Talk:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Notre Dame Fighting Irish football has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] National Championships

Occasionally, someone will question the number of national championship or that Notre Dame is the undisputed leader in them. Please refer to http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html for a definitive source.

  • Notre Dame has 8 APs titles which has been awarded since 1936, which no other school does. In the years where the coaches poll existed (1950-), only one of those titles was a split with the coaches. That year was 1973 in which Alabama was awarded the UPI title…before losing their the bowl game to Notre Dame.
  • Notre Dame has 3 consensus titles from before then. No other current Div 1-A school has 11 consensus titles.
  • Notre Dame was declared the national champion by some organization a total of 21 times, the most of any current Div 1A school. Alabama and USC are tied for second with 17.
  • Though no-longer Div 1A, Yale actually still has the most titles with 24.

KelleyCook 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What's with the fuzzy math? 8 wire champs, and they claim 3 more, for a total of 13? Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BC Rivalry

Re: Boston College

Boston College and ND are indeed the only two Catholic schools that currently play Div.1-A football. However, BC and ND are generally not considered pure rivals--most Irish fans would consider Southern Cal, Michigan, Navy, and a few other univerisities rivals, but not BC. It is my opinion that the reference does not belong is this article.

I attended Notre Dame and I can assure you that BC is a Notre Dame rival. Aside from being the only two Catholic schools that play Division 1-A football, the victor of each game wins the Ireland Trophy, created in 1995 by the Notre Dame Student Government "as a token of goodwill, camaraderie, and friendly rivalry". Furthermore, the fact that the only time the Irish have worn their green jerseys in the past 20-something years in a game that was not against USC or in a bowl game occurred against BC in 2002 is not insignificant and testifies to the rivalry status of this series.--Brian Brockmeyer 22:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The amount of space devoted to the argument over whether BC is or is not an ND rival suggests ipso facto by the level of the passion here that if it isn't a "rivalry" it sure is something intense. The amount of energy expended to argue that the matchup is inconsequential inherently refutes the argument that it is inconsequential. BTW, ND alum Sec. of State Condi Rice used the "Holy War" moniker to refer to the BC-ND series during her commencement address at BC in 2006. Whatever it is, it is a hell of an annual matchup and it is unfortunate that thanks to the Big East - ACC machinations it may not continue past 2010.

As a current student at Notre Dame, I can assure you that BC is indeed NOT our rival for several reasons. USC is our major rival smart one.
First, a the term "rivalry game" implies that some level of increased anticipation exists on both opposing sides. Now, I can't speak for BC fans, but on campus this past year there was no more excitement for the BC game than there was for the Purdue game, the Washington game, or any other--it simply wasn't special for us. From the alums and sub-alums I've talked to, this opinion exists outside of campus also. If, as I and many others believe, the majority of Irish football fans feel BC is just a normal game on our schedule, then it cannot be termed a rivalry (rivalries just can't be unrequited). Second, ND and BC haven't matched up enough times for the game to be called a rivalry. The game hasn't been scheduled even semi-regularly until recently, a factor which, if changed, could indeed eventually make this game a true rivalry. Third (and this point relates back to the first), the actions of our former coach and ND Student Government do not necessarily correlate to the wills of the student body, the alumni, or the fan base at large. This same coach (Willingham) implied that fans should be satisfied with a 6-win "winning season", and the student government is constantly criticized for not enacting the wishes of the student body. More specifically, recent polls on campus regarding BC state that most see them as just another school. Ty and the student government simply didn't/don't represent what ND students and fans think most of the time. Fourth, ND and BC were not always the only Catholic schools playing D-1A football (or the highest level of football existing at the time). The fact that the two schools _are_ right now does not in itself create a rivalry--it's simply an attribute the schools share in common. Last, the green jerseys are not a gimmick, and they do not designate certain teams to be our rivals. We wore green numbers on white jerseys against Florida in the '92 Sugar Bowl--are they our rivals? Green jerseys were used throughout a good portion of Dan Devine's stay at ND--were all the teams we faced with those jerseys our rivals? Most ND fans I know wouldn't say that these or any other teams we wore green jerseys against (even recently) are our rivals, least of all BC. 69.108.74.58 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should go back and read the previous paragraph: I specifically stated that the only time we wore the green jerseys during the past 20+ years in a game that was not a bowl game or a USC game came against BC in 2002, rendering your invocation of the Devine Era and the 92 Sugar Bowl irrelevant. Let me rephrase that we wore green jerseys this year (2005) when we played USC. Point Proven. The fact of the matter is that since the switch back to the blue jerseys in 1982, we've worn "green" jerseys on six occassions, with 2 of those coming against archrival USC (83, 85), 3 in bowl games (92 Sugar, 95 Fiesta, 99 Gator), and the last in the 02 BC game. That the BC game was the only time the green jerseys were worn in a regular season game against an opponent other than USC over the past 22 years is not insignificant, and, combined with everything else (the shared Catholic identity, the strong Irish-American ties, the great games, the Ireland Trophy, the ND-BC rivalries in basketball, hockey, baseball, etc., the academic similarities between the institutions, etc.), cements the fact that this is a rivalry. I'm pretty active in the NDAA and attuned to the sentiments within the Association, and nearly everyone I've spoken to acknowledges that this, indeed, is a rivalry.--Brian Brockmeyer 03:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
BC's a rival, through and through. The only ones who consider otherwise are the subway alums (i.e. people with no connection to the University itself) who have grown weary of the game due to BC's recent four-in-a-row success. Most alums and students, myself included, consider the game a rivalry game. I was a student for the Foley game, which basically gave rise to the rivalry, as well as for StudGov's decision to create the Ireland Trophy, which WAS well received by the student body. Notre Dame and Boston College have much in common, including their Catholic affiliations, strong ties to the Irish-American community, and a certain College HOF head coach, that served to cement the bond between the two schools. Additionally, if you truly are a Notre Dame student, as you say you are, then I shouldn't have to point out to you the staggering number of Boston-Irish-Catholics in the Notre Dame community, or the high number of BC students that matriculate in ND graduate programs. These various frictions and ties are exactly what make a rivalry a rivalry. To deny the existence of the ND-BC rivalry is to play the elitist card and betray an ignorance of all things Notre Dame. The topic was also broached over at the University of Notre Dame Talk Page and the same conclusion was reached without dissent. Bottom line: It's a rivalry.Juicedpalmeiro 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
BC is not a rival. Though it is true that Notre Dame and Boston College share many of the same demographics that is not enough for a rivalry. ND and BC have only played each other 16 times and every year only since 1992. By contrast, Notre Dame and USC have squared off 76 times, interrupted only by WWII. Other rivals worth consideration are Michigan (17 games since 1978 where both are ranked, as well as the opponent of ND's first football game), Michigan State (68 games), Purdue (76 games), Pittsburgh (62 games), Navy (78 games). We've even played Army 48 times, though they haven't been a rival since the 50s. Any dislike of BC comes from them beating us in '93 and because BC serves as a reminder of Davie and Willingham's failure as coaches, only managing to go 3-5 against BC, which leaves the same bad taste in one's mouth as if we had gone 3-5 against IU.
A rivalry, however, would either entitle a) Mutual respect in that we wish each other well in every other game of the season but just not when we play each other. Notre Dame has such a rivalry with USC, where I would say we would like USC to finish #2 to ND's #1. That makes lording it over them all the more enjoyable as well. It may even be concievable under this definition to consider Navy a rival, as most fans respect the team and the school, hope they get their win againt ND one day because they really do deserve it, but always hope that the one day is not one day this year. The inter-academy rivalries also display this form of rivalry.
Another way to be a rival is b) to hate each other with every fiber of your being, hope they lose every game and are ultimately destroyed by a meteor. This is the way we feel about Michigan, and more like the hatred Auburn and Alabama hold for one another. When the Boston College game rolls around, we expect to win, but we do not care what happens to BC apart from us beating them. Thus, not a rivalry. (Source: http://www.georgemacor.com/NDfootball.html) Tewdrig 07:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you don't care, but pretty much every ND alum I have come across cares. BC has cleaned ND's clock for five of the last six meetings. They are the only other serious Catholic football playing school and they are now in one of the nation's top conferences.

