Talk:Houston Nutt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Controversy Section Needed

This article is written from an ignorant POV; which one could only conclude to be a pro-Nutt POV. The controversy over Nutt's actions or lack thereof, regarding the insulting e-mail sent to Mitch Mustain and the resulting law suits, Malzahn and several players leaving the program, along with fans wearing black to games seems a significant part of Nutt's career. It is a fact that is threatening to overshadow all of his accomplishments at Arkansas and yet it is not even mentioned, cited or linked in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.42.194 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a controversy section is most definitely needed here.Ballbright 20:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be some way to incorporate this material into the narrative of his later years at Arkansas. Any neutral point of view will show that Nutt has improved Arkansas in terms of SEC wins, bowl appearances, and national prominence. A few zealous locals drove him out, though. Josh a brewer (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If by a "few zealous locals", you mean over half the fanbase, then yes, you'd be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.2.176 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link that follows the controversy from the beginning to the end with everything in between. [1]http://realhognews.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.42.194 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FOI Section

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette has finally reported on the FOIA documents. I assume someone will be updating the article page soon with the substantiated claims about Donna Bragg, Teresa Prewitt, etc.

[edit] FOI Section

If “top-ranked” they were, do they also have to be called “formidable”? (Either it’s redundant, or the BCS poll must be misleading.)

See the following in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Nutt section on "Arkansas":

On 2007 November 23 in Baton Rouge, Nutt's Razorbacks beat the top-ranked football team in the nation. In a game that lasted into three overtime periods, Arkansas defeated the formidable Louisiana State University Tigers, 50 to 48, returning the Razorbacks to the national Top 25 rankings for the first time in several weeks.

__________________________________________________________________________________

[edit] Mitch Mustain transfer

An anon's mention of Mitch Mustain's intent to transfer was reverted for being POV. While I don't really dispute that there may have been some issues with the way it was worded, it certainly appears to be quite true: http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/content/sports/story.aspx?content_id=f60353f0-7649-4894-ac01-8e9e10954c63 is just one of the news stories I was able to locate in a five-second search.--chris.lawson 07:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It appears that it has been mentioned by another anon in a somewhat less POV way, but if it requires further description, feel free to do so. (Cardsplayer4life 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


[edit] The Mustain/post-2006 events

I've been working on the Mitch Mustain article, with an expansive section on the end of his Arkansas career (including many sources), it might be worth mining/adapting for Houston Nutt's article on what's been a nationally covered off season. There's also a pretty solid article I just ran across here in the Tulsa World. Happy editing. --Bobak 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ESPN sources a plenty this week:

ESPN's Ivan Maisel just did a four-day review of the 2006-2007 issues surrounding Broyles, Nutt and the Arkansas program. Might be worth mining for sources and information: part 1. --Bobak 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record and other changes

