Jump to content

Talk:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've tagged this as unencyclopedic as it was/is talking about future events (which have now occurred) (see WP:NOT). It needs, imo, to be updated or deleted. - Politepunk 13:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly fits in the #1 under Crystal Ball: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ... A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. Mecu 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Key Matchups section

[edit]

While the AfD consensus was "keep", I think there was sufficient consensus that the "Key Matchups" section needed to go. If someone really thinks I'm wrong here, by all means revert and give me a good reason why it complies with WP:NPOV. BryanG(talk) 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it should be restored only when sourced: E.g. when we can link to "SI's top 10 games to Tivo this season" or the like - that way its their opinion being cited, not ours. Johntex\talk 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be fine - it was really the unsourced section from before that I was talking about anyway. BryanG(talk) 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Game List

[edit]

Do we want a full games list of the season? It would be quite lengthy and just clutter up this page, so perhaps on another page? Or go week by week of games? Something like 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season week 1 and then 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season week 2 and so forth? Mecu 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think a full season schedule is necesary or beneficial here. I'd rather see us list games that a national news source (such as ESPN or SI or Foxsports) has identified as the "key matchups" or "must-see games". Johntex\talk 13:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Johntex on this. I think a list of all the games would make the article way too long, is not especially encyclopedic, and would probably hurt the project as a whole by having multiple articles come up for deletion. It would also be impossible for the project to decide which games should and should not be mentioned and maintain WP:NPOV, so let's wait for the news sources to make a decion about what is important and then highlight that for each week, replacing the section after each week's games have passed or at most keeping one week of back-logged information (i.e. This Week's Major Matchups and Last Week's Major Machups). In either case, those sections must be sourced or they violate all sorts of policies.
Okay, so we'll just list games that are noted as important by other sources. But I disagree that we delete them after the week is over. Does it become unencyclopedic after 2 weeks? Mecu 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we run the risk of the article becoming too long to be usefull if we keep more than two weeks worth of matchups, not necessarily un-encyclopedic. maybe keep two weeks of data for the top games and then have a separate section that is for notable games from that season...instant classics if you will. Z4ns4tsu 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of rankings

[edit]

I have a suggestion and want to hear from everybody else about its "encyclopedic" value. I would like to see a section of a page, or a dedicated page, that displayed the progression of rankings throughout the season. It would be interesting to see how much the rankings change through the course of a year. The page (something like 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings) would look something like this:

AP Poll

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
1. 1. 1.
2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3.

Coaches Poll

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
1. 1. 1.
2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3.

I like seeing the same poll be spread horizontally. So, good idea or bad idea?

This could be useful, but a well written article on how the ratings work (in theory) would be more important. But I'm fine with this idea, though listing all the ratings would be important for completeness (AP, BCS, Coaches, others?). --Mecu 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article would contain the following rankings: AP, Coaches, BCS, and the Harris Interactive. I wouldn't be against including others polls such as ESPN's or Sportsline's Power Rankings.--NMajdan•talk 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made an early draft of the page on my userspace. The intro could use a little work but I made the tables so only data has to be inputed. I also think that maybe, as the season progresses, we could use different colors in the cells to indicate if the team increased in ranking or decreased. But, the page as it is now has the four major polls. Let me know what you think.--NMajdan•talk 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the look of it. I think that the article should only have the AP and Coaches polls on it, though, until the BCS and Harris polls are actually released. At that time, I'd really expect to see the BCS rankings at the top of the page since they become the most important, in general, then the AP, Coaches, and Harris in that order. I also like the idea of changing the colors to designate movement. Maybe #99FFCC for up and #FFCCCC for down? We'd have to rig up a table and look at them side by side though...may as well do it.
Up Down
Climb Fall

Z4ns4tsu 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind leaving the other poll off for now. I can keep them in my userspace so they don't have to be completely recreated. And yeah, BCS should probably go on top when its released. Those colors will work although I wouldn't mind them be a little lighter. I adjusted you're choices a little: #D8FFEB for up and #FFE6E6 for down.
Up Down
Climb Fall