LOL...I don't give much stock to the opinion of a site that claims we like to see USC finish second. I'd also like to point out the silliness of the notion that the length of a series determines whether or not it counts as a rivalry. Miami was always considered a rival throughout the 80s, even though the series was young. Likewise Penn State (17 games) and Stanford (19 games). The Observer even recognizes the BC series as a rivalry. Pretty much everyone does except for a few self-appointed subway alums who spend way too much time on BGI. It's a settled issue.--Brian Brockmeyer 07:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but of the games from 1980-1990, seven times were both teams ranked, and twice were one of them ranked #1 (#1 Miami at #4 Notre Dame, 1988, and #1 Notre Dame at #7 Miami, 1989). What significance does the Notre Dame BC game have other than the '93 game? Moreover, how can a rivalry exist when one school does not consider the other a rival? Certainly, a rivalry requires reciprocity, and that simply does not exist. It could be elitism on Notre Dame's part, and BC-ND could very well become a new rivalry, but until the majority of students, fans, and alumni consider it a rivalry, how could it possibly be one?
Also, why the hostility towards subway alumni? Though they did not graduate from the university, Notre Dame has nonetheless generated a large following over the last century in the Catholic community starting in a time when you couldn't be Catholic and American at the same time. It was Notre Dame students who fought the KKK in the streets of South Bend, and it was the Notre Dame football team who gave Catholic Americans a sense of pride by beating Michigan, Army, and everyone else despite being a small, midwestern, Catholic school. ND has meant a lot to Catholics over the years, who were often viewed as outsiders in a WASP America, whether they went to the university or not.
The source linked was where I got the number of games versus each school. The feeling that USC should finish second to ND came from my time as a student (class of 05) and fan, as well as from talking with others.
Furthermore, if you disagree that most people would like to see USC finish with 1 loss to Notre Dame, then surely you would agree to the statement that most would like to see them lose every game. The claim still applies that for it to be a rivalry, Notre Dame fans must care how BC does in weeks ND and BC aren't playing, whether hoping they win or lose. Tewdrig 08:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I can't argue with you about most of us wanting to see USC lose every game, but, in my experience, BC falls into that same category, too. There is a lot of bitterness that remains from the Foley game, as well as the sod incident in 2002 and the BC student body's gold 'Superfan' t-shirts, which are a blatant wannabe/knockoff of 'The Shirt'. I don't think I've ever seen a Notre Dame Stadium crowd as angry as it was exiting NDS after last year's loss to BC. Most alums I know, even the few who wouldn't categorize BC as a "rival," nevertheless like to see them lose every Saturday. While the height of enjoyment derived from a BC loss might not quite rise to the level of a USC or Michigan loss, I still think it surpasses that felt over a loss by traditional rival Michigan State, and is at least equal to one by traditional rival Purdue. It's certainly a newer rivalry and its intensity, from our side, is not on the level of the USC or Michigan rivalries, but it is nonetheless a rivalry. I think when some deny the existence of the rivalry they are really just trying to heal the wounds created by BC's recent success in the series by dismissing BC as a program that is "not on our level" or somehow beneath us giving a darn about-the elitist card. In reality, with the exception of USC and Michigan, I don't think any loss angers the greater ND community more than a loss to BC.--Brian Brockmeyer 02:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have started a total rewrite on this artilce and as you can see I have only written the history up to Frank Leahy. This is a daunting task, but I would like to get this article up to featured status. Any help is cheerful accepted. Does anyone have some good historic and current photos of the team? Movementarian 12:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome job so far, it was a jumbled mess before. It's black and white and the picture quality is low, but the 2005 Media Guide has lots of pictures. Also it has a lot of info on this year's team and the history of ND football.--MrCalifornia 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am now up to 1964 and will be writing the Asa Parseghian Era soon. I would like opinions on the rivalry section. I am not sure that it really helps the articel to have factoids. I think it would be better to have series information on each of the traditional rival whether the rivalry is active or not. I will be adding the Army rivalry back in soon, as that one is picking up again in 2006. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Movementarian 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coaches Table

I have changed the look of the coaches table abit so that it takes up less space. If you think the change makes it look cluttered than by all means change it back. Perhaps we should look inot a different style of table. Movementarian 12:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the styling a little bit on the coaches table, made it two tables with spacing between them so now it auto-expands to fill the page. --MrCalifornia 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Though now that the table's been split:
would it be more intuitive to be
A B
C D
E F
Instead of
A D
B E
C F
 ?
Maybe, except that when you make the page really skinny (or if there is ever a coach with a really long name) and the text of a row takes up two lines you no longer have row height symmetry between the tables. Also, the all the way down and then back up format is what is used on the players list below. --MrCalifornia 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'd recommend that someone protect this page from vandalism, evidenced by someone's overzealousness in editing the Charlie Weis section.

