add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
South Bend :: Football Weekends :: College Football Hall of Fame ci.south-bend.in.us | Football Goals, Argos Sports Garden Football Goals, Football Traing Aids argos-sports.co.uk | Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com |
[edit] New roster templateA few weeks ago, I created a roster template for college basketball articles (like this) based on a similar template for NBA articles. I really liked the functionality that allowed you to sort by various attributes. I was thinking about bringing this over to the CFB world but the number of players on a team was definitely a hurdle. I knew I couldn't have each player on one row and so I knew I couldn't have as much info about each player (no height/weight, home town, etc). But then how best to break up the columns. I thought about leaving the structure the way we do it now where we pretty much break it up by each position. But that would be too difficult to code. So I figured the easiest way to break it up would be offensive players, defensive players, and special teams (obviously the latter column would be incredibly short compared to the other two). So, what we lose in dropping the numerous separate categories, we regain with the ability to sort by position. Then I had to figure out how to code this multi-column list as it couldn't be done the same way as the CBB template. So, I think I got it all finished now. I have used the new template in the 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team article, so check it out and let me know what you think. I have parameterized the year column so it can be dropped and used in an NFL article (I'll let the NFL project know later). I will work on the help documentation tomorrow but you can get a good feel for how it works by looking at the example above. I think it ended up a little longer than the old format, but again, I love having the ability to sort (I did compact it a little to save a bit on vertical space).
—NMajdan•talk 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, just coming to this discussion after (oops) creating my own template which I'm testing on 2009 Central Michigan Chippewas football team. This template ({{NCAAFootballTeamRoster}} is based on the existing bare html and the roster templates used for professional baseball (e.g. {{MLB roster}}). Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Templates for team seasons of a conference for a given yearIt seems to me that templates such as Template:2009-10 Big Ten football teams that list the team seasons of a conference for a given year aren't really needed if we have a standings template for that conference year, e.g. the analogous Template:2009 Big Ten football standings, that provides all the same links and conveys additional information as well, i.e. the records, standings, championships. What do others think? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Conference awardsDo we need a template for conference awards and honors? Alternatively, a new section could be added at the bottom of Template:College Football Awards. I can only find Big Ten Conference football individual honors and Big East Conference football awards using Category:College football awards. I am not sure if no other conferences have pages or if they are just not categorized.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC) A new section in the existing Template:College Football Awards sounds like a good idea, but it probably makes sense to build out the pages for the other FBS conference awards, or at least the other four BCS conferences, first. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] One comprehensive season templateInstead of having 13 different nav templates for this FBS season – one for each of the 11 FBS conferences (such as this), one that links to each conference season, and one for the bowls – I've taken the liberty of creating one central template that navigates the entire season. I left it here in my sandbox so everyone can check it out first. What does everyone think of just redirecting all of the various 2009–10 season templates to this or a similar, comprehensive nav template? Other sports WikiProjects have created nav templates this large, such as Template:2009–10 in English football and many other large soccer-related templates. However, I was thinking that one way to condense the CFB season template would be to eliminate team nicknames and leave only the school name to display. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New bot requestI have requested a bot that would go through various templates and replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) in certain parameters. Any other suggestions, approval or even disapproval would be appreciated. Also, if I missed any template, please add it to the list on the Bot request page. Thanks.—NMajdan•talk 16:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Winning percentage calculatorI needed one for a list I was making because I was too lazy to do the math myself, so I created a template to do it for me (that probably took 5x as long as it would've taken me to just do the math myself, go figure). Its there if anyone else needs it. {{Winning percentage}}.—NMajdan•talk 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Popular pages issueSo it doesn't look like our popular pages listing got created for this month. We'll definitely get it next month. In the meantime, you can see the 100 most popular CFB articles in December here (updated daily). That should suffice for this month. This highest article that is actually CFB-related (as opposed to NFL or other former players/coaches) is Bobby Bowden. The highest ranked currently active player is...drum roll please...Tim Tebow.—NMajdan•talk 21:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New York and college football(I asked this question over on WP:Reference desk/Entertainment, but I thought I'd also ask over here since that RefDesk seems rather music-dominated, and there might be more people knowledgeable about college football on this WikiProject talk page.) Why is the state of New York so bad at college football? This result is surprising considering that New York has at least two strong reasons to be good at college football: First, American football is certainly a very popular sport in New York. Consider that it has not one or two but three professional teams: the New York Giants, the New York Jets, and the Buffalo Bills. Second, New York has the third-highest population of any state in the United States, so there should be a large pool of high school players from which New York colleges can recruit. Consider that almost all the other high-population states have historically elite or near-elite college football programs (this list is descending by population):
