Talk:Florida–Tennessee football rivalry

memorable games

The addition of the 2001 game is long overdue (I didn't have the stomach to initiate it). I'm thinking that the '95 game should be added and the '98 game should be given its own section, removing the '97 info but mentioning the "no citrus without UT" crack in the intro. That section is already very 90's-heavy, but the era deserves all the coverage, imo.

Thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Recentism in the memorable games section

If you compare the 2013 game with the other games listed in that section, it's pretty clear that it doesn't deserve its own entry. Heck, I attended that sloppy mess of a football game myself and would certainly not call it "memorable" in any sense of the word.

I'm not sure if the 2012 game really belongs in that section, either, but it's been there for a while so I'll let it be pending further comments. As for yesterday's game, I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Any thoughts, anyone? Zeng8r (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but the 2012 game should be retained as notable because ESPN College Gameday showed up to hype the 'rivalry'. There isn't a much more notable source than that for a Saturday football game being 'big'. It may not have been memorable, but it was notable.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The more time passes, the more it becomes obvious that the 2012 game really doesn't belong in that section. No championship implications, no truly memorable plays or controversy, nothing that makes it stand out like all of the other games in that section. When I have some free time (ha!), I'm also going to clean up the text in the main article. It's turning into a series of over-long and over-specific game summaries when it should be an overview of trends and changes. Thoughts, anyone? --Zeng8r (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and rewrote most of the main article text. There was lots of redundancy and far too much gameday detail in the sections that are supposed to cover an entire decade's worth of games. It's a much tighter article now, imo, hope others think so too. Zeng8r (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

2001 game independent article

While I'm taking a hard look at this article, I noticed that the 2001 Tennessee vs. Florida football game has in independent article that was created in June. I'll start a discussion on that talk page, but since I'd bet it's not on too many watch lists (it wasn't on mine until 10 minute ago), I'll repeat it here...

Is that game really notable enough for an independent article? While the college football wikiproject notability guide is a little vague on single-game articles, I don't think that it qualifies. The summary in the "memorable games" section of this article on the UF and UT 2001 season articles is plenty of coverage for a regular season game that didn't end of producing a champion of any kind, imo. Accordingly, I'm thinking of putting it up for deletion. What says anybody else? --Zeng8r (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is not notable enough, and should be merged into the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The 2001 game was very memorable. i vividly remember that game UT ruined UF chance at playing for the title that year, the game was moved form its usual week 3 match up to the end of the season. very memorable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.68.165 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 notable?

If the 2015 game is to be considered notable, should it be called "Wide Right" or "5 for 5 on 4th down?" As for notability, I would wait until later in the season to see how this game impacts the SEC Eastern Division standings. If there is a significant impact, then I would think that it would be notable not only because of McElwain's first signature win and the Gators' comeback, but also because of Tennessee's second fourth quarter meltdown. Thoughts? Ben^Yes? 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I was there (and still haven't gotten my voice back), so my initial reaction is yes, it should be included. But stepping back and looking at it objectively, we should wait and see how the season develops for both teams. If it's a big turning point, than we can add it later. If it's not, then a brief mention in the main article text would be enough. Just my two cents. Zeng8r (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Benhen1997: We should not make up cutesy names for individual games; we should rely on the mainstream sports media (i.e. reliable sources) to coin memorable game names, if any. Otherwise, game sub-headers should be factual and neutral. I agree with Zen that we should at least wait until the end of the 2015 season before deciding of 2015 represents one of the all-time great games in the series. Too often, "notable games" sections in rivalry articles suffer from "recentism." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

We all seem to be in agreement here. I think that waiting until December is best. Ben^Yes? 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Dirtlawyer1 and Zeng8r: At the conclusion of the regular season, we see that had Florida not made the fourth down conversion, or had Tennessee made the field goal, that Tennessee would be in the SEC Championship instead of Florida. Grounds for a write-up? Ben^hen₁₉₉₇ 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the 2015 game is now notable also because it decided the SEC East race, and that hasn't happened in a long time.CollegeRivalry (talk), 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Any reason not to include 1993?