Seems whenever a ND article makes it's way to an ND message board there's a period of time after that where you'll get some not so encyclopedic edits, but they usually get bored. --MrCalifornia 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Good. Let people add as much vandalism they want. I welcome it. I've loved ND all my life, and people have hated me for it forever. I love that. Vandalism only makes support for ND stronger. Bring it. J-Dog 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not the Wikipedia ideaology. Please see WP:NPOV. Vandalism is not to be tolerated or encouraged. Please see WP:VANDAL. This may be a page that should use {{sprotected}}. --MECU≈talk 19:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. I was speaking from a sarcastic POV. Thought that was obvious, guess not. J-Dog 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • More vandalism recently I agreee we need to protect this page from vandals.--Dubguy2131 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate when people vandalize, these players work there every day and then people talk bad about them. go irish --Notredamestudent 18:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Vandalism has been pretty bad Lately, would not be a bad idea blocking this page from new users and ip adresses.--JMay from tampa bay 16:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a lot of vandalization lately on both sides. Many people are adding negative things that do not belong here, but there is a lot of vandalization on the other side too. Do not just delete things because it isn't something great about ND. This isn't a PR place for Notre Dame. LightningOffense 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets get this up to Featured Article worthiness by September 1

I would love for this page to be the Featured Article on September 1st. First of all we have to go through the peer review process. So please help out with the constructive comments. -- KelleyCook 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a minor change in the uniform section. The article stated that ND home uniforms are blue, which to me might be a little misleading. I'm not a fan of ND by any means, but their uniforms appear to be more of a dark blue so I changed it to that.LightningOffense 17:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

they would more appropriately be navy blue. The shade of blue however has changed with each iteration of the uniform by Adidas. The first adidas was lighter than the current one. 66.244.123.100 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Notre Dame football team

The large section featuring a narrative and list of players on the 2005 squad should be split into its own article, such as 2005 Notre Dame football team. This would follow similar articles like 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team and 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team. There is no reason to dedicate so much article space to just one of the squads. Further I question the need for listing the state flags for each player. See related discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Current_roster_with_flags. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The split is a no brainer. Do not delete the flags though. -- KelleyCook 17:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to work on the split, but I think the flags should go per the conversation here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Current_roster_with_flags --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's all keep an eye on the new roster changes. Last years's new roster was posted on the team's website "As of Aug. 16, 2005". Let's make an effort to keep the roster current! I promise to do my part. J-Dog 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Alas, we also need a 2006 Notre Dame football team article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The 2005 article should be named: 2005 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team per standards developed at {{WikiProject College football}}. Please add it to the Master Team Table at the project when created. A 2006 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team could also be created. Most current standards/formats for such an article are used and discussed/current on 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. Please use that format and ideas. --MECU≈talk 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Created both pages though I didn't correct any of the 2006 information -- KelleyCook 15:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalries

I see that there is a wicked disagreement on whose Notre Dame's rivals really are. So then we obviously need a consensus on this issue. I certainly think that there are more than just two rivals. Some seem to think that only USC and Michigan are true rivals. For sure Navy needs to be on this list based on the history involved. Quite frankly, the two schools will ALWAYS play anually, and both schools have said so. MSU and ND have said publicly that they just flat out don't like each other, and the 1966 game is still one of the most talked about in college football history. As far as BC and ND, there is a huge discussion above, so decide for yourselves. Bottom line is, they all have trophies that are battled for. Why in the world would two schools go to all the trouble to design a trophy and rivalry around it, if the schools weren't rivals?!? Use your logic people. I say the rivals should be listed as (in no particular order): USC, Mich, Purdue, Mich. St, BC, Stanford & Navy. J-Dog 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A nonbinding criteria. For example every single BigTen interconference matchup has a trophy. Specifically, the Little Brown Jug, yet no one in their right mind would call those programs rivals. -- KelleyCook 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me throw this in. What constitutes a rival, and who decides this? J-Dog 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Short of ND publishing its own list of rivals, any attempt to list them would be original research. A better solution would be to simply provide a list of "frequent opponents" or something like that - teams they've played almost continuously for a certain period of time. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The current edit of rivalries is excellent - accurate, balanced, and appropriate. It expresses the reality of Notre Dame football as I have known it for nearly 50 years. Now - more work needs to be done on history ( I added the paragraph last year on ND-Army 1913) - the last four coaches (Holtz, Davie, Willingham, and Weis) have disproportionately long treatments when compared to the genuine legends - Rockne, Leahy, and Parseghian. The paragraphs on the first two are good if brief, but the section on Ara is underdeveloped. Same number o f paragraphs on Davie as on Ara? Please.Sensei48 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree there should be more on ND's football history, it's probably best to spin it off into a new article and keep it short and sweet on the main page. Tedmoseby (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Details or Eras

The way the eras read they are more of a short synopsis of on the field accomplishments and setbacks of the coaches. Yet several users insist on putting in detailed sections about off the field violations within these short histories. I believe that these would be more appropriate for a separate article about the history of Notre dame football. This article's purpose it seems is to list accomplishments and setbacks of players and coaches and the program regarding events on the field (games, awards, etc.) Tedmoseby 04:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Tedmoseby

[edit] Weis' negatives too?

