Talk:2011–12 NCAA football bowl games

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Big East Sugar Bowl

Does the Big East champ automatically go to the Sugar Bowl now? They've always gone to as an at-large esseentially in the past, not tied to one specific bowl. When did this change? Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also assured of eligibility

The 2011–12 NCAA football bowl games#Also assured of eligibility section implies that five teams will become bowl-eligible via those five games (note that the "Number of teams assured of bowl eligibility" is shown as 58, which would include the 53 teams already bowl-eligible plus five more from those games). But South Florida is playing in two of those games. If they win both of them, then only four teams will have advanced to bowl eligibility via those five games. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State

I edited this page, stating Penn State was not a co-champion of the Big Ten Leaders division. Wisconsin beat Penn State today, and will play Michigan State, the winner of the Legends division in the conference championship. How is Penn State still a co-champion? --Dpaulat (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They tied in the standings and are therefore co-champions. Wisconsin won the tiebreaker to receive the berth into the championship game. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it :) --Dpaulat (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LSU

Since LSU is SEC champion, I am penciling them for the Sugar Bowl, since technically they are slated to be there until they finish #1 Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

(1) The article lists the conference affiliation for each team for the BCS games, but not for the non-BCS games. I think it would be better to also list the conference affiliations for the non-BCS games. (2) I also think it would be better to list each team's overall won-loss record for the season. Would there be any objections to adding this information? — Mudwater^(Talk)

Do it. And while you're at it, could you add the teams' ranking, too? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings are there already, aren't they? — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jolly good. That's a recent development Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I add two more columns, so that things don't get too cluttered? That would look like this before the game:

Date	Game	Site	Television	Teams	Affiliation	Results
Jan. 6	AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic	Cowboys Stadium Arlington, TX 8:00 pm	FOX	#8 Kansas State (10–2) #6 Arkansas (10–2)	Big 12 SEC

And like this after the game:

Date	Game	Site	Television	Teams	Affiliation	Results
Jan. 6	AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic	Cowboys Stadium Arlington, TX 8:00 pm	FOX	#8 Kansas State (10–2) #6 Arkansas (10–2)	Big 12 SEC	Kansas State 21 Arkansas 24

Look reasonable? — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the BCS table to use this format, and added the won-loss info there. Unless other editors find this objectionable, I'll see if I have time to make the same changes to the non-BCS table. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one suggestion: I'm not sure we need a "Teams" and a "Results" column; especially after early January, the "teams" column just becomes redundant. Can't we just leave it as one column, like we did when the column was titled "conference tie-ins" and then fill in results as they come in? When the last game has been played, we can just change the title to "Results". --Jayron32 03:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that with the format I'm suggesting, the teams will be named twice, but in my opinion it's worth it, because it makes the table much easier to read. If we combine the Results column and the Teams column it would look something like this, which I think is messy looking and harder to read:

Date	Game	Site	Television	Teams / Results	Affiliation
Jan. 6	AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic	Cowboys Stadium Arlington, TX 8:00 pm	FOX	#8 Kansas State (10–2) – 21 #6 Arkansas (10–2) – 24	Big 12 SEC

There would be other ways to arrange the columns but I think they're all less readable. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Once I see it in black and white, it does look crappy. What you have now looks really good. --Jayron32 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here's one more idea. How about including the team names in the Teams column (but not the Results column), like this?

Date	Game	Site	Television	Teams	Affiliations	Results
Jan. 6	AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic	Cowboys Stadium Arlington, TX 8:00 pm	FOX	#8 Kansas State Wildcats (10–2) #6 Arkansas Razorbacks (10–2)	Big 12 SEC	Kansas State 21 Arkansas 24

I think it would be another nice improvement. — Mudwater^(Talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this change to the BCS table. Personally I like it a lot. — Mudwater^(Talk) 05:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added the same information, using the same format, to the non-BCS table. Thanks to Purplebackpack89 and Jayron32 for their feedback. — Mudwater^(Talk) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]