An anonymous IP keeps making changes to this page. One of them is the 1997-98 Boise State record from 5-6 to 4-7. I just wanted to post this link to the Boise State athletic department page for that season's record to show that it is indeed 5-6. The other edits seem to be POV, so I am reverting all of them, but I just wanted to provide this for clarification for the future. (Cardsplayer4life 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, the anon is correct about the record. If you look at the page you linked, you'll see a note under the Cal St. Northridge score saying Forfeited. I confirmed with the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia; Boise St. won on the field and later forfeited the game (don't know why). AUTiger » talk 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, forfeited games count on a record. That is the point of the forfeit; To change the record. That is why it is 5-6, not 4-7 for that season. (thank you for confirming) (Cardsplayer4life 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Also, just for clarification, I seem to remember me or someone else changing the record in this very article when the decision by the NCAA was handed down to force the forfeits. (for rules infractions of some sort, no doubt) In any event, the punishment for a school is that the forfeited games count as a win for the other team. (if they didn't, there would be no penalty for cheating) That is why it counts on the record on this page. (although, adding a note about the forfeit might not be such a bad idea) (Cardsplayer4life 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
I took my own advice and added a bullet explanation of why the record was changed. This should suffice to satisfy anyone viewing the article. (Cardsplayer4life 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Right, the point of a forfeit is to change the record. Boise St. was 5-6 on the field in 1997 winning the Cal St-Northridge game 63-23 which it then had to forfeit making Boise St's official record 4-7 for the 1997 season. 4-7 is what is recorded for the year in the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia. And the head coach should have the same record as the school, 4-7. (The 2006 Arky Media Guide shows 5-6 for that season under the Nutt section, but it's pretty understandable that the Arky SID wouldn't have fixed that.) More importantly, the NCAA coaching records show Nutt as 92-63 entering the 2006 season.AUTiger » talk 22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are a bit mixed up; Cal State Northridge won the game originally which gave Boise State a loss and an overall record of 4-7. Later, after an NCAA investigation into infractions, it was determined that the game would have to be forfeited, which retroactively bumped their record up to 5-6. From the Scout.com link for Boise State (scroll down to 1997) "Win against Cal State-Northridge (Northridge won the game 63-23 but had to forfeit due to NCAA infractions)". For more backup that it was Cal State Northridge which forfeited (not Boise State), see the following news stories: From ArbiterOnline.com (relevant sentence: "The Broncos have won four consecutive home openers, including a forfeit by Cal-State Northridge in 1997.") From story originally published to BroncoCountry.com, and then picked up by the Scout.com front page news(relevant part: "1997: (5-6, 3-2 Big West) #222--23-63 loss to Cal State-Northridge that was later forfeited to count as a win") These are in addition to the above link from the Boise State page which says the same thing. Unfortunately Cal State Northridge doesn't seem to have a comprehensive link of the same sort available (presumably since they dropped the sport of football in 2001). I can probably dig up some more links if further proof is required. (Cardsplayer4life 22:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC))
Gack! Some references need to make their annotations clearer. I see now the forfeit was Northridge's not Boise's. Do you know when the sanction was handed down? Because as I linked above, the NCAA hasn't given Nutt credit for the forfeit in his career record; the spreadsheet was pre-2006 season though. AUTiger » talk 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that I am not sure about. I had thought it was fairly recently (within the last couple years), but I am not sure. While searching for the above, I came across references to sanctions handed to them in 2000 (which I was assuming what led to their getting rid of the team in 2001, but I don't know that for sure). However, it only mentioned future sanctions and not past forfeits, so I don't know if it was that decision or one that has come down since.
In any event, I was still searching when you posted the above, but for anyone else reading this that would like even more references to the forfeit by Northridge to Boise State, I found these 3 Arkansas sources: The Houston Nutt press packet thing from HogWired.com (warning: PDF document) lists the win as a forfeit by Northridge. From an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette (one of the major papers in Arkansas) it states "In 1997 when Nutt coached the Broncos, they were 4-7 on the field, with their official record being 5-6 because they were awarded a forfeit victory over Cal State-Northridge." From RazorbackLegacy.com, "Under Nutt the Broncos posted a 5-6 mark including a forfeit win from Cal State Northridge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsplayer4life (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ole Miss Rebels

Getting ready for Nutt to Ole Miss? Aww yeah! haha -- ALLSTARecho 14:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Someone keep an eye on this page. It's being filled with NPOV from people who are obviously Arkansas football fans dissatisfied with Nutt, as well as adding nonsense (Teresa Prewitt as Nutt's wife, reference to his kids "having great tans."). Jsc1973 (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone should also keep an eye on User:Allstarecho. He's getting mad with this article. Just don't know why. ––Bender235 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mad? lol No, I just want people to keep it accurate. We don't list interim coachs in coach boxes. Further, this is 2007 and Nutt is the official head coach at Ole Miss. He's out recruiting right now in 2007 as the head coach of Ole Miss. To keep putting 2008 as the start of his tenure is ridiculous and inaccurate. -- ALLSTARecho 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, because this is how we do it with all the other coaches' articles. It's not the actual year, it's the season that is listed in these infoboxes. Can't somebody explain it to this guy? ––Bender235 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching this. Someone should find the policy about this - because the template isn't specific about this. Secondarily.... WP:3RR comes into play. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The years refer to the seasons, as Bender pointed out, and do not necessarily reflect the actual years the coach spent at the school. He hasn't coached any of the games the 2007 season, as he was hired after the Rebels finished their regular season. The recruiting he is doing now would be considered part of the 2008 preseason. Thus, the proper way to note his term would be 2008–. As for the interim head coach deal, let's see what they say at the College Football Wikiproject here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In the infobox, the years are years of employment. The box about season years is found at the bottom of the article and you will notice I left that as 2008. But in the infobox, the box to the right at the top with his picture in it, those years are employment years.. and as he is now the head coach, out recruiting for Ole Miss, his employment year beginning is 2007. -- ALLSTARecho 03:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
From where did you get that the infobox years are supposed to mean years of employment? They may also refer to the seasons coached. How are readers supposed to know which years are being referred to? Most other football coach articles list the seasons coached, so I think it's best to stay consistent with these articles. Besides, the years we have right now can be misleading — if it says he's been coaching at Ole Miss from 2007-present, it may wrongly imply that he coached a game in the 2007 season. It's best to eliminate this ambiguity by listing the seasons instead. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur. There's no reason why we should do it different with this article then we do with all the others. ––Bender235 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox info (Consensus discussion)

