a discussion first. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 05:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
You are both wrong and both need to go back to that discussion and actually read what everyone else said, not just the comments you wrote. The consensus in that discussion was not explicitly agreeing to change the format in schedule tables; there was a consensus to do it in prose.
DragonFury says he's fine with the proposal "aside from the impact on season articles." In season articles, he "prefer[s] the 'relevant team first' format that is used," i.e. the opposite of the format that you're supporting.
PeeJay says "in season articles, I don't think any changes would be made to the schedule tables."
Cbl62, X96lee15 and CrashUnderride are the only ones to explicitly say you support changing the format in NCAA schedule tables, but not a single other person says this. In fact, there's really only two comments where people are in support of changing the format in NCAA schedule tables. That is absolutely not a consensus, much less an "overwhelming" one.
"Moreover, your suggestion that your preferred format 'has always been used for every season for every sport' is simply wrong." Mind linking me proof? As far as I can see, there are tens of thousands of seasons articles across every division, every league and every sport that have schedule tables with the "relevant team's score first" format. It's simply an overwhelming majority. You cannot go in and change just a few dozen just because you and two others want to. Oklahoma Sooners football alone has schedule tables every season dating back to 1895, and as far as I know, every single one of them has the format I'm in favor of. That's just one program, in one division, in one sport. Are you going to go back and change every single one of these?
Once again, a consensus on changing the format on NCAA schedule tables was absolutely NOT reached. Only three people were explicitly in support of this. You both need to go back and read all of the comments. Kobra98 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kobra98: as I stated in the in archived discussion, it's not common place in American sports for the scored to be listed as lossing score-winning score. The format is winning score-losing score and for tables, visitor on top, home team on bottom. For examples, look at the score boxes that are displayed on CBS, Fox, ABC, NBC, ESPN, NFL Network, etc. when they are formatted that way. When they are formatted side-by-side the home team is on the right and visitors on the left. As is standard with American sports. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kobra98: @Crash Underride: Prior to the recent discussion, the schedule tables went both ways. (It was NOT all one way, as Kobra claims.) The recent discussion was an attempt to bring uniformity to the process. A consensus was reached, and I made a first step by conforming all 2016 Division I FBS season articles to that consensus. Kobra has now reverted more than 80 of those edits. In furtherance of Crash Underride's point, I note that ESPN follows the format advocated by the recent consensus (see here). So do most college football programs in their official results tables. See, e.g., (Oklahoma, Michigan, USC [click on 2016 season). Cbl62 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Crash Underride: You did not address any of my points. I understand that you think it should be done this way, but that doesn't mean you can just go and do it without actually reaching a consensus. It may not be commonplace on other sites to have the format like this, but this is definitely how it's always been on Wikipedia:WikiProject College football, in addition to pretty much any other sport on Wikipedia that uses similar schedule tables. For example, look at any college football season article from any season, or an NBA season article from any season, or NFL, or MLB.
@Cbl62: This conversation will go nowhere if you continue to refuse to back up your claims. "Prior to the recent discussion, the schedule tables went both ways. (It was NOT all one way, as Kobra claims.)" This is not true, and you have still not show me any evidence that it might be. I will not claim that 100% of them were one way, but the vast majority have been. I have personally never seen one with the format you support on any article until these past few months after you a few others decided to start changing them. If you still choose to not believe me, just look at the template used to make schedule tables on WikiProject College football. The template on the actual WikiProject College football page has the format "relevant team's score first". If this isn't enough to convince you, I don't know what is.
Again, I understand that both of you want to make the format consistent with other websites, but you must accept the fact that not only has it never been even close to consistently done this way on Wikipedia for any sport, you have also not reached a consensus in any discussion to change this. Kobra98 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kobra98: We can't "just go and do it without actually reaching a consensus"? Did you actually look at the discussion? A consensus was reached. We discussed how it is typically done for (North) American sports and European sports. We weren't going to touch European sports because there is a wide variety. However, I urge you to go to [], [], [], [], etc. and see how they format the scores, in prose and table format. I'm certain you'll see that it is "winning-losing" in prose and for tables away on the left or top and home on the right or bottom. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Crash Underride: I've said it many times but I will say it again. No, a consensus on the score format in schedule tables was NOT reached. Your original post was referring to what you had seen on "some player articles". You did not specify season articles and/or schedule tables. The format used in season articles and/or schedule tables was only mentioned by about four people; two were in favor of leaving the format as is, two were in favor of changing the format. That is absolutely not a consensus. In fact, one of the few times it was mentioned was when PeeJay was talking to you, and you didn't even disagree with him! He specifically said "In results tables on team season articles, we always put that team's score first. The change proposed by this thread should only affect scorelines mentioned in prose, not tables." Then you replied "Exactly. The tables would remain the same." So how can you possibly say that a consensus was reached? Kobra98 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kobra98: after reading that, I remember it now. I was confused when I said that the tables wouldn't be changed, for some reason I assumed that people would do the sensible thing and follow convention with away - home / away (top) - home (bottom) format, seeing as that's done in 99.999% of places for (North) American sources. I'm sorry that I actually put too much faith into people. My bad, won't happen again. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 05:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Big Ten Conference naming history[edit]

