Talk:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings

2006 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 5, 2007	Featured list candidate	Promoted
October 9, 2011	Featured list removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Former featured list

College football High‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion about this article

Discussion regarding this article is here.--NMajdan•talk 13:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for early creation

The Coaches poll was released on the first friday of August last year. The first friday in August is two weeks from today (July 21). Everyone I have asked on Wikipedia said creating this article two weeks before is acceptable. This allows people to make changes to the lead on the article as well as suggest any other table/format improvements and allows time to implement those changes before population of the tables.--NMajdan•talk 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSN Players Poll

I just discovered this blurb in the Colorado Media Day Media Guide (go figure): "TSN Players Poll. The first-ever Players Top 25 will be conducted this fall with the weekly results to be included in The Sporting News. Unlike the other polls, the players will not be identified and will be known only to the schools. Colorado has agreed to be one of the schools to participate in the experimental balloting; the yet to be selected player won’t be identified until after the season has concluded." Do we want to include this? Seems kinda gimicky. --MECU≈talk 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It is an interesting perspective. Do you mind providing a link to where you saw that? I know some other people who might be interested in that.--NMajdan•talk 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Page 8 under This-N-That, last bullet. --MECU≈talk 03:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Preseason Top 25

Ok, below is a consensus preseason top 25 from all the polls that have been released so far. i went ahead and added the appropriate links to the schools. This will make is easier to make the initial population of the polls when the first ones are released. The Coaches Poll was released July 30, 2004 and August 5, 2005 so I would assume the 2006 Coaches Poll will be released this Friday, August 4, 2006. So, for schools thats are not on the list below, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable and get the appropriate link (a 2006 team page if they have one, then a football page if they have one, then an athletic page if they have one, then the school page as the last resort).

Notre Dame Ohio State Texas Oklahoma USC Auburn West Virginia Florida LSU Florida State Louisville Miami California Michigan Iowa Georgia Virginia Tech Nebraska Penn State Clemson Texas Tech Tennessee Arizona State Utah TCU	[[2006 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team\|Notre Dame]] [[2006 Ohio State Buckeyes football team\|Ohio State]] [[2006 Texas Longhorn football team\|Texas]] [[2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team\|Oklahoma]] [[2006 USC Trojans football team\|USC]] [[Auburn Tigers football\|Auburn]] [[West Virginia Mountaineers\|West Virginia]] [[2006 Florida Gators football team\|Florida]] [[2006 LSU Tigers football team\|LSU]] [[Florida State Seminoles\|Florida State]] [[Louisville Cardinals\|Louisville]] [[Miami Hurricanes football\|Miami]] [[California Golden Bears\|California]] [[2006 Michigan Wolverines football team\|Michigan]] [[Iowa Hawkeyes football\|Iowa]] [[Georgia Bulldogs football\|Georgia]] [[Virginia Tech Hokies football\|Virginia Tech]] [[2006 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team\|Nebraska]] [[Penn State Nittany Lions football\|Penn State]] [[Clemson University\|Clemson]] [[Texas Tech Red Raiders\|Texas Tech]] [[Tennessee Volunteers\|Tennessee]] [[Arizona State University Athletics\|Arizona State]] [[Utah Utes\|Utah]] [[Texas Christian University\|TCU]]

Preseason rankings

We need to go back through the preseason rankings and verify them. Due to the events at Oklahoma (oy), some polls have adjusted their rankings. I know CFN and Sporting News has. I will try to do this monday, but I wanted to give others a heads up in case they can do it earlier.--NMajdan•talk 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should/would it be good to list both polls by the same source? ie, it may be interesting if other teams changed other than OU to show them. Perhaps having the first (older) poll grayed out to make it stand out less? --MECU≈talk 04:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added one of the new polls. You can see how I did it. I decided to keep the old polls, that was a good idea. You can still gray it out if you want, but take a look at it and tell me what you think.--NMajdan•talk 16:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I'm worried if we grey it out it will actually standout instead of fade into the background. --MECU≈talk 17:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)So, we'll just leave it until we figure it out.[reply]

Self reference

I reworded the intro a little to avoid a self-reference. Johntex\^talk 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for a poll to be listed

