Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Oct2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Charts based on Jeff Sagarin rankings

This is a discussion of whether a chart that interprets copyrighted material is itself a copyright violation, also whether forward-looking statistics violate the "crystal ball" tenet of Wikipedia. I, personally, don't think so. I've included my rationale below.--Robapalooza 01:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

At the suggestion of B, I am bringing this matter to the attention of the present forum. I am the author of several charts that I've recently posted to various wikipedia sites regarding 2007 seasons (current event) of various college football teams, most of which are in the Atlantic Coast Conference. I have conducted an additional analysis of statistics prepared by Jeff Sagarin and posted at: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc07.htm

Although Mr. Sagarin creates the statistics that underly the analysis used to ultimately generate the chart, the chart is entirely my own work and believed to be within the scope and spirit of Wikipedia's policies.

Although the analysis is forward-looking, the statistics are compiled weekly and are, therefore, believed to be current and not a "crystal ball" type of observation. That is, Sagarin's statistical analysis and my separate analysis have already happened. Also, I have included these charts on sites that are dedicated to this year's season of college football for the various teams. The sites for these teams carry an appropriate current event tag, so I think the charts are appropriate for such pages. Sagarin's webpage is protected by copyright, which means you can't copy his content without permission. The charts do not copy his content. Rather, my analysis in an additional analysis of a selected portion of his statistics, and, I believe, is properly attributed. The chart is entirely my own work. If you look at Sagarin's statistics page, it's merely a list of numbers, and he suggests that you can "predict" the outcome of a future game by comparing numbers, but he does not perform such calculations for the reader. I've merely picked up where he left off and applied it to the ACC teams and South Carolina. Maintenance doesn't bother me. I run this analysis every week regardless. The images are easily updated using Wikipedia's tools.

I sincerely welcome your comments and suggestions in this matter.

Complete list of sites that include the charts in question:

2007 College Football

College Football

--Robapalooza 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I see no problem with the charts. I don't believe they are any sort of copyright violation. Copyright does not apply to facts, it only applies to presentation of the facts. (That is not a legal definition, of course, and this is not legal advice). I also don't think they violate the "crystal ball" tenet of Wikipedia. We are allowed to cite predictions, such as who ESPN predicts will finish in the top 10, win the Heisman, etc. It is not a violation if properly sourced. I'd love to see a similar chart at 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. Johntex\talk 20:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Facts are not copyrightable ... Texas gained x number of yards against Central Florida is a fact - it's not copyrightable. The AP poll is not copyrightable because there is no creative aspect to it. But this data may be copyrightable - he isn't just reporting raw statistics. --B 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • So we can better analyze whether this is a copyright issue, here are the facts as objectively as I can give them to you. Here's a link to Sagarin's numbers [1]. The "rating" number is a synthesis of the "ELO Chess" (only winning and losing matters) and "Predictor" (only the score matters) numbers. Sagarin says the "Predictor" is the single best predictor of future games. The way Sagarin's "system" works, you take the number for one team, and compare it to the number for another team, then add or substract the "home advantage" for the home team. The difference is the predicted point margin. He ends his analysis there. He doesn't matchup teams for future games. In a way, he almost invites the user to matchup two teams on their own to create a "prediction."--Robapalooza 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Additionally, my contribution is as follows: (1) I created an Excel spreadsheet with every team in the ACC, plus their entire schedule listing each opposing team (and I added South Carolina for personal interest) (this is all public domain information). (2) Each week, I punch in Sagarin's "rating," "ELO chess" and "predictor" numbers for each team in the ACC and for each opponent, and the "home advantage." (3) After many hours of tweeking and experimenting, I came up with a spreadsheet that takes all this information and crunches it into a raw number margin of victory for each future game, carried out all the way to the end of the season. (Also, for the ACC, I have created a hypothetical list of the final standings for the ACC, which gives one an idea of who might compete for the ACC championship and in the various post-season bowl games; however, I've not posted any of this information on wikipedia.) (4) Arguably, the raw number margin-of-victory is directly derived from Sagarin's system; however, it's just a number, i.e. a fact. (5) After that, I decided that the raw number margin of victory isn't easily quickly understood, so I created charts for each team, plotting on the x-axis the opponent, and on the y-axis the predicted "margin of victory" based on Sagarin's statistics.--Robapalooza 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh, I'm definitely not a fan of the tables - especially how they're used on the two articles I've looked at (Miami, Clemson). Regarding the issues, you brought up, I agree with Johntex. I don't feel it is violating any Wikipedia policies. However, if I were adding this to an article, I would thumbnail the image; I think it is too dominate on the articles. Also, I would fix the section header. Give a header like "Prediction" and then give detail on what it is. Just my 2 cents.↔NMajdan•talk 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your input. I've updated all the pages so that the charts are 700px so as to not dominate the page. thumb doesn't work well because of the use of tables in some pages. I've also fixed the section headers.--Robapalooza 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
While interesting, I am not convinced the table is particularly encyclopedic. (WP:CBALL, WP:IINFO). Until/unless a convincing majority opinion can be formed that can change my mind, I've taken it off the 2007 Miami Hurricanes football team. It seems too arbitrary to mention, much less have its own section and such a dominating graphic. --mc machete 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm on the fence as to whether it should be included as I have to agree that the information is borderline encyclopedic; why Sagarin's predictions vs. those based on other computer systems or even the Vegas line for that matter?
I definitely disagree with the format for displaying the info - i.e. a bar chart graphic (not a table). The chart image is far too large for the information it conveys. The chart form really adds very little to the raw margin of victory (loss) number. Also it has the disadvantage of being completely inaccessible to the visually impaired, unlike plain text.
A table (not a chart) could be used with some coloring to convey the same information in a much smaller space and still be accessible. The predictions table could be expanded to include other methods, the line, and the actual result once the game is played. See here for an example. AUTiger » talk 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though it means more work for me, I have to admit I kinda like the idea of using something along the lines of: User:Autiger/Sandbox#Sample_Sagarin_projection_tables. Other thoughts? --Robapalooza 04:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the idea, since it doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. - Billma 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like original research to me. Especially when you stated "my analysis in an independent analysis" above. I would remove these from the article. It's not our job to create content for articles, but to include content that is included elsewhere with a citation. MECU≈talk 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That was a poor choice of words on my part and leads to the impression that the charts are original research. The charts are original works by me, but they are most definitely not original research. The charts are, quite simply, a new expression of research conducted by Jeff Sagarin. Nothing more, nothing less.--Robapalooza 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. Since we only display information about future games, it seems very crystal ball-ish to me. Especially with the title "Predicted..." I do like the table format rather than the bar chart, but I'm a numbers guy. In the end, what information does this really provide? A computer system things they will or won't win. Is that encyclopedic and useful? In 20 years will that information make this a better article? I doubt it. MECU≈talk 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks MECU for your further input. I think the usefulness of the charts will be fully realized at the end of the season when a time series of charts is accumulated for each team, thus creating a trendline through the season. For now, the information is highly interesting from now until the actual games are played. As the year progresses, the charts will diminish in size and eventually disappear. But, there is still value from the collection. I think, at the end of the season, when we're writing the more-encyclopedic account of this year's 2007 teams, the charts may be useful in determining how much a particular team's outlook changed going into and coming out of a game. The statistics capture a team's strength at that given moment. Such nuances might be lost if you just look at the record book. (Granted, a review of the week-by-week change in the rankings reflects this as well, but, personally, I think there's too much politics in the national rankings and not enough objectivity, thus, the reason for statistical analysis.) At the end of the day, I'm happy to contribute this information. I'll being doing the analysis regardless, so I'm happy to contribute, or not contribute, to these articles.--Robapalooza 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Robapalooza: while I appreciate your efforts, my objections stand: "While interesting, I am not convinced the table is particularly encyclopedic. (WP:CBALL, WP:IINFO)." As such, please discontinue placing this graphic or anything pertaining to Sagarin predictions from 2007 Miami Hurricanes football team. I'd rather not have to keep taking it off. Thanks. --mc machete 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rankings on schedules