Cbl62, I know you've been busy working on the Big Ten Conference football season articles. I want to clear up some details about the naming history and conventions we want to use for the Big Ten. Template:Big Ten Conference football navbox refers to the conference as "Western Conference" from 1896 to 1916, "Big Ten Conference" from 1917 to 1946, "Big Nine Conference" from 1947 to 1950, and Big Ten again from 1951 to present. The category naming scheme at Category:Big Ten Conference football seasons doesn't match the article naming scheme. Also many of the early Chicago Maroons football season articles, e.g. 1916 Chicago Maroons football team, refer to the conference as "Western College Athletic Conference". There is a redirect from that to Big Ten Conference, but the article makes no mention of "Western College Athletic Conference". Let me know your thoughts on this. We should get things synced up. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Up until 1917, my research indicates that the common usage was "Western Conference" and should therefore be the way the articles are named. Prior to 1917, the conference had never even had 10 members. From 1917 until Chicago's full departure, and then again once Michigan State joined as a full member, "Big Ten" was the most commonly used name. The years that are most troublesome is the interim between Chicago's departure and Michigan State's arrival. In creating the conference season articles, I searched news coverage to determine what was most commonly used from year to year. Give me a few days to take another look, and let's then try to confirm what we think is best. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. For now, can we agree that "Western Conference" should be used in all cases from 1896 to 1916 and that "Western College Athletic Conference" should not be used at all? We can revisit those early post-WWII years later once we get more research. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a chart showing the "hit" comparison in The ambiguous/transition years are 1946 and 1949
Year "Big Ten Conference" "Big 10 Conference" "Big Nine Conference" "Big 9 Conference" Conclusion
1945 1,163 76 49 0 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1946 948 57 907 17 Transition year
1947 140 6 1,256 12 Clear - Big Nine/9"
1948 209 16 1,497 16 Clear - "Big Nine/9"
1949 731 146 612 2 Transition year
1950 1,285 210 106 1 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1951 1,722 225 106 1 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1952 2,057 451 77 2 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
Perhaps we go with Big Nine for 1946–47 through 1949–50 academic years, since the Big Ten actually had nine teams in those years? So the 1946 through 1949 football seasons? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't thought to do the searches by academic year. Doing it that way, and treating an academic year as September 1 to August 31, the revised results give a much clearer picture:
Year "Big Ten Conference" "Big 10 Conference" "Big Nine Conference" "Big 9 Conference" Conclusion
1942-43 1,630 80 19 2 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1943-44 1,143 60 11 1 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1944-45 1,106 57 57 2 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1945-46 1,510 91 46 0 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1946-47 152 10 1,413 25 Clear - Big Nine/9"
1947-48 158 8 1,416 12 Clear - "Big Nine/9"
1948-49 324 31 1,323 9 Leans - "Big Nine/9"
1949-50 1,144 268 134 2 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1950-51 1,743 203 105 1 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1951-52 1,450 244 107 1 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1952-53 2,459 492 79 1 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
For the 1949 season, if you focus just on football season, the count is 518 to 85 in favor of "Big Ten Conference". Cbl62 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to make sure we get this right, here are the results of a slightly different search, eliminating "conference" from the search paramaters and limiting the search to the months when football receives substantial coverage (September-December).
Year "Big Ten Conference" "Big 10 Conference" "Big Nine Conference" "Big 9 Conference" Conclusion
1943 5,685 611 165 96 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1944 7,187 674 439 136 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1945 8,268 1,159 240 111 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1946 1,756 344 10,129 1,091 Leans - "Big Nine/9"
1947 941 458 10,788 883 Clear - Big Nine/9"
1948 1,604 1,187 11,727 1,409 Leans - "Big Nine/9"
1949 11,868 4,187 1,289 489 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1950 13,363 3,007 288 707 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1951 12,584 3,523 251 802 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
1952 17,927 4,807 159 694 Clear - "Big Ten/10"
Note: In the early 1950s, there was a Westinghouse refrigerator called the "Big 9" which is the cause for most of those hits from 1950-1952.Cbl62 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The next "sticky point" in the discussion is when the term "Big Ten" supplanted "Western Conference" as the common name. This chart seeks to analyze that wrinkle with focus on the months from September to December:
Year "Western Conference" "Big 10 Conference" "Big Ten Conference" "Big Ten" Conclusion
1917 1,255 183 2 1,447 Pretty even
1918 692 94 3 c. 1,000 Pretty even
1919 1,406 187 2 1,376 Pretty even
1920 2,290 317 5 2,235 Pretty even
1921 2,865 3 305 2,813 Pretty even
1922 3,786 7 453 3,737 Pretty even
1923 2,861 5 369 3,628 Pretty even
1924 3,911 5 467 4,274 Pretty even
1925 4,306 10 484 5,488 Pretty even

