Talk:Auburn Tigers football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
football
College football Portal

Auburn Tigers 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.
Assessment Comments

Contents

[edit] SEC Western Division Champions

Each Southeastern Conference division can have more than one champion in a given year. The champion moniker is given to the team or teams with the best record. The conference then uses a tiebreaking formula to determine which team goes to the SEC Championship Game.

As of 2005, Auburn has been champion of the western division six times. They have won the tiebreaker to go to the SEC Championship three times.

68.159.168.46, please stop reverting this article and the Auburn University article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

After 68.159.168.46's most recent reverting at 14:53, 6 December 2005, I'm thinking about requesting page protection for the article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What we need to do is get page protection for U of Alabama pages, Auburn pages, Iron Bowl, etc... Can't tell you how many times I've had to revert. AlaGuy 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned anything about the recent article in the NY Times on the Auburn athletes called "Top Grades and No Class Time for Auburn players." I'm also surprised that no one has mention that Auburn leads the SEC in NCAA violations. Besselfunctions 17:07, 23 August 2006

Well, I'm not that surprised. Admittedly, I wrote most of this article and was not seeking out info of the sort, but upon review, Texas, USC, Alabama, and every other program's football/athletics articles do not mention their past NCAA troubles either. Most likely fans would edit the info out anyway, to the point where we have a polar edit war going, but if you think it is necessary (and appropriate), by all means start a section to talk about the issue (include reputable reference links like NCAA.org). I doubt the validity of your claim that Auburn leads the SEC in NCAA violations. They have never had to forfeit past games for cheating (unlike several other SEC schools) and as far as I know the last NCAA violation/probation was in early 1990's (went into effect 1993) from the Eric Ramsey tape (a coach helped set up a loan). MANY other programs have had more recent indescretions with no mention so not sure why to single out Auburn on old stuff? Not to mention the lack of reputable sources for these "facts". Concerning the NY Times article, from what I read, there were no violations committed and no NCAA investigation looming. It was based on an internal memo whistleblowing by an AU professor complaining of the overcrowding of classes (Auburn has grown attendance rapidly with little/no increased faculty).[1] On top of that, only about 10% of the students taking that "directed-reading" class in question (only for seniors needing a few hours to graduate on time where other classes were full) were athletes (let alone football players). So if anything that is an indictment on the rapid growth (and perhaps questionable academic practices for those overcrowded majors) of AU recently and not necessarily the football program per se. The AP reported weeks ago that an internal investigation had cleared all the athletic programs - that is the last I've heard of it.[2] Again, I have no association to Auburn other than living in the state, but that is how I see it. I welcome other non-biased opinions. otduff (talk/contribs) 21:00, 25 August 2006
I'm bias towards Bama, but, I'm gonna offer and unbias opinion. I don't think that the info has to be on there about the bad stuff. It would start an editing war, but, that's not why I don't think it needs to be there. But, like you said, if someone wants to start a section and take care of it, more power to'm. AlaGuy 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm also biased toward Bama, and I have to agree. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news agancy. If any action is taken against the university, then perhaps it would warrent addition to the article, but until then all we have is a newpaper article. Even if action is taken against the university, it would be for acedemic reasons and not athletic and any mention would belong on the main article for the univeristy and not its football page.76.18.100.128 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I admit my UGA bias, it seems like Auburn is the only college football team that doesn't have a Controversy section. In fact, most teams have just about every individual scandal or violation in the history of the program. (I don't know who could have possibly remembered the Jan Kemp scandal to put it on the UGA page.) The NY Times story was pretty highly publicized, so I don't see why it doesn't belong on the page. User:Saget53 18:37, 4 January 2007 {UTC)
Well, on the Bama article it talks about the probatoin. Why not include just a small bit, I guess. Might as well. Putting Bama out of my mind though, maybe we shouldn't try and make Auburn look like there's NOTHING bad about it. Everything there isn't good, same goes for every other university in the world. AlaGuy 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Saget, you do overstate the case when you say "only college football team that doesn't have a Controversy section" when a quick look at just the SEC reveals LSU, Tennessee (Tutorgate?) and Florida (Charlie Pell anyone?) without a single negative word in their football articles. Plenty of people remember Jan Kemp (myself included), a scandal that was far more significant than the NYTimes article - your implied comparison of the situations smacks of recentism. Generally speaking though, the UGA article is more thorough than this and most other team articles; almost of the team articles suffer from a positive bias because they are usually created and maintained by alums and fans, who are naturally more inclined to write about the good rather than the bad. I personally work hard to maintain an NPOV even on articles where I have inherent or apparent bias (e.g. I've kept references to Dye's probation from being removed from his article) so I'm fine with adding appropriate information on major violations like that in the UGA article and even a small comment on the NYTimes article (you'll find I crafted an appropriate version on the Carnell Williams page because was trying to use it negatively against him). I'll even do it, but it goes on my To Do list with a bunch of other items. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I must admit, I'm pretty surprised to see just how few teams actually have controversy sections. Either I'm the only UGA fan on Wikipedia, or UGA fans are the only ones that don't constantly delete anything negative about their team or their players. I say that because I have tried before finding this discussion to write Controversy sections on this page as well as Cadillac Williams' page, both of which were quickly deleted (It wasn't the section you say you improved FWIW. My interpretation of the story was very relatively unbiased, but it was completely taken down). I noticed that you put a controversy section on Williams and I'm surprised its not down by now. And as far as my recent post goes, I remember Jan Kemp, but before going to the UGA page, I had visited this page and the UF page and noticed not a single bit of controversy. I didn't expect an incident so long ago to be on the page. User:Saget53 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe, though, that it's up to us to try and fix other fans' problems with admitting that their schools have been wrong a few times. Why not go ahead and add the junk, people will look at Auburn with a better light if they know that they've been under probation, but have done MUCH better as of late. AlaGuy 05:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I know this is an old discussion, but thought I'd weigh in. The NY Times issue was resolved and was a problem within the sociology department and was blown out of proportion to the number of students who were athletes involved, as said above. The probations in the 1957 and 1993 seasons in my opinion bare mentioning in the National Champions sections, as those probations effected what polls could vote for Auburn and bowl selections. If I did not know the situation, I would wonder why the 1993 team especially was not a consensus national champ. AUburnTiger 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is an old discussion but I'm going to chime back in also. I agree with you on the 57 and 93 seasons. I think we should create a season page for those years and include a detailed account of both probationsam in lieu of putting the info into this article (except a short sentence with link to season article). The problem I have is lack of info - in particle quality links. From what I heard, there was a recruiting violation in 57 that prohibited us from playing in a bowl game but did not eliminate AU from the polls (hence the claim to the AP title) but were 'punished by the coaches' for the scandal (which also took them out of the 58 title hunt). As for 93, what I know I said above. I have tried to find links but since both events are very old, it is difficult to find sources. Perhaps someone could work this together because those criticisms are valid per the discussion of auburn football - and in particular auburn's claims to any national championships. otduff (talk/contribs) 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USC's potential forfeiture of 2004 BCS Championship