Gators beat Shuler and the Vols in a shootout by a single touchdown; biggest win of regular season if not the year. Cake (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Results table coloring

@Dirtlawyer1: @CollegeRivalry: Yes, Tennessee is orange and white. However, Florida is orange and blue, and white on blue is used for Florida because of WP:COLOR compliance (orange on blue is not compliant). White on orange is not in compliance with WP:COLOR policy either. Black on orange is, which is why I changed it. Click here to check the contrast. Per WP:COLOR, "ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level." Ben^Yes? 02:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

In the "Schedule" section, the following statement is made : "Florida and Tennessee have played on the third Saturday of September almost every year since 1992, giving the rivalry its nickname."

Nowhere in the article is the nickname of the rivalry actually stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.1.173 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 game memorable?

As I said last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, etc. it's best to wait to add new a game to the "memorable games" section until its long-term significance becomes clear. I've deleted quite a few entries over the years (yes, including Gator wins), often right after the game. (See previous discussions above.) If it turns out that the 2016 game has a major impact on the season, we can put it back later in a neutral, encyclopedic entry. If not, then it will be left off, like most of the games in the series. If you rush to put in a recap for every year's game right after the final whistle, then the truly memorable meetings don't get the attention they deserve. Zeng8r (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A few users keep re-adding last Saturday's game to the "notable games" section. Again, it's too early for that, as I explained several times over several years on this talk page. And I'm not saying this because I'm a lifelong Gator fan; I attended last year's game, and I immediately commented to friends and family that it was probably one of the top 5 games every played at Florida Field .But the next morning, I removed the over-eager description of the game from this article. Another editor / Gator fan (@Dirtlawyer1: wherever you are) removed it again weeks later. In fact, a check of the article history shows that the 2015 game was finally added on July 31, 2016, over 10 months after it was played.

Its the same thing this year; you need some time to let the consequences play out. It's just too soon to add to an article that encompasses the entire history of 100 year old rivalry. Let the season play out, and if it ends up being an important game in the big picture, we can put it back later. Zeng8r (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would argue that the 2016 game is notable for the simple fact that Tennessee defeated Florida for the first time since 2004. While you make a valid point on seeing if it has long-term significance, I believe ending an 11-game losing streak alone merits this game being listed as a "memorable game."--Nascar king 19:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it will be for that fact alone and probably other reasons as well (tempted to add a <!---> tag), but it is poor form to put it there at this point. I said the same for the Michigan State over Michigan game article last year. Cake (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree that it will probably be added later, but not if UT and/or UF end up have a disappointing rest of the season. Recentism can be a problem with articles like this - editor/fans get overexcited, and non-editors show up and feel that their alma mater's honor is at stake if everything isn't written exactly to their liking. Wikipedia is not a fan forum or a news site. The ten year test is a good guideline - it can wait. Zeng8r (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the game (again) just now before seeing this discussion, because of the "duck/truck" debacle and Tennessee snapping the 11-year streak in an unlikely come-from-behind win. Regardless of SEC (possibly even national) championship implications to be decided in two months, shelving this game until something more notable happens with each team does a disservice to a "rivalry" page that had 20,000 views the day of. (Add: There is also the statement above the Notable section which says the game was "CBS's nationally televised game of the week for the first time in five years". Makes it notable to me.)— Wyliepedia 09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the talk page. I agree, it looks like the 2016 game should be added to the notable games section, eventually. I'm also the editor who added a mention of the game into the main text, and included that factoid about being on CBS. But where / when should games be added to rivalry articles? That's the question.

Should yesterday's UT-UGA game be on Wikipedia this morning? It was an amazing ending, and it was nationally televised, too, right? How about the Clemson - Louisville game last night? ABC telecast + great teams + great comebacks = instant classic? And UNC-FSU - wow, what an ending! And on and on and on... I hope you're getting my point - it's really easy for passionate college football fans to think that the game they just saw was an all-time classic worthy of remembering forever, especially when it involves their favorite team.