I think you should consider adding to the Weis section that despite his positive records, the Irish have only betean one team in the past two years that finished the season ranked in the top 25 (Penn State this season, AP 24, Coaches 25). Listing things about how he set them off to a great start, or that some of his players set records, is fine and dandy, but the negatives such as what i pointed to, or the two losses to rival USC should be mentioned as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krizoitz (talk • contribs) 08:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

People here only want to talk about the good things. They will never stand for one negative comment. They won't even acknowledge that they are tied for the most Heisman trophies. I agree it should be in there, but the yes men won't allow it. LightningOffense 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I hereby acknowledge that the afore mentioned Notre Dame Fighting Irish are tied for the most Heisman trophies. Happy now? J-Dog 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think fanboy homerism is clouding your reading of the facts in this article. The fact of that matter is the reason this article reads well is because Notre Dame has been a very successful program over the years. Moreover, if you read the recent history under Davie and Willingham, or the years between Leahy and Parseghian, it is anything but flattering. Also, the 9 game bowl loss streak is mentioned several times. Trying to put these little facts in like Weis' two losses in a row to USC is great and dandy, but it comes across as petty fanboy chest thumping. Most coaches in America have lost two or more in a row (or more) to USC. Are you adding that fact to every team's page that plays USC? I seriously doubt it. Stuff like that is not unique to Notre Dame in any way, but more reflective of USC's dominance over college football. Tedmoseby 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How the football teams plays has no effect on the reading of the article. A good article discusses all aspects of the topic, both pro and con, which this article tends to lack. The two losses in a row might not need to be in the article, but their record against quality teams should. Most of this article sounds less like a wikipedia article and more like something the PR department puts out. LightningOffense 23:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


to Krizoitz: Quote:"I think you should consider adding to the Weis section that despite his positive records, the Irish have only beaten one team in the past two years that finished the season ranked in the top 25 (Penn State this season, AP 24, Coaches 25)"

This statement is true, but it is also biased and spun in such a way as to make Weis' record look insignificant. I could rewrite it to look like this:

"Notre Dame has defeated 4 ranked teams in the 2 years since Weis has taken over. #23 Pittsburgh, #3 Michigan and #22 Purdue in 2005. Moreover, Notre Dame also beat Tennessee, which was ranked pre-season #2. In 2006 ND added another big win over a ranked team, beating #19 Penn State."

I make this point because this makes Notre Dame's record look better under Weis and it is also true. Weis and Notre Dame can't help that those teams didn't take care of business after they played ND and ended the season unranked. But notice that this sentence is also not included in the paragraphs under Weis because it is also biased. Both points of view are true though, and this is the reason why they are ultimately not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Tedmoseby 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Dome

My dad has always said that the gold that is spray-painted onto the helmets is actually flakes from the Golden Dome. Is this true; and if so, should it be included in this article? Hans404 06:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be added if you found a reliable reference. Though, I have a strong feeling that is not an entirely correct statement; what is true is that the helmet paint does contain real a smidgen of gold. -- KelleyCook 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While there is gold flake on the Golden Dome and the helmets of the Fighting Irish, they are not the same gold. -192.28.2.6 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Notre Dame helmet.gif

Image:Notre Dame helmet.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Haden/Chris Collinsworth

I can't find any reference to Chris Collinsworth replacing Pat Haden as the NBC announcer for ND games. If this is true please reference the source. --MrCalifornia 05:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "American" football

Why does this page need to be qualified with "American" football? The University is located in America and there isn't even a page for ND Soccer that it could be mistaken for. I'm moving it back. --MrCalifornia 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Long discussion on this being held at WT:CFB. Look for the "major" problem. I'm the one that moved it. In the meantime, we have agreed to undo the move until the discussion is complete. Jmfangio| ►Chat  17:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notice

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Michigan State vs. Notre Dame football game. Johntex\talk 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undoing Vandalism; New Picture Needed

I reverted the vandalism by Muffinman in both the text of the article and to the "away uniform" picture of Brady Quinn. I couldn't easily get back to a pre-vandalism edit of the Quinn photo, so I deleted it from the article. An appropriately licensed and acceptable photo of a player in the current uniform - and I would suggest a home uniform rather than the road uniform of the Quinn picture - would be a good addition.Sensei48 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a picture of the current home uniform, but a closer picture would be much better. If the picture doesn't work, just get rid of it from this article, it was the closest that I could find at the time. Phydend 14:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so - it's a good pic to show the uniform/team. One with an individual player might be better - maybe someone out there has one. Sensei48 22:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the original picture of Brady Quinn in his home and away uniform. If you want a closer image of the Irish uniform let me know and I can upload it again. I also have a very close up picture of the offense in their green uniforms from the 2005 USC game. Tedmoseby (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tedmoseby - Thanks for the upload offer - it was a great picture (I remember the home uniform) that a vandal had defaced with a pink skirt - I could not for some reason revert to the original upload. Sensei48 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Other Famous Players" In Need Of Serious Work

I'm tempted to say that the list is pathetic, skewed as it is to the recent past, largely ignoring most of the first eighty (out of 119) years of ND football history when the school made its reputation as the premier program in CFB. But saying so would be unkind, and what the list needs is a little trimming and the inclusion of at least a few of the players beyond Gipp and the Horsemen who made the reputation that the team has been gliding on over the last few years. I hope some other folks who actually know ND football history will join me over the next few weeks improving the list. Sensei48 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for the skewed portrayal of past Notre Dame players is that most of the older players do not possess Wikipedia pages. Most of the players that are listed are usually recently retired or cut former ND players from the NFL. Definite improvement and discussion of the list is welcome.--Tedmoseby (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear explanation, Tedmoseby - it makes perfect sense. I suspect as well that the reader/editor base of Wikipedia tends to skew younger rather than older. Certainly many of the older stars are listed under Heisman and other award winners. But Mike Golic (lots of fun as an announcer) over, say, Daryl Lamonica or Bill Shakespeare - that doesn't work for me. And the Four Horsemen should be listed individually as well as as a group - they were all great players individually. And where is Gus Dorais, America's first true passing quarterback? I will respectfully add a few key names in the coming days. Sensei48 (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And feel free to create articles on them if they are notable. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the Notre Dame Athletes page does a better job covering former Irish greats, so I just deleted the list on this page and linked it to the section on ND football players.Tedmoseby (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrangement of the Article to consolidate player information