--NMajdan•talk 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made another change to the table format. I made the changes to the AP Poll table. Basically, I created a new spanned row for Week with just the numbers in the individiual cells below it. Naturally, as teams are entered into the cells, the table will widen. What does everyone think?--NMajdan•talk 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your color choices better. I was going for something right arround those shades, but I see now that what I chose was a bit too dark. As for the changes, I'm not sure that saving they will be as useful once we fill in a few weeks with teams, though it does look better now. Do you plan on using abreviations or full school name on this table, btw? That could make a lot of difference. Z4ns4tsu 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably just use the most common abbreviations, probably won't differ too much from the way the list is published. Oklahoma, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU, UCLA, etc.--NMajdan•talk 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good. Though why do the AP and Coaches poll differ in their Week listing? Also, I think we should link to the current year team pages, if they exist, otherwise the football page, if it exists, then the athletics page, if it exists, and then just the school. And what about preseason rankings? Do the AP and Coaches list them? Perhaps we should include the records of the teams behind their name (like: Notre Dame (1-1)) and if they're undefeated, list them in bold (like: Texas (2-0)), it may look slightly ugly early in the season when there are lots of 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, etc. What about listing the #1 team in their school color(s)? --MECU≈talk 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The AP and Coaches poll differ because I was trying out a different look on the AP poll and left the Coaches poll alone for comparison. Which do you like better, AP or Coaches? I don't mind your suggestion regarding links. So the order of preference for team links will be Team's Football Year Page > Team's Football Page > Team's Page > Team's School (2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team>Oklahoma Sooners football>Oklahoma Sooners>University of Oklahoma). I agree with the records. Sometimes its good to know that the #22 ranked team is undefeated. I say we leave undefeated teams unbolded, no need to set them out if we have the record right beside them. Same thing for the #1 team, just leave the colors alone.--NMajdan•talk 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either. I slighly prefer the coaches style. You've got my preference for linking right. Yah, no bolding and color magic, I'm fine with that too. --MECU≈talk 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably create the page later this month or early next. The Coaches preseason poll typically comes out the first or second week of August with the AP poll following a few weeks later. I'll create the page roughly one week prior to the release of the first poll. This will allow time for others who have not seem my userspace page to make modifications before population of the tables. I'd like to create it now just to get it out there but I don't know if it being so early for be a criterion for speedy deletion or deletion. Also, a question I think I missed earlier, the preseason poll will go in the Week 1 column. If you look at the ESPN page for the poll, you'll see that is how they did it as well (hence the teams are all 0-0). I would love for this page to be a Featured List after the season is over. That should be what we shoot for.--NMajdan•talk 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I think I'm going to create the article on Friday. Last year, the Coaches poll was released the first Friday in August. This friday will be two weeks before the first friday in August and I'll assume the poll will be released around the same time it was last year. I'll put a justification for the early creation of the article in the talk page.--NMajdan•talk 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about deletion. I believe we could stave it off enough since it's an event that will probably happen. I went ahead and did the BCS Poll for 2005 and all the colors. I added another color (yellow) for new teams that entered the poll. I also added a row at the bottom that shows which teams dropped out of the poll (for completeness). For the BCS, I added all the weeks there were listed and it was short of all the weeks listed so I removed Week15&16 columns. Perhaps we should add the date with the Week # column? Looking back historically, seeing "Week 8" but seeing "Week 8/Oct 22" would have much more meaning. I didn't add the records because the BCS PDF I was using doesn't list them at all on the page. I also think we should maintain the current top25 list for all polls over at Wikinews:Portal:Football (American). I created the blank table, and the efforts will be duplicated, but perhaps we could link here as well and it might give us more exposure. --MECU≈talk 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the look of it Mecu. We should probably use a different color for the teams selected to the BCS championship game than the yellow for new teams. Maybe a blue? the colors of the championship bowl game that year? something like that. Z4ns4tsu 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking since yellow is so eye-catching, use a light-blue for the new-entry-to-the-poll teams? Also, I remember reading somewhere about how they developed a chess board template so you could easilly create a chess board with the images of the peices in place. I think something like this might help us, but I can't seem to find it anymore. --MECU≈talk 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2005 article created here. It has the AP poll and BCS. I like some of the additional changes that were added to the BCS so I'll add those to my AP poll as well.--NMajdan•talk 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it here: Template_talk:Chess_diagram. I think this will help so I'll look into it and think about it.

End of season

[edit]

I think it is more proper to say that the season ends with the National Championship Game, not the Hula Bowl. I consider the three "all-star" games to be post-seasonal play. I propose we say in the intro that the season ends with the national championship game, and then to mention that the season is followed by 3 additional all-star games. Johntex\talk 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --MECU≈talk 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. The "all-star" games are really for the NFL and not the NCAA anyway. Z4ns4tsu 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was wierd, my last edit got a time stamp one hour earlier than reality, so it wouldn't display. I had to manually change it. Z4ns4tsu

Season News

[edit]

Should there be a section (with subsections for each week) that describe important news items for that week? Such as, for the pre-season section, could have rule changes, the Oklahoma Sooners QB & lineman dismissal, recruiting violations/other scandals/sanctions? I know we're not a news site, but season altering news like the OU thing I believe should be in on the 2006 page somewhere since A) they were selected by some to win it all and B) an upset/loss by Notre Dame would also be damaging. Perhaps weekly summaries of important events? I guess then what happens when a week goes by and nothing noteable happens (lets say all top 25 teams win)? Any thoughts?--MECU≈talk 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against something like a Major Events section with a bulleted list of events that occurred throughout the season. However, it would be hard being NPOV when it came to random editors views as what is important. Yeah, the OU think is big but what if this happened to Middle Tennessee State? Somebody from there may deem it big news, but not to everybody else.--NMajdan•talk 13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a simple rule: If it affects a team that is pre-season selected to win it all, or a current #1 or #2 ranked team, it's important. I think everyone would agree with that. But then this could turn into a season page for a team if like last season, USC/Texas are #1/#2 all season long again it would be all about USC/Texas. --MECU≈talk 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it long-term, there are usually only one or two really notable things about a season. For instance, 2005 had a few big upsets, but nothing spectacular until the Rose Bowl. There were the Marcus Vick issues, but those would be more suitible as entries on his page. I suppose that there really wasn't anything (to my feeble and distracted mind) that really "stood out" last season and needs to be recorded on the season page. Unlike, say in 2002 when there were two or three straight weeks of last-second upsets. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that the section wouldn't always be needed, so I'm not sure we want to set the expectation that it will be there. Z4ns4tsu 19:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Matchups

