Talk:Ohio State Buckeyes football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio State Buckeyes football is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 BCS Record 2 Academic Award Winners 3 Rivals 4 Lists and tables 5 Please clarify! 6 2002 National Championship 7 Peer Review script recomendations

[edit] BCS Record

I changed tOSU's BCS bowl record from 3-0 to 4-0.

• 01-01-1999, Sugar Bowl: Ohio State 24, Texas A&M 14
• 01-03-2003, Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 31, Miami (FL) 24 (2 OT)
• 01-02-2004, Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 35, Kansas State 28
• 01-02-2006, Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 34, Notre Dame (IN) 20

[edit] Academic Award Winners

I feel that it would be a nice addition to include a section highlighting players who have won major, national academic awards: i.e. Academic All-American, National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame Scholarship Winners and Mike Lanese for winning a Rhodes Scholarship

[1] --Sam Harmon 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rkevins82 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Buckboard 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivals

Are the Illinois Fighting Illini really considered rivals? I am not sure of the historical significance, but I haven't seen a heated Ohio State vs. Illinois game in 15 years. Yinfeng.shao 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is referring to the small information box at the top of the page, not the Rivalries section. Yinfeng.shao 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it isn't very competitive, it's still one of the traditional rivalries in the Big Ten. Xombie 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say Penn State is more of a rival these days. Might want to add that, or change Illinois to PSU. Ladanday 06:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Illinois/Ohio State rivalry has historical importance, but I fear it is no longer very relevant. When Penn State was added to the conference, every team was given two designated rivals. Designated rivals were teams to be played every year, with other conference teams occasionally rotated out of the schedule. Due to geography, and the request of Joe Paterno, Penn State was named one of Ohio State's designated rivals. The effect of this decision was that Illinois and Ohio State fell off each other's schedules in 2003 and 2004, ending the longest-standing continuous annual rivalry for either team, going back to 1914. ChicJanowicz 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it isn't much of a rivalry these days, they do still play for Illibuck, I think you have to consider it a rivalry. I know that isn't much of a philosaphy, but I see any teams that play for a trophy like that as rivals.

I would prefer to see Illinois listed as the rival. Rkevins82 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider Penn State a rival. If we asked 100 people to name a rival, 100 would say "Michigan." That says it all. Showing only one rival on this page would make a statement, The Statement.

Well, if I was one of those 100 people, then count one vote for Penn State. As a school, they haven't been in the conference for that long (about 13 years if I remember correctly & we won the first official conference meeting...) BUT -- this is a big but -- Pennsylvania has always been our neighbor to the east, and Penn State has been leeching talent from the State of Ohio for years. That, along with the fact that OH and PA are two of the nation's biggest football states, and that football between the two states at every other level has enjoyed a significant rivalry (see Steelers vs. Browns in the NFL and the Big 33 Game at the high school level), well, then PSU is a natural fit -- especially when it comes to their preconceived notion of dominating the Big Ten without a thought to OSU and UM. Ryecatcher773 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists and tables

I will be taking the long lists, including coaching staff, MVPs, all-Americans, and making them tables for easier reading.--Buckboard 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please clarify!

In the following paragraph: "Over the next 6 seasons Ohio State finished no higher than 2nd, and had a losing season in 1966, although it did beat Michigan four times. When it lost three of its first five games in 1967 (all at home), public speculation that Hayes would be replaced as coach grew to its highest point since 1953. Jack Park, author of the program's official history, states that decision to turn down the Rose Bowl had "strongly impaired...OCU's recruiting within its own state"

Can any please clarify what "OCU" stands for?--140.254.115.72 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)]

Typo--"OSU"--changed and clarified--Buckboard 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 National Championship

We desperately need a write-up of the championship season, especially the BCS Championship game against Miami. That game in particular has been described by Sports Illustrated and ESPN as one of the best college football games ever! Can we please get something written and approved?

Before the year is out I will finish the history section if I have to do it myself. I had hoped by doing the older history that others might pick up the ball and run with it (no pun intended) but that has not been forthcoming. As pointed out below, this is very very long and needs many subjects farmed out to main articles, starting with the history. But I'd like to finish it before we do that. This has been a labor of love but the emphasis has become labor.--Buckboard 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review script recomendations

This article is long and detailed and I thought it might be worth trying to improve the overall quality for GA or FA status. I ran AndyZ's peer review script and here are the results:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 87 yards, use 87 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 87 yards.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is LB.
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
• There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • arguably
  • many considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As the initiator of this article I appreciate the advice. My biggest suggestion would be my original one: complete the history, make it a main article elsewhere, and use a brief summary of it here. that alone would reduce the size considerably. Make tables of some of the ponderous lists, esp. bowl games, where more data could be incorporated. Take others and make them main articles also. I did not start this with any thought of GA or FA, but I welcome any and all suggestions to improving it.--Buckboard 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)