When I started adding sections of player and coaching awards, Irish in the NFL, media, and facilities back in 2006, I did it with out much thought to the layout of the page. When I found the great articles on Irish starting quarterbacks and the also terrific article on Irish athletes, I realized there was no central location for the players, and instead everything was interspersed through out the article. So I decided to condense everything into a players section, separated the coaching awards to put them after the yearly coaching records, and kept the Irish in the NFL down at the bottom, since it doesn't directly relate to the ND college team. I think this layout works better, but please feel free to discuss. I really arranged the article mainly so all the college player info would be in one location. I also think laying the page out in this manner addresses the inadequate section on other famous players. Maybe we should just link that section directly to the "American football" section of the Irish athletes page. Tedmoseby (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rockne Stamp.jpg

Image:Rockne Stamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Notre Dame Leprechaun.png

Image:Notre Dame Leprechaun.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivals Again

A variety of editors - I suspect not Notre Dame people - keep trying to re-insinuate BC and Stanford into the "major rivals" category of this article. I've never met anyone else from my era any ND or any subsequent era who cares any more about these games than they do about Air Force or Georgia Tech. However - in the interests of avoiding mere Wiki:OR - this article should be kept consistent with its sister article, the painstakingly developed Notre Dame Fighting Irish football rivalries. Note that the latter article does not cite either of these two schools as major rivals. Sensei48 (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So using another Wikipedia article to defend a change in this one? Interesting concept. Tool2Die4 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, Tool, for my apparent brusqueness in the "Rivals Again" new section I initiated on the ND Football Talk page. The whole discussion or rivals highlights one of the great weaknesses of Wiki, and that is that truth resides in the eyes of the respective beholders.
As it now stands because of my rv, BC is not listed as a rival in the Infobox - but is listed as one in the article. The most recent comment by Trowbridge seems to me to get to the heart of the matter in that it addresses the two longest and most intense frequently-scheduled games that Notre Dame plays. The problem is that of course there are individual games and series that attain special importance for periods of time as opposed to all time. There was a point during the 80s, for example, when Air Force beat ND in four consecutive years, and that generated a fair amount of heat and intensity in its day that has not maintained itself over the long run.
The Notre Dame Fighting Irish football rivalries article that I cited points out that ND-BC started in 1975. That by itself suggests the anomaly of putting BC and ND in a rivalry mode - back in the early heyday of ND football, the team had frequent games against other major Catholic university football programs (major at the time) like Fordham, Marquette, Creighton, and others. Why ND never played BC is a mystery to me; however, I'm pretty sure that the editors of the rivalry article exclude BC (or rather refer to it as a "minor rivalry")on the basis of the relatively short term of the series between the schools.
I do believe, no matter how trivial it may seem, that in Wiki one article should stay consistent with another on the same subject. Nonetheless, I completely understand and largely agree with your sentiment that to support one Wiki article with another is a kind of tautology.
I also believe that the question of who is a rival and who is not isn't of much consequence, and that my own perspective on it (I graduated from ND in '71) is colored by my own perspective.
I fully expect that someone will come along and add BC back, and maybe someone else's other favorite teams that had intense games with ND (Florida State and Miami come to mind). I think I'll just leave the rivals question alone in the future - I've made my point - and stick to history and players. RegardsSensei48 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Folks, this shouldn't even be a debate. ND has two rivals and only two: USC and Michigan. They have long-standing open-ended series with Purdue, Navy, Stanford and Michigan State, but these are not "rivalries"—they're just traditional opponents. It's no different than Penn State playing Northwestern every year, or Georgia Tech versus Duke. Just because they play each other all the time doesn't make it a "rivalry."--Trowbridge (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for a Rivalry

Okay... there are so many opinions on this issue it's insane! Since ND isn't in a conference, I believe it's harder to define a rival in ND terms (as Trowbridge did above). Going by the traditional definition of a rival, I believe the follow criteria must be met:(feel free to add or notate an amendment).

1. Something is on the line every year the game is played. It could be

  • national title hopes
  • conference title hopes/bragging rights
  • state/regional/religious pride.

2. The game often determines how the winner and loser's remaining season will go (or be defined if it's at the end). The winner usually always has a winning season and the loser has a bad season.

  • Tangentally, both schools have spoiled the other's national title hopes at least once.

3. Due to the proximity of the two schools, the fans usually hate each other.

4. Coaches and Players also get caught up in the rivalry, elevating it beyond fanatical status. Coaches make remarks about the other school, and may even report on the school about NCAA infractions.

5. A coach's career at the school is determined by how frequently he beat the rival school (absent of national titles and conference titles).

6. The teams have a long history and historical connections. To that end, the schools will always make an effort to schedule each other(if out of conference) and if in conference, may even dictate how the other conference members set up their scheduling (example would Michigan vs Ohio St every year, even though there are 11 teams in the Big ten and usually teams will take a break from each other).

7. The programs compete for similar recruits/ share a regional recruiting base.

  • Tangentally, when a recruit commits to one school over the other, closer school, it creates controversy in the community (a good example would be Texas high school star Adrian Peterson committing to Texas' rival Oklahoma)

Possible requirements:

  • Each school has an extended period of success over the other.
  • Fans overwhelmingly (say better than 60%) agree that the school in question is a rival (and I believe they would if all the 7 criteria were met)
  • There is some sort of trophy that the winning team takes home.