I think all of the season articles should include rankings on the schedule. The ranks would give readers an idea of how tough the team's schedule may be. ESPN does this. The ranks, however, will have to be updated weekly as they change. What is everyone's opinion about this? BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If the teams are ranked, then yes, that should be reflected on the schedule. However, I believe the rankings should remain as they were when they played. This is what we do on individual game pages, we include the rankings as they were when the teams played. I would think any end-of-year ranking for a team could be included in the game summary.↔NMajdan•talk 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely: the ranks in a schedule and initial descriptions of a game are when the teams played. Now, if a team won/lost a close game to an unranked team that ended up in the top-10 (which has happened), then by all means mention it as Nmajdan's noted. --Bobak 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
As others say, the primary ranking in the schedule table is that of the opponent when the game is played. I don't see a need (and have little interest) in maintaining current rankings all season long on each opponent (or even prior to gameweek ranking). However, it does occur to me that a Final Ranking could be of interest after the season, since (theoretically) the final ranking most accurately reflects the teams' strength. AUTiger » talk 14:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the comments so far. The schedule should show the opponents ranking as it was coming into the game. Ideally, the text should be revisited after the year to show where the opponents end up. I also recommend the schedule section should include a "see also" link to 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings so readers can easily access rankings for all teams through the season. Johntex\talk 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The schedule template already has a variable that makes the "Rank" column header a wikilink to the respective year's ranking page.↔NMajdan•talk 18:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

TV links on schedules

This is not a big deal, but it would be best to link the following TV stations on the season schedules this way:

BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just linking, correct? Not actually writing them out? e.g.: [[ESPN on ABC|ABC]] --Bobak 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for the confusion. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Coaches' articles using CFB Coaching Record template

FYI: on 10/12, User:Darkwind (not a self-identified member of WP:CFB) AWBed many college coaches' articles using {{CFB Coaching Record Team}} (deprecated) to convert to {{CFB Yearly Record Start}} etc. but unfortunately, the params for bowl information do not match between the templates so you'll probably find your favorite coach's career record bowl info no longer displays correctly. Check Darkwind's contribs for possibly affected articles. AUTiger » talk 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Resolved

Result Deleted
  • 50 Years of College Football: A Modern History of America's Most Colorful Sport (via WP:PROD on 2007-10-02) Deleted
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed football player, coach, etc. biography work group

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#North American football players for a group which would work specifically on articles relating to biographies of individual players, coaches, and other related individuals. Any parties interested in working with such a group are encouraged to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Thank you. John Carter 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

BCS standings

I would like to suggest you add the BCS standings to {{NCAATeamFootballSeason}}. Thank you.--Monnitewars (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Gary Moeller

There's something wrong with the article, it should be greatly expanded. For one his career at Michigan is less then a paragraph, while his 7 game stint with the Detroit Lions is given undue weight. Also I don't think it was a drunk driving incident that got him fired, I can't find any sources for that. -MichiganCharms 15:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 team pages

There's currently a dispute over whether or not it is too early to create 2008 team pages. One such discussion can be found here. From my point of view, it can never be too early to start collecting information about upcoming seasons. Input from the anyone in the college football community would be very helpful. Thanks. -- Hawk17 02:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is never too early to inform the reader about planned events. If we can have 2008 Summer Olympics we can have articles on 2008 football teams also. I have created Category:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. It currently has 6 articles:
I encourage anyone creating 2008 articles to link to the this discussion and to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team in the hopes of heading off future AfDs that would just be a waste of time. Johntex\talk 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Top 25 rankings and beyond