These results show pretty even usage of "Big Ten" vs. "Western Conference" from 1917 through 1925 (and likely thereafter for several years as well). My suggestion in light of this is that we simply stick with the "Big Ten" usage that is already in place but include reference to "Western Conference" as well in the body of the conference articles and probably create redirects as well. Cbl62 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Overall conclusion: Keep "Western Conference" naming from 1896-1916, use "Big Ten Conference" from 1917-1945 and 1949-present, and use "Big Nine Conference from 1946-1948. Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder why usage of "Big Ten" became favorable again in 1949 if Michigan State didn't join the conference until 1950. Can see you what the numbers look like just from September to December 1949? I've cleaned up all the relevant team and coach articles for the pre-1917 era to reflect "Western Conference". I have a move discussion opened for the 1907 to 1916 season categories here. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, you already answered my question about the 1949 football season above. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's wrong?[edit]

I'll copy-paste the email I just sent to PFR:

The page which lists AP Comeback Players of the Year ([1]) appears to list Pro Football Weekly's winners, not the AP's. From what I've found through newspaper research, the AP gave a comeback POY award from 1963 to 1966 and then not again until 1998. The NFL Record and Fact Book begins listing AP winners in 1998 ([2] pg. 527). The Football Almanac's list of PFW's winners ([3]) is identical to PFR's list of AP winners, even listing multiple winners for the same years and omitting a winner in 1985. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: you're wrong. You're always wrong.</sarcasm> (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure I follow. What is the dispute? Cbl62 (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
PFR's list labels the winners on their site as "AP Comeback Player of the Year Winners" when in fact the list appears to be of the PFWA's comeback winners. The AP awarded a Comeback POY from 1963–1966 and 1998–present. Lizard (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If AP wasn't picking winners from 1967-1997, then who was? PFR didn't even exist then. Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
PFWA was, supposedly. (You may be reading PFR and PFWA as the same thing). What's peculiar though is that all sources list both the AP and PFWA awarding 2 winners in 2005 and Chad Pennington winning twice, in 2006 and 2008. It seems highly unlikely that both selectors would choose to be unconventional in the exact same years. Lizard (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Gimme a little bit of time to see what I can dig up. Cbl62 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on the AP award right now and it all looks to be correct (per the NFL record and fact book). It's the PFWA's winners that I'm unsure of. Lizard (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
OK. Happy to check anything if you want. Cbl62 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just finished: Associated Press NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award. I wonder if there's a reason it took the AP so long to pick the award back up. Or why they stopped awarding it in the first place. I couldn't find anything. Lizard (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Hawthorne: GNG?[edit]