The Major Rival Test I believe that all these conditions must be met in order for a rivalry to be considered a "Major Rival." So now the question is what do other pages list? Do they list just major rivals? If that is the case, I believe only USC, Michigan, and Mich St. constitute major rivals. Those three teams meet all the 7 requirements. Even then, Michigan and Mich St barely meet them. Mich St won a title once. Michigan and ND did not play each other for an insane amount of years. Even USC doesn't meet the locality aspect that often factors into a rivaly (of course the intersectional/out of conference nature of the rivalry is what most fans feel make it more unique than even Michigan vs Ohio State). I leave out Navy because I don't think there is a hatred between the fan bases that is so high. Also, the series is by and large one sided. Navy has beat ND a total of 10 times. I also leave out Purdue since they have never won a national title, nor has Purdue ever spoiled a ND national title season (at least not one fans point to like 1993 vs Boston College). Boston College doesn't make the cut because of a multitude of factors, primarily being that ND fans can't agree that is a rivalry. Also, while BC dashed ND's title hopes in 1993, and arguably in 2002 (most fans believe USC would have beat ND anyways), ND has yet to beat BC with BC's title hopes on the line. I use national title hopes because since ND isn't in a conference, it's all ND plays for.

Rivals Test If the purpose of listing rivals is to merely list frequent opponents with historical connections, (which since ND isn't in a conference could/should be the case), and that still meet a majority if the conditions, then I believe it would be appropriate to at least include Navy and Purdue. I would also then include Pittsburgh, since Pitt has won a title and has played ND frequently.

So now comes Boston College:

  • Is a rivalry: Both schools have win streaks over the other. Both schools share a great coach (Leahy) and a Catholic identity. There are religious bragging rights on the line. Both schools try to recruit good kids that are also elite athletes, although when ND is really good, they don't necessarily compete against each other. Finally, fans certainly hate each other.
  • Isn't a rivalry: BC has never won a title or a loss to ND has never spoiled their title hopes. The rivalry is relatively new. Also, both schools are not willing to schedule each other at any cost. Both schools are letting the series die after this year. Moreover, since they don't play each other every year, there is no expectation that the coach must beat the other school and will be fired if they don't, despite otherwise good seasons. The expectation to beat BC arguably comes more from the fact that ND fans expect to beat every school they play.

So I would posit BC is a rival in the some sense. But again, if the purpose is to list major rivals. They don't make the cut. I think fans would consider them a historic opponent if the series wasn't being canceled...

I would also say Stanford has no business being listed as a rival in any capacity. The ND admin primarily scheduled them to have a Thanksgiving weekend game in CA every year. Tedmoseby (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a tricky subject to tackle, as the criteria are so murky. As a non-ND guy living in South Bend, I've come to see BC as a serious rival. Maybe notsomuch due to the relative football history of each school, but the whole "Catholic school" issue. Agree that Stanford never enters the argument. USC and Michigan are mortal locks as rivals, and I'd say the same for the service academies, just for the history of the matchup. Michigan State has made no recent football headlines (aside from coaches slapping themselves in the face), but then again, it's such a long-standing tradition, that how can you question it? Probably lots of POV and original research issues to deal with. Fans of other schools probably want to say their school is a rival, while ND would hold another view. Who knows? Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Games

I added a section of famous games. I included both wins and losses that were historically notable, labeled as "game of the century" or were notable bowl games. I am sure some fanboys will try to add many of Notre Dame's bowl losses to the list, but I believe the criteria for a listed game (win or loss) should be limited to:

  • Controversial games (1966 Mich St.)
  • Games of the century
  • Close wins and losses
  • Games that were significant during title seasons
  • Games that ended historical streaks (i.e. the Navy Streak of the Oklahoma streak (not an 8-0 streak))

So far I have only listed games that have wiki-pages. I think some other games that deserve wiki pages are:

Wins:

  • 1913 ND vs Army
  • 1935 ND vs Ohio St. (game of the century not listed)
  • 1992 ND vs Penn St.
  • 1966 ND vs SC - Largest blowout in the series
  • 1977 ND vs SC (Trojan Horse)
  • 1957 ND vs Oklahoma
  • 1988 ND vs Michigan

Losses:

  • 2000 ND vs Nebraska
  • 1964 ND vs USC
  • 1974 ND vs USC
  • 1993 ND vs BC

Tedmoseby (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of not violating NPOV, you should probably have an equal number of wins and losses. And how many "games of the century" can there be? Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of points. First, having more wins than losses doesn't violate NPOV. If you look back on the history of college football, ND has won more than it has lost in those types of games. It's why they are Notre Dame. So your statement is confusing. I suggest you read Pete Fiutak's(ND hater) 100 greatest college football finishes from collegefootballnews.com. Whenever a sports writer does an article like that, there are always more ND wins than losses. Again, it's why they are Notre Dame. Violating NPOV would be to leave out the losses. Also, how can there be an equal number of important wins and losses when ND is the second winningest program in college football? ND has a .743 win %. In other words, they have won more games than they have lost. Also, there are 10+ "games of the century." Read the wiki page linked and read about it from other sources. It is actually very well researched. Finally, the list in the article simply lists all ND games with wiki pages of this magnitude; win loss or tie. The list on the talk page is a suggestion of pages that could be created. Not the definitive list that should be used. Tedmoseby (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC).
Back to the games. You've got an interesting list, but I think you're missing several. I just don't see ND-PSU 1992 in the same league as at least three others, by your own criteria. They would be:
a) ND-Army 1946, 0-0 tie - the first game of the century to be so identified in the press. The equivalent of pro teams, both stocked with returning vets, men full grown, #1 vs. #2. Second only to 1913 in this series' lore, and to non-ND fans probably a more significant game. (http://www.nd.edu/~observer/10011999/Sports/2.html)
b) ND-USC 1988, ND27-USC10. A much bigger game than 1977 - the only time in the history of the storied series where the schools met ranked #1 and #2 at the end of a season. Winner would be the NC, as both were favored to win their respective bowl games and ND did over WVU.
c)Losses: ND-Carneige Tech, 1926 - CT19-ND0. Probably the biggest upset in college football history prior to Appalachian State over UM last season - the historical ignorance of most Americans today, including the media, being truly appalling in this case. Notre Dame in the 20s ruled college football as it has in no other decade since; only the latter 40s comes close. They were undefeated that year and had beaten CT 111-7 in the previous 4 meetings. Rockne did not attend the game - story here:
http://www.carnegiemellontoday.com/article.asp?aid=380
One or another of those Catholics vs Convicts games (a phrase unworthy of ND, I always thought) against Miami and Florida State in the late 80s early 90s also merit consideration under your rubric. Regards Sensei48 (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sensei48, thanks for your input. The '46 Army game as well as the 88 Miami and 93 FSU games are on the main article page. I put the other list here to debate. The games I listed on the main page all have wiki pages. The ones I listed in the talk page do not. I did not list Carnegie Tech and 88 USC because they do not have wiki pages. (maybe that shouldn't matter?). Tedmoseby (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Tedmoseby! That'll teach me to read more carefully. That 88 game has especial significance given the overall series, and CT was almost certainly a bigger upset than UM-Appalachian . They should have Wiki pages, and maybe later I'll try to create them. I'm wondering if UM-ASU has one....Good show here.Sensei48 (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And yet again I'm reminded why ND fans have a negative reputation. This is a fight that simply isn't worth it. Some people lack the ability to view the subject from a logical, objective perspective. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I honestly think you need to look in the mirror and your own bias. You clearly have a bone to pick and have been doing it not only on this talk page but others as well. So instead of offering a logical argument to my rebuttal of your opinion there should be an equal amount of wins and losses, you choose to attack my objectivity with some inane statement and then tout that your perspective is unbiased and somehow more pure than ours. What a joke. Your statement above reeks of ND hatred, which would be the opposite bias and lack of objective perspective you are lambasting. Tedmoseby (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tool2Die4