I was editing a team page and noticed that they were adding the rankings beyond the top 25 (Others Receving Votes) and a wikipedian asked me the reasoning as to why I changed the teams rankings that were not in the Top 25 and I told him that we were trying to keep with the consistency of other pages and only include tne Top 25 rankings on the teams schedules and he told me that "It shows that the team is on the verge of cracking the top 25, and that they are garnering respect on a national level." My question to everyone is that; Should we include those who are "Others Receiving Votes" in the rankings on the team schedules?Dawg1279 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Those teams that received votes are not considered "ranked number 27" or whatever. If the article wants to state that they received votes, thats fine. But the rankings do not extend past 25. That is my opinion at least.↔NMajdan•talk 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not just opinion. The polls themselves specifically state that "others receiving votes" are NOT considered to be ranked #26, #27, and so on. Seancp 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The convention for including non-Top 25 rankings is NOT settled. There has been VERY LITTLE DISCUSSION AMONG A WIDE SWATH OF INTERESTED CONTRIBUTORS, and certainly NOT a concensus. As I have experienced in editing wikipedia articles since it started in 2001, it is often the case that in newer subject-articles, the most active users bully their POV regarding content, conventions and so forth for wikipedia articles. The exchange above is typical; as if the convetion used by Bigblue, me and others who agree with us is less appropriate than Dawg1279's and the 2 others who mostly agreed with him...So they take 3 votes and act as if they own the articles. The fact is the PURPOSES of the AP's and Coaches and "other" polls DOESN'T matter for how those polls are to be used for WIKIPEDIA'S PURPOSES. If those polls don't rank non-TOP 25 teams but still show votes, that doesn't mean that it has to be treated the same way in wikipedia. Putting a rank where the polls themselves do not is a natural and easy way to show, this team got more votes than this team. In this case, removing any reference to the Top 25 votes excludes information on how well a team is doing or is respected. THAT VIOLATES WIKIPEDIA'S PRIMARY PURPOSE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. Wikipedia should include as much correct information as possible on the subject while avoiding offensive content as much as possible. Arguments so far not to include non-Top 25 rankings because of "relevance", "uniformity", "or that's not the way the polls work" are all specious. At any rate, Dawg1279 can congratulate himself on driving away a useful contributor to these articles...who is going to keep 2007 BYU Cougars football team current now? 'Cause it's not going to be me. Allowing a little dis-uniformity at first until a convention is settled will go a long way in keeping useful contributors, but apparently having their way is more important than having useful contributors and helping the articles progress. B 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I will offer a couple of suggestions or comments. Perhaps use the BCS ranking as is shown on
Sports Illustrated since it is more robust than the Coaches Poll and perhaps the most relevant and accurate poll any way. That would also avoid the issue about votes, since no one can credibly argue that Top 25 votes should not be included...that's simply ignoring/excluding relevant information....and how are you going to show votes AND make present that information in a way that helps people easily see how teams stack up against each other? That's an issue that is not going to go away unless you come up with a convention that is generally acceptable. When you all settle on a convention by concensus, maybe I'll come back and contribute. B 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't argue that the "Others recieving votes" aren't ranked 26-whatever number of teams there are recieving votes. If the polls were to expand past 25, those teams would have a number right next to them which corresponds past 25. As a matter of fact, Sportsline.com uses this method to show that the team recieved votes to be in the top 25 by both the AP and Coaches. Connecticut for example on sportsline is ranked 29th or somewhere in the general area because they have the corresponding number of votes which make them the 29th ranked team in the NCAA. I also don't understand how on a website which is a public domain mind you, people have the ability to decide which information can and cannot be displayed on a page. As long as the information is factual, there is no reason for it to be removed. If I take the time to create a page, and chose to include information which someone else doesn't agree with, they have the right to edit it, but they don't have the right to tell me that it shouldn't be included because it doesn't "mesh" with the other articles. If i take the time to make a page, and want to include information which is factual, and contributes to the use of he page, there is no reason as to why it shouldn't be included.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigblue1222 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with NMajdan and Seancp on this. It's been clearly established both by the community and WP:CFB that "others receiving votes" does not equal #26 and beyond. Including such "information" is both inaccurate and misleading. If it was from the CBSsportsline120 then okay, because they rank ALL the teams, but it should be clearly marked as such and not in the schedule where we previously decided to only use the Coaches Poll for such (or Coaches & AP). MECU≈talk 03:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to tell me that the team that got the 26th most votes isn't the 26th ranked team? That's kind of hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.132.27 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to the negativity regarding my edits, I did not drive anyone off, they left on their own. My feelings about the whole thing is that, going along with what MECU was saying about the rankings on the team pages not being the CBSsportsline120, therefore if they are not in the top 25, then they should not be included on the team pages. I understand fans of a particular team wanting to show that THEIR team is on the verge of breaking the top 25, by including their ranks from "others receiving votes." In keeping with the formality of ALL team pages, we just need to stick with ONLY those in the Top 25. Also, if what BoNoMoJo was saying is true, then the Rankings on the 2007 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings page should include those that are "others receiving votes," in order to keep with the unity of OTHER Wikipedia pages (i.e. Team Pages and their Rankings). Dawg1279 04:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To reiterate what others have said, in the longest-lived and most commonly used polls (Coaches/AP) to dub teams in the Other receiving votes (ORV) grouping as the #26, #27, etc teams is incorrect; both because the polling organizations say so (they don't publish those teams with a ranking number) and because of the type of preference voting used (i.e. because poll voters only vote on 1-25). With this type of vote, the ORV teams are basically statistical outliers and there is little confidence that they are accurately ranked (assuming for the moment that teams actually can be accurately ranked). If the poll voters were asked vote for 1-30, there is a strong possibility that the 26-30 would not be the same as the vote order currently seen in ORV. Due to the nature of the vote, those outliers can be easily manipulated. For example, say the coach or a beatwriter for Whatsamatta U. votes the Whatsamatta Playas #15 on their ballot earning 10 points for ORV and placing them in the "30th" position while Upstate Tech was voted #25 by eight different writers or coaches in their respective polls earning 8 points for ORV and placing UTech in "31st" in ORV. Which team should really be #30; the team with one biased voter or the team with eight unbiased voters?
Additionally, the further you get from the extremes (good/Top 10 or bad/Bottom 10) the less distinction you can really make in the middle of the bell curve of team performance. Among 21 5-win teams, how accurately can you distinguish their ranking? It's bad enough determining the ranking of seven 7-win teams. AUTiger » talk 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Good points, AUtiger, but this isn't the proper article to make those arguments...that is for a guideline article, and there still is no published guideline (or even a proposal) reached by concensus on this subject, and until proper wikipedia procedure is followed, no editor has a right to delete information based on their personal preference. If any of you folks care to make that a guideline to enforce, then start the guideline article and get a formal discussion going and a concensus reached. B 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, no. There is no need for a guideline as this falls under policy. The USA Today/Coaches Poll only ranks teams from 1 to 25; claims that BYU has been ranked #29, #39 or #43 by the that poll are false and unverifiable and "may be removed". AUTiger » talk 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My own two cents is that the "others receiving votes" shouldn't be construed as #26 onwards. While it is tempting to use the first several (e.g. 26-29) that have a lot of points/votes, I feel the process would be flawed and, in the case of the Coaches Poll, result in Duke getting an artificially high ranking every pre-season that Steve Spurrier votes in. --Bobak 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The polls themselves call themselves Associated Press Top 25 and USA Today/Coaches Poll Top 25.[2] Not Top 27, not Top 30. Top 25. Extending beyond this would be misleading.↔NMajdan•talk 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No concensus reached, nor proposal or guideline even started