Please see this edit and discuss which one is more appropriate. I feel it should be listed as the official name (University of Mississippi and Mississippi in both respective places) rather than as its nickname (Ole Miss) but Bender feels otherwise and I'm tired of the edit war. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 06:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ole Miss" is — for collegiate athletic purposes — the abbreviation for the "University of Mississippi". Like "Penn State" for "Pennsylvania State", like "California" for "University of California at Berkeley", like "Army" for "United States Military Academy at Westpoint". That's why the wikipedia article on the Ole Miss athletic program is named Ole Miss Rebels, not University of Mississippi Rebels. ––Bender235 11:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And maybe like "Mississippi" for "University of Mississippi"? "Ole Miss" is a nick name. I'm sure Orgeron, on his resume, will say he worked at the University of Mississippi, not Ole Miss. -- ALLSTARecho 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bender makes a good point. Also, when tv programs show gamescores, they use "Ole Miss". One can make the argument based on WP:Name that "Ole Miss" is the most common shorthand for the U of M. Would introducing it as U of M and then subsequently referring to it as Ole Miss be a workable compromise? Phyesalis 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As an Ole Miss fan, and thereby one that watches the games on TV consistently, I recall more times when the scoreboards on TV used "Mississippi" instead of "Ole Miss", especially on ESPN and Lincoln Financial broadcasts. Ole Miss is the nickname of the school, and perfectly fine when used in article content but when used in a more formal space such as an infobox, it should be the official name of his employer rather than a nickname. -- ALLSTARecho 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Phyesalis, as long as you spell it out so as not to frustrate University of Miami and University of Maryland fans! As an alum of Miami AND the University South Carolina (the latter of which is called, without confusion, "USC" in South Carolina), I've noticed that national context is key. (I never tell people that I went to USC unless they are in South Carolina. Now that I live in the Midwest, people think that "Miami" is a school in Ohio!) Conventions often resolve these conflicts: the University of Arkansas and the University of Alabama are both needlessly and confusingly abbreviated as "UA" on hats and logos, a problem exacerbated by their similar team colors, but generally everyone calls them Arkansas and Alabama. In short, use University of Mississippi initially, with Ole Miss in parenthesis immediately after it; then switch to Ole Miss, the conventional abbreviation.Josh a brewer 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It should read "Mississippi". Ole Miss is an abbreviated version like Vandy is for Vanderbilt and Mizzou for Missouri. The coach box needs to have the official name of the school. See Andy Kennedy. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So you might want to move Ole Miss Rebels to University of Mississippi Rebels, too? Please try that one. ––Bender235 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I was simply providing you with precedent. --SmashvilleBONK! 16:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Josh! I was just using shorthand for the talk page - but you make a good point. I'm not sure about the coach box, but I think "Ole Miss" is a suitable abbreviation for the article. Phyesalis (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
While Ole Miss is an abbreviation, if you look at all the other coaches that I have looked at, they have the schools abbreviated name. See Les Miles, Nick Saban and Bobby Petrino. All of these say "LSU", "Alabama" and "Arkansas" respectively, not Lousiania State University or the University Alabama. Another point for the sake of putting Ole Miss is that the Ole Miss Rebels article directs to Athletics of the University, where as University of Mississippi directs to the page on the University, not athletics. Also the football program is known on the national level as Ole Miss, not Mississippi. ESPN, CBS and other networks almost always use Ole Miss, rather than Mississippi when abbrevating for the sports teams. That's my two cents for it. Rtr10 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)