Your attempt to label a legitimate edit as vandalism is a blatant attempt to start an edit war. Please read the page on vandalism to see what is considered vandalism.Tedmoseby (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt:

Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.

Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one.

I have labeled every single game with a verifiable source. If you notice, I took several games off that I could not verify as game of the century or historically important games. I can only guess that since the 2001 fiesta bowl was removed, you got mad and reverted a legitmate edit through "brute force."Tedmoseby (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the chance to settle this in a mature fashion, which you refused. You admitted on my talk page to using original research, which is a blatant violation of Wikipedia standards. I will have to keep a close eye on this page, to keep your original research and POV out of it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how is labeling each game with an independently verifiable source, what I called original research, immature? You are engaging in an edit war, and your revert of a legitimate edit calling it vandalism is both an abuse of the term and a violation of wiki etiquette. If I am guilty of anything it is poor word choice. Original research to me meant going out and finding articles by college football historians and writers in an attempt to make sure that the list of games were in fact legitimately listed. I don't see how you are claiming NPOV when you just reverted a legitimate edit with footnote on every single game listed bask to one that does not possess any at all. Tedmoseby (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I took out that bowl game as well as the others in an effort to strive for NPOV. When I first created the list, I was concerned that people would try to add games that were not significant to Notre Dame and college football, which was my intent. Not all bowl games or BCS games are created equal. IF it had been the first BCS game ever, or a BCS game that is written about widely (i.e. greatest Bowl games in college football history) then I think would be appropriate to add. The games listed are of historical significance to Notre Dame and to college football. If you had followed each link to every game listed in my edit, you would have seen that it went to an independent sports writer or historian that talks about the games in historical terms for college football, not just Notre Dame. I removed all the bowl games, since the section was reoriented to discuss regular season games and since the bowl games are already listed in a table and discussed in a separate section of the article. Thus it was not necessary to include them in two places on the same wikipedia page. Your reversion, abuse of the reversion by labeling it vandalism without first discussing the edit, and subsequent reversion by using my admittedly poor word choice against me is I believe in violation of wikiquette and an attempt to start an edit war. When I said original research, I meant mine, as in I included verifiable links to every game listed. I understand why you think it could have meant otherwise. If you look at the section, nothing is plagiarized or in violation of wiki standards. But again, instead of discussing it on the talk page like I and others have, you instead chose to act as the sole editor of the page. I thus find your "compromise" statement in your talk page to be offensive and not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. If you wish to discuss this on the ND talk page please do so. But do not dictate what another editor can or can't do.Tedmoseby (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Games Part 2 - Neutral Point of view

There has been some dispute between myself and tool2die4 as to what constitutes an important game. I believe that in order for a game to be listed, it must be widely considered by outside verifiable sources to be considered a great and historic game to the game of college football, not just Notre Dame. When I initially started the list, I added games that were both important for Notre Dame and important regarding college football. My concern, which came to fruition however, is that others would start adding wins and losses that did not belong on the list, and would stretch the meaning of the game to justify putting it on the list. My case in point is the 2001 Fiesta Bowl. While it may be significant because to ND because it was ND's first BCS game, it is not the first time Notre Dame played in the Fiesta Bowl, nor more importantly is it considered an important game by anyone in the sports media or sports historians. I looked for several verifiable sources to confirm the game and could not find any. I believe if we go down this road, I am sure people would start adding more ridiculous games to either bolster Notre Dame's image by adding tons of wins on the page or that Notre Dame haters would try to add tons of losses. So I propose that in order for the game to be listed it must be considered by an outside, reputable and neutral source to be a significant game. The verifiable source should talk about the game in that context. In other words, the game should make sport's writers lists, or have books written about them. I believe this approach truly reflects what is considered important or not important and removes the tendency to start waring over the inclusion of a game. So to that end, I have created the section I believe should be on the page. These are all wins losses and ties for Notre Dame, and I believe are NPOV because they are verifiabley so:Tedmoseby (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen - I don't think that this is a dispute past resolution with a bit of compromise and, I hope, good will. As I read it, here is the problem:

a) Tedm. wants a different section in the article for other important games ND has played in addition to several already mentioned in the article.

b) Tool wants these games to be listed as wins and losses (plus maybe ties) in approximately equal proportion to maintain NPOV.

c) Tedm thinks there needs to be a rubric other than wins/losses for inclusion on this list.

d) Tool believes that Tedm in so suggesting is violating Wiki:OR and Wiki:NPOV rubrics.

I hope I have this right; assuming for the minute that I do, here's what I think.

First, any such list as Ted proposes is bound to be subjective to a large degree, given the gross number of games ND has played and the perspective that any editor would bring to such a list. However, by itself, I don't believe that that fact violates Wiki prohibitions against OR or NPOV.