As I heard a law professor state one time, as soon as someone claims that something has been "clearly established" you can rest assured that it likely has NOT been clearly established. So, MECU, please link to the discussion(s) (i.e proposal or guideline articles in wikipedia) where this convention has "been clearly established both by the community and WP:CFB". Currently there is NO Official Wikipedia guidelines on this subject...indicating that it is NOT a settled convention. Please note that a wikiproject article is not the same as a guideline article. NONE OF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CLAIM THAT REASONABLE EDITS ARE VANDALISM OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE WIKIPEDIA POLICY WHEN THERE IS NO GUIDELINE ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY CONCENSUS. B 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They're in the archives of this page or the season guideline/format talk page. I'm not going to search for you with that attitude. MECU≈talk 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to give readers an idea of how the team compares to other teams around the country, why not add their weekly NCAA rankings? Here are BYU's. Another thing, have you ever heard a sportscaster give a ranking to a team that received votes from the polls? Per the discussion above, I don't think it's wise to add such rankings either. BlueAg09 (Talk) 18:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
But which one(s)? Updating those rankings would get pretty tedious and while stats are interesting, they don't always track well with the only stats that matters, the final score and wins/losses. I definitely think a link to each team's NCAA stats page would be a great addition to the infobox, however. AUTiger » talk 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NAIA and NJCAA College Football?

I do not see any references to the NAIA or NJCAA (junior college) football programs here. I believe that they do belong as the topic is currently named. I'd be willing to put work into the NAIA section.

If NAIA and NJCAA should be separate, then should this project be renamed "NCAA Football"??

Also, I could use some help on the infobox for Malone College Athletics--NCAA still shows up where the blank "division" category is.