Do you think Jim Hawthorne, LSU play-by-play radio guy from 1983–2016, passes GNG? I can find a ton of local stories but not many national headlines. Most of the national news concerns his going missing during the flooding in Baton Rouge last year. Lizard (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a clear GNG pass to me. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That'll do. I've heard many an LSU fan say they'd mute the TV broadcasters and turn on the radio to listen to Hawthorne call games. His most famous calls were the only walk-off home run in College World Series history and the Bluegrass Miracle . Lizard (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Michigan fans used to do that (mute the TV) and listen to Bob Ufer as well. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Early forgotten(?) AP awards[edit]

I've noticed that every list for AP NFL Comeback Player of the Year begins with 1998's winner, despite contemporary newspapers announcing winners from at least 1963 to 1966 clearly identified as being chosen by the AP (see that Wikipedia article). Similarly, newspaper accounts show the AP giving an overall Rookie of the Year award as early as 1959, but these are also not on any list. How do I go about this without committing original research? Lizard (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Don't have good answer off top of my head. I'll take a closer look in the next couple days. Cbl62 (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the Record and Fact Book retroactively considers the overall rookies of the year as offensive rookies of the year, since it was always won by an offensive player I guess. Still not sure what to do with the early comeback players of the year, and it doesn't help that PFR still lists the wrong selector's winners on their site. Lizard (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I looked at how you handled the early picks at AP NFL Comeback Player of the Year. You've included sourcing for your picks, and it looks good. Strange that there was a 30-year gap in this award. If additional years can be solidly sourced, I would see no reason not to add them. Will take a look at ROY later. Cbl62 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Albion football coaching history[edit]

Cbl62, I think there are some errors in Albion's coaching history, as listed on their own site. They have "Gill" as coach for 1912, "Carpell" for 1913, and "Kennedy" for 1914. Gill appears to be Thomas Andrew Gill; I've done a bunch of work to expand that article in the past day. Carpell is Otto Carpell and Kennedy is Walter S. Kennedy. Gill appears to have been coaching at Lombard College in 1912 and then came to Albion in 1913. The NCAA database lists "Andrew Gill" as Albion's basketball coach in 1913–14. Carpell appears to be have been coaching at Olivet College in 1913 and then Albion in 1914 per and Maybe Kennedy was actually Albion's football coach in 1912 and not in 1914? I thought maybe you could see what you could did up to clarify all of this? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse links[edit]

Why don't we just TFD the template instead of removing those links one by one? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

OK by me. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated the template for deletion here. No need to go manually article by article and delete the instances of it. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Great. I supported the deletion. If the template is deleted, won't we still need to go through each article to remove the template? Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
No, the bot (User:SporkBot, I believe) will sweep through and delete all instances. See the second-to-last edit at Mel Tjeerdsma. Although I wonder what happens in cases where the the CFBCR link is the only external link. Does the section heading get deleted too? We would want that rather than an empty external links section. I'm not sure what happens in that case. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) search queries[edit]

If you were looking for, say, a list of UPI's football All-Americans for the 1991 season, what would you type into the search bar on You must know a secret method I'm not aware of. Lizard (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you having access to premium is probably the secret. Free access through Wikipedia is severely limited when it comes to the obscure stuff. Lizard (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's all trial and error. A lot of ways to go about it. In this case, we know the UPI picks from 1991 College Football All-America Team; I picked three with unusual names (darby jurkovic detmer), added UPI as further search term, and limited the search to Dec 1991. Doing that, I found this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Unanimous AA draft[edit]

