Talk:2008 Southeastern Conference football season
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
see Games behind for mathematical explanation of the games behind calculation DAWGinRoswell 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project
[edit]For those interested, please see the discussion here related to standardizing conference standings templates: Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project Ryan2845 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Bold
[edit]Bold should not be used on these templates because when you view it from a teams page (such as Arkansas ) it automatically bolds that teams name, making it appear that Arkansas was bowl eligible if the current key is used. Also, majority of the CFB project has concluded that it isn't necessary to denote bowl eligibility since you can simply look at their record and know that if they have 6 wins or more. Ryan2845 (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not doubting you, but do you have a link to a discussion on bowl eligibility not being notable? I'm a member of the CFB project and have never seen that. Rtr10 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just speaking based encounters with other CFB project editors and most i've seen have agreed that it isn't needed. It's not that it isn't notable, it's that you can already see who is bowl eligible using the information already on the template (their record, 6 wins). Also, it wasn't specially noted on any previous seasons 2007, 2006, etc.. Ryan2845 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, but at the same time someone viewing the table that may not be familiar with how bowl eligibility works may not know that a team is or isn't eligible because they have 6 or more wins. Not to mention there are teams that can have six wins and not be bowl eligible due to NCAA probation restrictions. Just something that needs to be considered. Rtr10 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point, but it would probably be easier/cleaner to just put a special notation on the team that is on probation or whatever rather than a notation on all 6+ win teams. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying, but at the same time someone viewing the table that may not be familiar with how bowl eligibility works may not know that a team is or isn't eligible because they have 6 or more wins. Not to mention there are teams that can have six wins and not be bowl eligible due to NCAA probation restrictions. Just something that needs to be considered. Rtr10 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just speaking based encounters with other CFB project editors and most i've seen have agreed that it isn't needed. It's not that it isn't notable, it's that you can already see who is bowl eligible using the information already on the template (their record, 6 wins). Also, it wasn't specially noted on any previous seasons 2007, 2006, etc.. Ryan2845 (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Need to change Ranking
[edit]The ranking needs to be changed to one of the polls, because the BCS does not come out after the bowl games, hence no final ranking. The BCS ranking is irrelevant after the BCS bowl selections. This template is being used on pages that will show historic information and using a ranking that does not publish final standings is not acceptable. Rtr10 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct in your reasoning, but should probably just wait until after the BCS selection next weekend. Also, i believe that the coaches poll is the poll agreed upon by the CFB project and was used in past seasons Ryan2845 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- The AP Poll is generally used as the poll of record used in College Football. Different pages use different polls, I know several use the Coaches and some use AP, but I have never been aware of any certain standard. I don't see why the Coaches Poll should be used now, while the AP Poll has been used for about 70 years now. If we are looking toward a historical stand point, in my opinion, it would make more since to use the AP. As for BCS selection, it is really irrelevant to the SEC standings now. Obviously Alabama and Florida will go to a BCS bowl and the other teams will not. Just makes more since to me to use something that is relevant to all 12 teams, rather than just two. Its only a week though, so either way doesn't really matter to me. Rtr10 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah it doesn't really matter to me either. I do know that most of the CFB templates, like the team schedules and whatnot, default to the coaches poll. I believe they decided it that way because the AP is no longer used as part of the BCS poll criteria and the coaches is, thus, giving more credence to the coaches poll. All i know is that whatever is used, it'd be nice to use the same thing on all the conference templates. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you with the standardization of the conference standings templates. I'll even go in and change/update the rest of them myself. Rtr10 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah it doesn't really matter to me either. I do know that most of the CFB templates, like the team schedules and whatnot, default to the coaches poll. I believe they decided it that way because the AP is no longer used as part of the BCS poll criteria and the coaches is, thus, giving more credence to the coaches poll. All i know is that whatever is used, it'd be nice to use the same thing on all the conference templates. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- The AP Poll is generally used as the poll of record used in College Football. Different pages use different polls, I know several use the Coaches and some use AP, but I have never been aware of any certain standard. I don't see why the Coaches Poll should be used now, while the AP Poll has been used for about 70 years now. If we are looking toward a historical stand point, in my opinion, it would make more since to use the AP. As for BCS selection, it is really irrelevant to the SEC standings now. Obviously Alabama and Florida will go to a BCS bowl and the other teams will not. Just makes more since to me to use something that is relevant to all 12 teams, rather than just two. Its only a week though, so either way doesn't really matter to me. Rtr10 (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Champion note?
[edit]Now that the Championship Game has been played, should we highlight, bold, etc. to show Florida won the SEC? – LATICS talk 00:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the score is fine as is. No real need to do anything else than list the score in my opinion. Rtr10 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)