Talk:Directional Michigan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 Sept 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
Directional Michigan 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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.See comments |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Creation notes
While this isn't the most positive term for the three schools, it's used very commonly in college football news articles and in discussion among fans. I've tried to make it as fair and informative as possible. --Bobak 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Update to article
I updated the article to reflect the recent successes of "Directional Michigan" and removed the text that really has nothing to do with the schools or the term. X96lee15 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, I realize you're effort to illustrate their recent success and I apologize for mistakenly removing it altogether over another issue. I actually started this article after the WMU upset of UVA and CMU's near-upset of BC early in the 2006 season. I agree it's interesting to show how dismissive comments by the general college football press/fanbase towards mid-major schools can be disproved with these experiences (like Utah and Boise State's experience in the Fiesta Bowl). At the same time, I think the article is better served by explaining why the term exists, the reason for the (mis)perception and how the schools have defied it. As such it would present a much more compelling article. Thoughts? --Bobak 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I didn't notice the AfD nomination, so I obviously didn't vote. I do not think this term is wikipedia-worthy, but since it "passed" (with no consensus), I'll try to make the best of it. As I said, I believe the term was coined in 2004 when CMU, EMU and WMU were sucking. If you can find a reference to it prior to that season then I'll change my tune. As for the mid-major talk, I do not believe it has anything to do with the term "Directional Michigan" except the fact that each of the schools are non-BCS schools. That's why I don't think the mention to "mid-major" and why the schools are scheduled and how they fare vs BCS schools is relevant to the article. I think all that talk should be kept in the "mid-major" article. As I said, if you can find proof that the term existed before 2004 and was coined for a reason other than to describe the collective suckiness of the schools, then I may change my stance, but until then I'm going to revert the article to my previous version. X96lee15 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, your explanation is equally as problematic, and your stance is radically different and far less informative than the previous one. The article as it reads now only serves to demonstrate how the Directional schools are better than the dismissive term. There is no certainty that the ESPN.com article was the first usage, so citing as such is equally as flawed since there's no citation or claim to it being the first usage. --Bobak 00:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the AfD nomination, so I obviously didn't vote. I do not think this term is wikipedia-worthy, but since it "passed" (with no consensus), I'll try to make the best of it. As I said, I believe the term was coined in 2004 when CMU, EMU and WMU were sucking. If you can find a reference to it prior to that season then I'll change my tune. As for the mid-major talk, I do not believe it has anything to do with the term "Directional Michigan" except the fact that each of the schools are non-BCS schools. That's why I don't think the mention to "mid-major" and why the schools are scheduled and how they fare vs BCS schools is relevant to the article. I think all that talk should be kept in the "mid-major" article. As I said, if you can find proof that the term existed before 2004 and was coined for a reason other than to describe the collective suckiness of the schools, then I may change my stance, but until then I'm going to revert the article to my previous version. X96lee15 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- :sigh: My edit is "far less informative" because the term "Directional Michigan" doesn't mean all that much. It's a derogatory used to group CMU, EMU and WMU, and NO OTHER REASON. Not because they are non-BCS schools, that's just a coincidence. All the non-BCS discussion in the article belongs in the mid-major article, and not here. It's not accurate to single out these three schools that face the non-BCS disadvantages that all non-BCS schools face. X96lee15 01:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