Who does New York have? The Syracuse Orange? The Army Black Knights? The Buffalo Bulls? Even if we include New Jersey (as right next door to NYC and where the Giants and Jets are actually based), we only get the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. Putting it charitably, these are not exactly elite football programs. So why is New York so bad at college football, considering that they should have popularity and population advantages over most other states? I can account for Army's weakness -- being a military academy makes for stringent admission standards which make it difficult to recruit an elite football team. But the question is why New York doesn't have elite state university system football programs like other high-population states do. —Lowellian (reply) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] List of Big 12 coaches Featured TopicOne of my long term goals is to create a coaches list for each Big 12 school (then maybe start branching out) and get all of them up to Featured List status. List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches is the only one I've completed so far. However, I just nominated List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches (nomination here). Any comments would be appreciated. Also, if anyone else wants to help, please feel free. Use one of the two articles above as templates. —NMajdan•talk 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New template requestI am writing the Tai Streets article and realize it would be good if Bowl games had a link like {{cfb link}} that would link to the general bowl game article until the specific year article is created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] All-American in infoboxThere is discord among the editors of Brandon Graham about how to discribe his All-American Status in his infobox. The disagreement is between whether it should say
According to the five lists that are recognized by the NCAA he is a consensus second team All-American with no first team recognition. His only first team recognitions are by "unofficial" lists that do not count towards consensus or unanimous AA status. I feel it provides disinformation to the reader to describe a consensus second team player with no official first team recognition as "First-team All-American". Opinions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Overhaul of List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiumsI have begun a little overhaul of the above list as the current list is a little messy and doesn't sort correctly. This was discussed ad nauseum on the article's talk page. I'm doing several things in this overhaul, including verifying the numbers that we currently have are either accurate, up-to-date and/or verified by the source (I've already found several discrepancies). Also, I'm archiving the sources and switching to LDR reference format. At my current pace, I'll have the list ready to go in 2011, so any help would be appreciated. With the season almost over, I'm sure we'll all have a bit more time to devote to these articles. The development page for the list is here: Talk:List of NCAA Division I FBS football stadiums/Dev.—NMajdan•talk 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Heisman Trophy templateNot sure which (if any) of you may have the {{Heisman Trophy}} template on your watchlist, but I just made a suggestion on the talk page and would like some feedback (either here or there). :) – Latics (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] TFA nomination for 2000 Sugar BowlJust a heads-up I nominated 2000 Sugar Bowl for Today's Featured Article for January 4, the ten-year anniversary of the game. I thought this especially appropriate since Bobby Bowden is retiring three days earlier. The request can be found here. –Grondemar 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Suggestion: MWC to auto-bid and national championship game selection: Boise State, or Tulsa + Houston; Colorado and Iowa State/Kansas State; Washington State?MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. Suggestion: MWC to auto-bid and national championship game selection: Boise State, or Tulsa + Houston; Colorado and Iowa State/Kansas State; Washington State? MWC's strategy to become a legitimate auto-bid conference: add Boise State, or Tulsa and Houston if BSU declines; invite Colorado, who has major incentive to join; add, ideally, one (or two) more auto-bid conference schools, e.g. Iowa State, Kansas State, or Washington State; let weakest football programs (New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV) break off to re-join the WAC. The first objective of the conference would be to add strength. The conference is notoriously weak below the top 3, stealing legitimacy from their undefeated records. Act I: invite Boise State to join the conference. This is a no-brainer for the MWC, and has already been rumored, as noted in the MWC and Boise State Wikipedia articles. The addition of BSU, while not increasing Conference depth, builds a top-of-the-conference that is on par (arguably) with several automatic bid conferences, specifically: the ACC, Big East, and (this will incur more debate) Big 10. The caveat is that BSU may have no interest: their current setup is ideal. They play in a terrible conference and have a legitimate shot to go undefeated and play in a BCS game every year. If Boise declines, the next action is to invite Houston and Tulsa from C-USA. Each school would add strength to the conference, and both have considerable incentive to join. C-USA has a lot of depth now, but it's unwieldy. Tulsa, especially, has been good for awhile, and would benefit markedly from the opportunity to jump to a smaller, stronger conference. They could win 6-8 games and get a better bowl game. Houston would have similar incentive. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU TCU Boise State OR Tulsa Houston The strength of the top of the conference would be enough that,if any school were to run the table in the MWC, they would have a legitimate case to have a shot at the National title game. However, the additions would not necessarily (in my opinion, would NOT) be enough to earn the conference an automatic bid. To gain that status, the conference would need to strengthen its depth. Happily for the conference, there are several big-name schools close to the region that, in my opinion, would find serious motivation to join a conference with those four or five teams at the top. Act II: Invite Colorado. The Conference would benefit greatly from adding a big-name, automatic-bid conference school. Colorado would have a lot of incentive to jump: they've been bad now for over a decade, with no end in sight; they compete in an insanely deep conference; the MWC is actually a better regional fit; and their addition to the established, strong programs above would likely bump the MWC into auto-bid territory. Colorado would have a better opportunity to compete and build while still living in an auto-bid conference. It'd be win-win. If Colorado were to make the jump, I would expect at least one other Big 12 North school to want to join them--perhaps Iowa State or Kansas State, which currently struggle to be competitive in the Big 12. If Boise State joins, the MWC should also consider extending an invitation to Washington State University. WSU's program is in the dumps; WSU is also closer in size and culture to the Mountain West schools than the Coastal and California schools. Its incentive would be similar to the Big 12 North schools. The addition of one or two of these schools would add significant depth and legitimacy to the conference, filling out the middle of the 'pack'. Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State
Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses.Mwcadv (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Auto-bid conference teams jumping may seem far-fetched, but the MWC is actually in great position to build a strong conference, and these teams have significant incentive to join an auto-bid conference that would be not as strong as the Big 12 or Pac 10. As UTAH, BOISE STATE, BYU, and TCU demonstrate annually, there is considerable talent to be found in the region, and the conference is the 'only game in town' for an entire region of the United States. The MWC is a better geographical fit for several auto-bid conference schools. The fact that those schools have struggled for some time now in extremely deep conferences gives further incentive to move to a conference in which they might have a better shot to be competitive and vie for BCS bowl-game bids and shots at the national title. For several reasons, adding Colorado, e.g., would benefit the conference far more than adding Fresno State. The top of the conference would then be Utah BYU Colorado Boise State Washington State TCU Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State
Utah BYU Colorado TCU Houston Tulsa Iowa State Wyoming Air Force Colorado State The remainder of the conference is UNLV, New Mexico, and San Diego State. Given their location, school-size, and weak football programs, I suspect all three might be tempted to take their chances in the WAC. If the PAC 10 loses WSU, they may extend UNLV an invitation to replenish conference depth. The Big 12 could drop to 10 teams and renew the round-robin format, or look to add a couple of teams. At the end of these moves, the MWC would become a 10 or 11 team conference with good strength, a lot of depth, and several big-name schools. It would make a rock-solid case for an automatic BCS bid and, over time at the very least, build credibility to produce teams that are selected to play in the national championship game. This would be a qualitative leap for every school that is currently in the conference. Schools in non-auto-bid conferences are unable to offer coaches the opportunity to compete for championships or build consistently national-caliber programs. Thus they frequently struggle to retain excellent coaches. A robust conference would enable these schools--who have clearly demonstrated that they have the resources and infrastructure to build consistent excellence--to retain talent and build consistency, increasing profile and revenue. The strategy above adds significant strength at the top and considerable depth to the conference, without overwhelming the 3 schools who have consistently dominated the conference. Fresno State and a handful of strong c-usa teams likely would want to join the conference; however, the perils of building a conference out of excellent mid-major teams is that the conference 'beats itself up', failing to produce teams with 1 or 0 losses.Mwcadv (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwcadv (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Moving Brian Kelly (American football coach) to Brian KellyI have requested that Brian Kelly (American football coach) be moved, because I believe this article is the primary topic for "Brian Kelly." I would appreciate the comments of my fellow editors on its discussion page. Thank you in advance. --Pgp688 (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Leach's coaching statusNot wanting to get in a revert war, I'm bringing this here. In light of Leach's suspension from Tech, another editor added the DC as the head coach at Template:Big 12 Conference head football coaches. I feel that Leach is still the official head coach as he has not been fired, but suspended. I reverted the change to the template, restoring Leach as the coach but the editor reverted it back. What are the thoughts of others on this issue?—NMajdan•talk 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