I think we need some kind of criteria to be able to list a poll, or this could get out of hand really fast. Specifically, I don't think Blogpoll should be listed for the full season. A poll in its 2nd season listed along side (or below, but in the same manner) as the AP and Coaches poll? If I create a poll at MECU'spoll.com, should we list that? Maybe we should create another article for lesser known/prominent polls and just provide a link to them? Then we could keep the big 4 (AP, Coaches, BCS, Harris [cough]) and then have 50 or 1000 on the other page? --MECU≈talk 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added BlogPoll because it is voted on by over 60 websites that analyze college football and the teams. A single person's poll on their own site definitely would not qualify but I felt that BlogPoll did have credibility because many of the largest CFB blogs voted. I still believe that this page should have any and all credible rankings even if they aren't publishing in the major media. If you want to create a subheading like ==Unofficial polls== or something like that and place ===BlogPoll=== and maybe even the USA Today Fan poll underneath it, that would work as well. I don't think another page should be created. I felt that since this is to be encyclopedic, obtaining many viewpoints would be beneficial. There are may complaints that the Coaches don't actually vote in their poll and that the media is biased. So the more, the better.--NMajdan•talk 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I like the sub-heading idea, though I don't like the "Official" and "Non-Official" names since the NCAA (the official) hasn't declared an official poll (or that the AP isn't official). Maybe... "Traditional" or "Well Established" or something along those lines? I also worry about the page growing too long. Perhaps put each into it's own page (can we use subpages off this article page for this?) for each poll and then just transclude them all here? Make editing easier as well. --MECU≈talk 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really didn't like the term "Official" vs "Non-Official" either but that was the first thing that came to mind. I don't mind using "Traditional" or "Established" and then "Other polls" or "Miscellaneous polls." I don't think we need to worry about the page becoming too long. As long as the page is serving the purpose it was created for, length should not be an issue. I don't feel there is anything here that belongs on its own separate page. I also don't think we can transclude a subpage of a page in article namespace. I know you can for a subpage in User and WP namespace, but not article namespace. I would've prefered doing the 2006 OU football roster that way, but I figured out I couldn't so I had to create a template.

About the new "Sportsline 119" Poll/Section added. What if we kept AP, Coaches, BCS and Harris on this, and created another article for the moblog, USAToday Fan and Sportsline 119 and any other polls people feel like adding? Further, this section added only has the latest week, which goes against the rest of this article in showing the whole season of polls. So it would need to be changed to match the format. We had discussed above about splitting into different sections, but I think the article has a good chance to get to FA-List if we remove the "extra" polls into another article, but with them we may never get there. (Lists like this can't be GA or A). --MECU≈talk 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the "Sportsline 119" Poll/Section, I added it, but could not find earlier weeks. Most of the preceding week could be inferred from the source article, but I couldn't find anything older. Maybe someone else can find the earlier information.

As to your idea of moving some of these less well-known polls (moblog, USAToday Fan and Sportsline 119) elsewhere, I think that is a good idea. If that is done, the article lead needs to make it clear that the article only refers to AP, coaches & BCS (except in the case of preseason polls) and tell the reader where to go for the other polls.--Tlmclain | Talk 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as moving some polls to another article, I personally disagree with it. I like having all polls on one page. The article itself is not terribly long (although it is large in size due to the tables) but I see no reason splitting up this article. I think we need to get some more opinions before going forward with the split.--NMajdan•talk 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the poll move is concerned, I could go either way. I think MECU's concern is that the article could get overwhelmed by polls that are increasingly out of the mainstream. On the other hand, it is nice to have all the polls in one place. I added the Sportsline 119 poll as much for the fact that it seeks to rank all 119 schools as for its attempt to take strength of schedule into account. But I know little about it and it may not be significant enough for inclusion in this article. Of course, like everything else related to rankings and #1 teams, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The bottom line is that I was not ready to defend Sportsline 119 as an absolutely necessary component of this article.--Tlmclain | Talk 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, its the time of the year when we need to step up our editing on this list and get it featured. The problem I have with the Sportsline 119 is, for this article, we only have the final poll. I believe this article should focus on the progression of the rankings throughout the season, as all the other polls do. Thats why I feel we should remove the Sportsline 119 from this page, unless we can get the results from every other week of the season. I am not opposed to keeping this poll on future articles, but I am opposed to having only one week of any poll on the page.--NMajdan•talk 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to figure out how to find the historical data on the Internet. Until I or someone else does, I agree that the Sports 119 inclusion in this article is inappropriate. I also agree that we should try to include it for 2007.--Tlmclain | Talk 14:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason for dividing into smaller groups is for 2007 NCAA Division I-A football rankings I put the new template poll table system in, and before I made some changes to the CC template that it depends on, it didn't fit. After the changes (did the /doc trick) it still barely fits, and I think with data it may grow too large. Here are the numbers:

<!-- 
Pre-expand include size: 1855141 bytes
Post-expand include size: 175502 bytes
Template argument size: 20742 bytes
Maximum: 2048000 bytes
-->

The template page hardly has any text on it, so the /doc trick won't work for it. It should work fine if we split into AP/BCS/Coaches/Harris/Preseason (which doesn't use the template so it doesn't matter) and Others on another article. Unfortunately, the subpage is disabled for article namespace so we can't go that route. We could create a "template" for each poll using the poll template system and then transclude the template onto the 2007 page, but I'm not sure if they would help the transcluding problem or not. Perhaps seeking some advice from some more knowledgeable template people would help? --MECU≈talk 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Template

I've generated a template that can be used for the major polls. BCS and Harris Polls it won't work since it's for 16 week polls and would be too difficult to code (read impossible, I tried). Do you think it would be useful to use this? I created it in the hopes that it would be easier for you pollsters to create and add information week to week. Template:16ColPollTable is the template and you can see the blank form. I've done an example poll with some of this years AP Poll here: User:Mecu/PollTableTest. The only thing I know it can't handle is ties. There isn't a way to hide the bar yet. Let me know if this would be preferable and I can keep working on it if it is. --MECU≈talk 14:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....Interesting. Is there a way you can automatically fill in the correct color? Like, instead of Week2-1-Color have Week2-1-Change. The options would be U (up), D (down), and NPR (not previously ranked) and depending on the input, the correct color is used. But that template is definitely plausible. I guess for ties, we could just use the '(t)' next to the teams, for now at least. Good job, looks like a lot of work. Why does it go all the way to Week 25?--NMajdan•talk 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this template to include codes to use u/d/npr U/D/NPR (Up/Down/Not Previously Ranked) as well as r/g/y R/G/Y. Also added is the tie feature of rt/gt/yt RT/GT/YT which is placed on the top of the two tied and it looks right. The table doesn't actually use all Week25 codes. This example only goes to Week16. I was thinking that I could create Week1 through Week17 (or whatever..20?) so that When it's just Week1, just use the Week1 template. When the next week comes out, you switch the template name to Week2 and add the new info. It would be easy to create this since the existing has 16 weeks, and creating lower weeks just removes code. This way would be significantly easier than changing this code to try and hide weeks until the data is added. I've also created a second method of doing this, whereby all the teams for the week are listed together and the the codes for that week are listed together. I'm not sure which makes more sense. I moved it off the poll page since it was really long, you can see the examples here. I don't expect this to take the place of the existing work. It's really just for next season and any past season that hasn't been done yet (so, 2004 and prior). Also, the one-week version could be used on other pages that just list one poll weeks' worth of information. Please take a look again, specifically at the User:Mecu/PollTableTest. The data isn't correct, it's really just for an example. All three tie examples can be seen in Week 2. If you have any thoughts on improvements, let me know. Thanks. (I just remembered I need to have the blue color as well. I shall add that, but only to the #1 and #2 positions so as to not make the code that much longer, unless anyone can think of a reason someone might want to highlight other spots? Say all undefeated teams?) --MECU≈talk 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created an 8 column (8 week) version of the template at {{8ColPollTable}}. I used it on 2006 BCS computer rankings where I discovered I really do need tie-yellow color codes (I tried to play the odds it wouldn't be needed, argh). I also need to add tu/TU td/TD tnpr/TNPR color codes so if there's a tie someone doesn't have to switch to using the g/r/y combination if they don't like. I used the u/d/npr codes as I think they are more intuitive. I like using it overall. I think it might help others in being able to help update the poll tables. I also think it might make vandalism easier (oh, I want my team #1 in week 5, so I'll change Week5-1). Perhaps subst: the template once it is complete and stable (like the 2004 rankings, if they used this template) so help prevent vandalism and to reduce the load on the server having to parse it over and over. --MECU≈talk 19:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change tie marker