[edit]

This list looks like it is getting a bit long to me. Is there a chance that we can get it pared down to just the one or two most important games from each week? Also, while I agree that almost every game listed here is/was important, if it is not recognized as such by the media at large and can not be sourced, it should be droppped from the table (IMO). Here are my keepers from the season so far:

  • Ohio State @ Texas - #1 vs. #2 is always a season-changer, especially when it is this early in the season
  • Michigan @ Notre Dame - Huge upset and possibly the biggest of the season
  • Michigan @ Ohio State - Only deserves to be here if both are still in the top 10 when they play or Michigan gets the upset.

Yeah, that's about it. Insead of the table listing a bunch of games like we have now, I'd rather see a smaller section with sub-headings for the games and a detailed and well-sourced analysis of what happened and how it changed the season as a whole (not just for the teams involved, but for the whole conference or nation). Maybe this can wait until the end of the season, but right now we're getting a lot of POV in the significance column. z4ns4tsu\talk 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should wait until the end of the season to pair down the games, except the unsourced ones. If there's no source for a game when added, it's likely POV from the poster, and if it's not POV then it should have a source. So if there's no source for it after 24 hours, remove it. I think during a season, there are lots of important games, but looking back at last year (for example) there's only 1 or 3 important games. I'm going to remove all games that don't have a source now. --MECU≈talk 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps the deciding line should be two sources that say it's important. If you look now, there are only 2 games important with that criteria, both you listed above. --MECU≈talk 12:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to pair down the list. I think we could keep some of the one-sourced items if both teams involved are in the top-25 now. But games like TCU, and Northwestern don't stand a chance. Anyone have a problem with this or should the two-source minimum be kept? --MECU≈talk 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object, actually. I don't think much thinning of the list is needed at all. The Nortwestern example should definitely stay in - there was HUGE media attention to that game due ot ht edeath of the coach. The TCU game is cited and it was very unusual in that Tech was not able to score a touchdown. I think only unsourced games should be removed. Any that are properly sourced by one or more refernces should stay, in my opinion. Johntex\talk 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you at least be okay with removing those that have sources from non-national places? Or ones that aren't really impartial? For example the Ga Tech/Clemson game by a GA newspaper (though it says AP)? --MECU≈talk 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


West Virginia-Rutgers ought to be on that list. Not only was it an exciting triple-overtime thriller, it crushed Rutgers' BCS dreams. Also, Michigan State-Northwestern should be on the list since it was the largest comeback in NCAA history. Jhn31 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl games

[edit]

I noticed that the AP rankings are being used in the Bowl games section. Since we are using the Coaches poll for the most part on the yearly team articles (2006 Texas Longhorn football team), would it make sense for us to switch this section to the Coaches poll as well?--NMajdan•talk 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But also I think having the whole bowl list isn't needed, as it's all contained in the article that's linked under the {{main}}. Maybe just list the BCS bowls? Or, other notable bowl games -- if something unique happens like The Play? --MECU≈talk 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason the bowl games are in list format and not a table? I think a table would be more appropriate for this kind of information, so I'm going to change it. Feel free to change it back if you disagree and we can discuss it here or on the project talk page. z4ns4tsu\talk 21:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I had thought about doing it myself. I may make some layout/format changes to what you've done however (including more linkages). AUTiger ʃ talk/work 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FBS?

[edit]

I know that "Division I BS" may look a little ungainly :) , but where did the "F" in the article title come from? It seems redundant to say "FBS football season," since presumably the F is for football. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the NCAA designated abbreviation for Football Bowl Subdivision.↔NMajdan•talk 13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing games?

[edit]

I just looked over the list and thought it was pretty good, just noticed some notable missed games. First, the Kansas State-Texas game where Colt McCoy got injured and KSU won, changing the whole Big 12 picture, and second, the BYU-Utah game, won on a last-second pass in the fourth quarter. It was all over the news because of the final play, as well as the fact that it is a huge rivalry. Wrad 16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, partially because of the sourcing requirement that someone else (news media usually) determined the game to be notable. Also many games on the list came from lists of predicted notable matchups, rather than post-game declarations. You'll note Auburn's win over Florida's (the BCS champ's only loss) isn't on the list either. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me wonder if there is a better way to organize it. Notable games shouldn't be decided on pre-game hype. That's just speculative. It's based on getting viewers and not on fact. I like the week by week idea someone brought up. Maybe something like that. Wrad 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to anyone adding games such as those mentioned above, as long as they sourced to a third-party "neutral" group. Getting the team's local paper that says it's a big game doesn't do much for me. ESPN or SI or another such source I'd be fine with. MECU≈talk 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season&oldid=1244051986"