I've been working on a list of all-time unanimous college football All-Americans here. I had actually started it around a year ago but dropped it when I noticed discrepancies between the lists on Sports Reference, the list in the NCAA record book, and contemporary sources (shocking). I decided to go strictly with the players we have listed as unanimous selections on the respective All-America Team Wikipedia pages. Lizard (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discrepancies are really frustrating. I wonder if contacting the people who compile those All-Americans for the NCAA would do any good. They've probably just been copy-pasting for the past 30 or so years and never even paid mind to how accurate they are. A few can be attributed to errors on our part, but many of them are inexplicable, such as not listing Cannon in 1959 or Mike Vaughan in 1976 as unanimous. As far as those years go, "unanimous" has always meant merely being selected to the first team by every official selector, right? Lizard (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding as well. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Finally finished the list: List of unanimous college football All-Americans. I'll need to individually source the ones that aren't in the NCAA record book. What I took away from this was that Oklahoma has either had a lot of good running backs, or sportswriters have a love affair with Oklahoma running backs. Lizard (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that the NCAA only counts selections of a player at a single position? Rather than every selection at any position. For example, Shane Conlan was on all 5 teams but isn't listed as unanimous by the NCAA. He was a defensive end on the AFCA team and a linebacker on the other 4 teams.[4][5][6][7]. That still wouldn't explain Brian Bosworth for that same season though, who was picked as a linebacker by all 5 selectors and isn't listed as unanimous. Lizard (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That's possible, but doesn't seem to make much sense. If someone was chosen as a first-team AA by every official selector, it's hard to argue persuasively that the person is not a unanimous selection. Cbl62 (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mack Supronowicz.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Mack Supronowicz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Quentin Sickels (1948).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Quentin Sickels (1948).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 10 years ago...[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Cbl62. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Lepricavark (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The mystery of 1960 AP awards[edit]

I've known for a while thanks to Pro Football Journal and my own searching that there are no newspaper accounts to be found for the AP's NFL MVP in 1960. But it also appears that this applies to every AP NFL award for 1960. See Associated Press NFL Rookie of the Year Award and Associated Press NFL Coach of the Year Award; I'm able to find a newspaper account for every single year except 1960. Very odd. Lizard (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Come and join us at the Wiknic[edit]

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Hoyt 1928.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Charles Hoyt 1928.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Another editor might need some help[edit]

Hi there cbl62. I am looking for another editor who might know a bit more about talking to admins and whatnot. It seems User talk:SportsEdits1 is having problems with account and is looking for help. I would appreciate if you could take a look. Cheers. Cake (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A number of persons have already jumped in that. Per those comments, it is alleged that SportsEdits1 is a sockpuppet and that this conclusion is supported by technical data. A number of the comments already there outline the process he needs to follow in order to have the block lifted. Not sure I can add more to the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for spelling it out for me. Cake (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

1980 in Michigan[edit]

Hi, you probably already know but song titles are to be put in quotations, not italicized. Albums get italicized though. Thanks :) --Jennica / talk 01:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Renfrew-Wakabayashi.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Renfrew-Wakabayashi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tubby Raymond (1950).jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Tubby Raymond (1950).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Emil Liston[edit]

Cbl, I'm doing some editing on Emil Liston, which you expanded back in 2010. You had him attending and playing football at Michigan College of Mines, sourced to a 1919 NY Times articles that I cannot view. Other sources (e.g. the 1949 obit I just added) indicate the he attended and played at Baker College. Seems he coached at Michigan Mines in 1916. Can you check that 1919 NY Times source and see if you made a mistake or if the sources are in conflict? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't access the New York Times article currently, but here is another source for the same fact. I did find another article identifying him as the athletic director at Michigan Mines. Perhaps he was both a player, coach and administrator for Michigan Mines. As you have both seen, that was not unheard of in the early years of college football. Cbl62 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. that was more common in the 1890s, but not as common by the mid 1910s. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Not as common but Michigan Mines was a smaller program, so it's not so hard to believe. We do have two reputable sources (New York Times and New York Tribune) saying he played for Michigan Mines. Cbl62 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The Michigan Tech website only has football results going back to 1920; see Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, here is the source I mentioned saying that he was the athletic director at Michigan College of Mines from 1916 to 1918. Cbl62 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


I enjoyed reading your most recent article on Michigan.:Best Regards,

  Bfpage  let's talk...  23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Jim Smith[edit]

Possibly because he has the most generic name in history, I'm having trouble finding anything on Jim Smith, LSU's baseball coach from 1966–1978. Lizard (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ehh never mind. I've got the basics. Lizard (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)