What are everyone's thoughts? Combine forces? Separate projects?--Paul McDonald 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm for separate projects. There aren't enough editors on this project for all the articles we have and I think we would be diluting it even more if we added those articles that probably will get very little attention. However, I have fixed that infobox to allow for NAIA and/or NJCAA and made the appropriate change to the article you mentioned.↔NMajdan•talk 15:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Another editor changed the code which would remove the NCAA/NAIA line from nearly every article that uses the template. I have reverted his change and detailed my reasoning on the template's talk page.↔NMajdan•talk 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks great!--Paul McDonald 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The reasons I would like to "piggyback" NAIA college football (and NJCAA college football) on this project are: 1) It would promote uniformity in Wikipedia; 2) we wouldn't have to start completely over for NAIA and NJCAA; 3) A lot of coaches and some players go back and forth between NAIA/NJCAA/NCAA -- especially those that play in one division and coach in another; and 4) since it's basically "me" and maybe a few others focusing on NAIA/NJCAA right now--we won't "eat much" ! Could really use your help in doing simple things like standards, uniformity, etc. Not looking to "swipe" editors, just ideas.--Paul McDonald 18:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a decision maker or anything, but I don't see a problem with NAIA/NJCAA stuff being included in this project. After all, it is called "Wikiproject College Football" and that leads me to believe that it is inclusive of all college football division. I won't be doing any NAIA/NJCAA editing but someone else wants to, I don't see why we should discourage that. I think you should have full use of all standards and template this project has created. Seancp 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I like Seancp's reasoning. We might as well keep them together if we can. I do agree with NMajdan that most of the curretn WPCFB contributors are focused on more "major" schools but I think we also agree that our ultimate goal is to be comprehensive. Including NAIA and NJCAA is consistent with that goal. Johntex\talk 13:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Charts based on Jeff Sagarin rankings

Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive-Oct2007

User:Robapalooza has continued to inclued this temporary, non-encyclopedic information into the articles. While I appreciate his efforts, my objections and the objections of others had been noted, and yet the charts continue. The information is definitely interesting, but it does not belong (WP:CBALL, WP:IINFO). I feel the simple "betting line" serves this purpose best. --mc machete 00:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the graphs themselves are difficult to read as they do not have a legend. --mc machete 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
From my recollection, it seemed we all pretty much agreed they aren't useful. Removing them would be okay it seems to me. Perhaps getting some outside input would help? I hate to start going down the 3RR vandalism dispute resolution arbitration path. MECU≈talk 19:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I-A_national_football_championship This page has evolved into an unacceptable original research and synthesis project under Wikipedia guidelines. The tables listing national championships by year and total championships are synthesized from various sources, incompletely in some cases, and represented as an "authoritative" list. It inappropriately conveys the misconception that most of the pre-1935 champions were consensus picks, when in fact the opposite was quite true for reasons that I have added in the discussion in the article.

I am currently trying to resolve this issue with Iowa13, but have not gotten an adequate response other than a brush off. I urge that this article be demoted to "C" quality until this issue is resolved and the original research removed. Gvharrier 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we have come to a preferred solution that meets everyone's concerns on this issue. Gvharrier 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Combining information from various sources is exactly what we should be doing. Relying on a single source is what would be wrong. Johntex\talk 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue is how the information is combined. A synthesis represents a judgment-based combination. Compiling from multiple sources is a non-judgmental basis of combining. To the extent that additional information can be added to that compilation is another goal of combining. I believe that is where we are directing the revisions on that page now. Iowa13 is doing the work on that process now. Gvharrier 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Head coach salaries

I would appreciate any input about adding salaries to the coach infobox. A similar discussion is ongoing here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... I think "no" because in 100 years, the salary itself may not be relevant information due to inflation/etc. However, I do think that it may well be wortwhile information--I've heard that many states report that the hightest paid state employee is the college football coach. Perhaps instead a separate article on college football salaries would be better.
Also, I think "no" because often times those salaries reported do not include (or do include) endorsements and other incomes. I think it's just too complex of an issue to have in the infobox for the coach.--Paul McDonald 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.....that is already in the template. It uses the Contract parameter but appears on the infobox as salary. You can use it to say what their contract is (i.e. $8 million for 3 years) or their actual salary (i.e. $189,000/year). The latter is better for assistant coaches. Check out Bob Stoops and Brent Venables. Also, Paul, I would agree that this information only belongs on the infobox while the coach is active. It should be removed when the coach retires.↔NMajdan•talk 21:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur that it's not particularly useful for former coaches, but certainly is relevant for current coaches. My extended remarks on the subject are at the Tuberville Talk page linked by BlueAg09. AUTiger » talk 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)