I'd like to change (t) to _T. I think it would look slightly more professional and reduce the use of ()'s on the page, but it would increase the size of the page for every tie, by 8 chars, so no significant. Any thoughts? --MECU≈talk 15:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....that sub T looks a little weird. But, I agree about the need to get rid of the (). I guess I will agree with this. There's also т but I don't know if that looks any better.--NMajdan•talk 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name changed

I don't like the new name. First, in the 2006 season it was still known as I-A and I-AA. Only for 2007 and beyond is it Bowl Series (or Bowl Section?) and Playoff Series (or whatever it is), but I also saw I-BS and thought it was vandalism since BS can mean something else (ahem, didn't the NCAA think of this too?). I would rather have ...Division I Bowl Series... than I-BS. --MECU≈talk 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its "Bowl Subdivision". But I'm with you, I don't like the new name...I also thought someone vandalized the page as well. Seancp 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either, but yes, it was in effect for 2006. I put a notice on WT:CFB and I waited an hour. Granted, I guess that wasn't long enough, but I didn't get any responses at all and I really didn't think this would be a controversial change. The renaming was put into effect August 2006. I feel having the whole name "Bowl Subdivision" in every title is too long and the other abbreviation FBS is too vague. I'll hold off on any future changes.--NMajdan•talk 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But no one used it for the 2006 season. Can you show an article that uses this? I can show you many places that still use I-A and I-AA. But "BS" should not be used in the article title. Call it more of a marketing problem than a encyclopedic problem if you want. --MECU≈talk 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was used during game broadcasts on TV. And, more importantly, it is used on the NCAA website. I feel using BS is more encyclopedic because that is what the governing body of college athletics calls it.--NMajdan•talk 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It went into affect at the end of the 2005 season. [1].--NMajdan•talk 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparrantly, even the NCAA is confused. There is no mention of the Bowl Subdivision (BS) in the 2006 Record Book, which was published in August, 2006. So is the NCAA really using this?--Tlmclain | Talk 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they are. I posted the official announcement was was cced to various media companies. We'll see what the next record book looks like. The name change took effect after the 2005 season was over and the record books cover through the 2005 season, when it was still Division I-A and I-AA. A better indicator will be the next record book.--NMajdan•talk 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this appear on my watchlist and like everyone else, quickly assumed it was vandalism until. Virtually all of the g-hits for "Division I-BS" are from Wikipedia. In fact, the only two g-hits that aren't Wikipedia are from message boards. Every NCAA link I see says it should be "Division I FBS" (ex, [2]). So I think if we are going to use the new terminology, it should be that, not "Division I-BS". --BigDT 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with that. FBS is better than BS by a longshot! --MECU≈talk 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured?

So, what else needs to be done to this article before nominating for Featured List? I say if it needs anything else, we need to get on it. This article is dying to join its 2005 brother.--NMajdan•talk 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ready. It's better than 2005 because we have the т symbol which 2005 doesn't have (we should go use it there!). But I say submit it and see what they say. I'm ready to fix any problems they find. --MECU≈talk 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going for it.↔NMajdan•talk 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caps, etc

Is it "BCS Rankings", "BCS rankings", "BCS Standings", or "BCS standings"? Is there an official name for it? --- RockMFR 04:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at [3] it refers to "standings", but it isn't clear if it's S or s. I would say then that we use "BCS standings" officially until we get something that perhaps says "BCS Standings". BCS Ranking should be moved to this better name, with the redirect perfectly acceptable to leave. Making the other redirect for the other S/s would be a good idea too. --MECU≈talk 13:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]