The collaborative nature of Wikipedia permits any editor - like Tool - to amend an article according to the lights of his/her own knowledge, providing that that knowledge can be attributed to a recognized source. So the creation of this section does not by itself violate Wiki rules, I think. It's a slippery area - but if you two could agree on a compromise document of rules and guidelines, I think you'd be on solid ground for including this section in the article.

If ANY editor can justify a game's importance according to some mutually agreed upon sourced and sourceable criteria - and that could include any given game - then it should be allowed on the list.

Ted's rationale here looks pretty good to me - but if guidelines for a section like this come from one person, then Tool is right and it becomes subjective. You both are probably aware that if you start this section - even if you agree completely on guidelines - you'll have to police it constantly (especially during football season) because extremists and partisans both pro- and con-ND assault this page regularly at that time.

Proportion of wins to losses is another question. If you look above, I quite accidentally proposed one win, one loss, and one tie for inclusion (not knowing two of the three were already included). But proportion vs. NPOV is another slippery area. I am fully sympathetic to Tool's fear that such a section could become mere blatant ND puffery without some serious attempts at balance. But I don't think you'll find that in numbers, maybe especially not to Tool's satisfaction. Notre Dame has won 74% of all the football games it has ever played - shouldn't that be the measure of the proportion? If you make a list half wins and half losses wouldn't that violate NPOV in an anti-ND way?

My answer would be to avoid a question of proportion altogether. Notre Dame has won plenty of significant games and lost many as well, and I've never actually myself tried to compute a proportion. So here's what I'd propose:

1) That the two of you would agree that there should be some sort of section of this kind (maybe organized into significant games as a subset of important rivalries? - or whatever you could agree on).

2) That you would create guidelines consistent with all Wiki policies, especially or sourcing - and that these guidelines should be limited to, say, three to five bullet points.

3) That you would (after initial agreement on a limited number of games - I'd say eight to ten that you both felt belonged) would pledge your lives, fortunes, and sacred honors to support each other in policing the section for violators of your rubric, and that in what would be the then-unlikely event of a dispute between you on inclusion of a game would apply to some wise graybeard administrator like ZimZalaBim for resolution.

That's the best I can do at the moment, guys. Maybe Zim will weigh in. I'm going to post this on your Talk pages and welcome comments. Regards to you both. Sensei48 (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sensei48 for your reply. I do not wish to see an edit war started on this site, and I believe that any attempt by myself to edit the page will draw such a reaction from tool2die4. I can see why the inclusion of such a list in the first place can be seen by some as violating NPOV. But I also know from reading books on college football history that there are games that are considered significant to the game, and that Notre Dame has played in many of them. Thus, I believe that the information is of historical and encyclopedic value. I do, however, agree that there is potential for abuse from either side. I also think discussion is merited about whether it should be on the main page or that a separate article should be made and then linked to the main article. But setting the inclusion of such a list aside, I believe that the list should reflect NPOV. My initial edit to the list that was reverted by tool2die4 was as earnest and verified attempt to do so. I apologize if it was construed as something else. So in an effort to get to NPOV, I propose that the following guidelines be considered for the inclusion of a game to the list:
a. an important/notable/significant/famous game is defined as a game that shaped college football and Notre Dame football. I believe this double criteria both keeps the list short and provides a clear guideline for editors spotting abuse.
b. "shaped college football" means the game should be referred to in an historical context. The term "game of the century,", a game that broke an important NCAA (not just Notre Dame)win streak, a game that has a celebrated anniversary, or a game otherwise talked about by a reputable (published, i.e. an neutral article, or a book on the game) source in historical terms such as "greatest games" or "top games".
c. the game must be verified as "significant" by at least two reputable sources that discuss the game in an historical context mentioned in b. I believe this is necessary to remove a single sports writer's point of view. If all the sources that can be found are on a fan site, I would submit that if the game is talked about by fan sites of both teams and an outside nuetral source as historical, if could be included. Since a fan site is one side of an opinion, the two opposing sites make a whole.
d. an editor can submit a game as long as it meets the above criteria.
e. an editor should submit the game on the talk page first? or at least provide the justification on the talk page for review.
I believe this methodology removes any temptation to place a game on the list based on any one editor's feeling (or any one sports writer's feeling) that it is important. That is why I removed the '01 Fiesta (tool2die4's feeling), along with the '89 Fiesta, '25 Rose, and '07 Navy (although I think it meets the criteria but has not been written about yet in historic terms) and others (that were my feeling). I do realize that the removal was considered POV, but since I was the one who had started the list in the fist place I believed I was removing my POV. So using this verifiable methodology, the following games that are listed below in the proposed notable/famous/significant games section are all games that meet the criteria. Please note that I did not chose these games, nor did I try to stretch any definition of "important" to include them. They are simply all the games that are talked about in such a context that I found. There maybe more(win, loss or tie). Also, all of these games are double verified with the exception of the '57 Oklahoma game, which is verified by a "this day in sports history" on history.com. It will need another source according to my proposed guidelines even though the single source is perhaps the most reputable of all. Finally, there is not an equal amount of wins, losses or ties. I believe striving for such balance would be violating NPOV, because again, these are games that are presented by multiple outside sources as significant/notable/famous games. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Proposed Notable/Famous/Significant Games section

Notre Dame has played in many regular season games that have been widely regarded by the media [1] as historic or famous games. Notre Dame has played in many games labeled as "game of the century" games as well as several #1 vs #2 matchups[2], It has also participated in several games that ended record streaks in college football. The games listed are widely regarded as of historical importance to the game of college football and are written about by sports historians and make many sports writer’s lists.

Notre Dame has also played in several bowl games considered by many sportswriters to be among the best bowl games played: [13][14]

  • 1970 Cotton Bowl vs. Texas
  • 1973 Sugar Bowl vs. Alabama
  • 1979 Cotton Bowl vs. Houston (Chicken soup game)
If you follow the link to every game, they are verifiable and lack any Bias, as they appear in multiple lists. I would welcome any addition to the list that is verified as being significant. Not believed to be significant solely on one's feeling that it is, thus creating bias and lacking NPOV. Tedmoseby (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)