This section needs to be deleted for several reasons. 1) The source link is dead. 2) The information contained in this paragraph concerns the USC football program, not Auburn's program. 3) Even if USC were forced to forfeit all games in which Reggie Bush played, it would mean that Oklahoma would be given credit for winning the BCS championship game, and therefore Oklahoma would be BCS national champions. So while the forfeiture MIGHT give Auburn a larger claim to the 2004 title, it would not ACTUALLY give them the title, and therefore this would be opinion, not fact. CH52584 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is long since removed but I just noticed this on the talk page. Anyway, at the time the article that was linked actually discussed Auburn as becoming the new BCS champion. It quoted some BCS representative who said they were discussing what would happen if Bush was in violation and USC had to forfeit the games. In the scenario the writer laid out, they said Auburn would be named the new #1 by the BCS (of the course the AP and everybody else are free to do what they want and were NOT discussed in the article). Anyway, I agree more with your argument, however, that it might give Auburn more of a claim but will not rewrite history. I personally don't think they are actually going to penalize USC because of the controversy that would ensue. It seems everybody wants to sweep that evidence under the rug...which is ironic considering Auburn's national championship history (see above). otduff (talk/contribs) 03:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auburn as the "most successful" SEC west team since the conference realignment

You need to clarify in the article what you mean by this. Alabama has been to the SEC Championship Game more times than Auburn, and Alabama and LSU have both won more SEC Championships than Auburn since 1992. If you mean Auburn has the best SEC record, then state it (Also, I would not say that that makes them Auburn the "most successful" SEC west team). CH52584 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I clarified for you to explain that Auburn has the highest winning percentage in SEC league play since the divisional realignment. I thought it was obvious since that section was discussion winning percentage within the SEC but hopefully the minor change I made clarified so this isn't questioned again. Of course, if you checked the source link it should have been obvious and you could have made the change instead of removing it completely. Hopefully this is no longer considered vague - if it is, post here as to what change you would make as I don't really know how to re-word beyond this. --otduff t/c 03:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new section for Freshman All-Americans?

Rivals.com has just put out their 2007 Freshman All-American team. Lee Ziemba and Ryan Shoemaker were on the first team, and Zac Etheridge made the second team. Is that the kind of thing that deserves a spot on the main football page, or should it just go on the 2007 season page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.201.14 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:AuburnTigers.png

The image Image:AuburnTigers.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)