But this is Wikipedia, not a nightly sports highlights show or a daily newspaper or a fan site. An article like this is about a 100 year old rivalry, and it must take the long view. That's why, even though I'm a lifelong Gator fan and alum who thought that the 2015 UF-UT was one of the most memorable games ever played on Florida Field, I argued against including it until after the season was complete. Did you see the ten year test essay? Basically, if it's not something that will be still be particularly notable to a wider audience (not just to the fans of the two schools involved) ten years from now, it probably doesn't need a Wiki article, and it also doesn't merit more than a brief mention in the main text of this article. That's how the best articles on sports rivalries have always been run, as it keeps them from becoming a jumbled mess of important info plus little facts and game recaps that some eager fan added off the news feed but that fade in importance as time goes by. Recentism can make an article useless if editors don't actively keep it in check.

So I stand by standard procedure - there's no rush. If it still seems to have long-term importance, the 2016 game can be added at the end of the season. Zeng8r (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't consider "recentism" or 10YT a factor in articles such as this, especially when any network carrier pulls up almost every clutch play in every game. This is basically a list article that should highlight notable games. The 2016 game is a notable game because a lengthy streak in a rivalry was reset and in spectacular fashion, I might add. Waiting for a coach to be fired or a conference division game (which either Florida or Tennessee look to be favored for) to recall it, as I stated, fails the article topic. We're talking about a well-constructed blurb, not a "game recap" as mentioned, which half of the 2015 game is, in my opinion.

Also, Basically, if it's not something that will be still be particularly notable to a wider audience (not just to the fans of the two schools involved) ten years from now, it probably doesn't need a Wiki article, and it also doesn't merit more than a brief mention in the main text of this article. I could pick that apart fragment by fragment for the 2016 game, but I don't want to come across as a boorish bully. "Duck pulling a truck" had no meaning before this game, but has since reached across college football. — Wyliepedia 13:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the idea of long-term notability. It's not my idea, either; it's a Wikipedia standard, as detailed here: WP:LASTING. Sure, the 2016 UT-UF game still has resonance now, only eight days later. ESPN and the like are paid to hype every game like it's the most important EVER and then cover it accordingly that night... and then it's gone the next week, replaced by the next Game of the Century of the Week. Will this year's game seem important in December? Or in December 2017? Or in 2026? Maybe, maybe not. There's no harm in waiting to see how things play out. Again, should all those good games from this weekend get their own articles / mentions, too? Should fans run to Wikipedia every week and breathlessly add game summaries to rivalry articles that are supposed to give some historical perspective to a century or more of ballgames? I think not.

Again, if you want to read the latest team news, you go to a newspaper or sports site, not Wikipedia. That's not what it's for. Zeng8r (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Link all the guidelines you want, I don't care anymore. I've been an editor for 5 years (almost daily) on more important topics, so you're not speaking to a noob. I would like to take all that you have listed here and strip this page down to what it is apparently intended to be, but my IDGAF is strong now. I'm removing my latest non-notable addition and will not be back here, since there is a flagrant foul between the talk page and it's main. — Wyliepedia 14:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point in the season, we see that this game is now irrelevant in terms of standings to get to Atlanta, since Florida won the division anyway. Last year's exciting game being the difference in Florida or Tennessee getting to Atlanta is the reason it is included here (see above discussion). The 2016 game is only relevant in the sense that Tennessee snapped an 11-game losing streak (IMO due to the fact that Florida played entirely too conservatively and handed them the game), which may or may not continue in years to come. If something were to be notable about that game, it would be the fact that Florida managed to squander a huge lead, which, just as in the 2015 game, is not enough to substantiate a writeup about the game. Tennessee's squandering of a big lead in the 2015 game and the resulting divisional championship that was decided because of that game is the reason 2015 is notable, and less so 2016. Ben^hen₁₉₉₇ 21:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Keeping the 2015 game as a memorable game and not allowing the 2016 game to be included seems to me to show pretty clear bias on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.96.220 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a terrible way to re-start a conversation. The reasons for waiting to decide to add or not to add the 2016 game are clearly stated above. If you'd like to discuss it, please do so.

Anyway, now that we've seen how the season has played out and it's possible to get a better long-term perspective on the game, I've changed my mind from September - I don't think it merits inclusion. As Ben said above, the winner didn't win the east, and the loser made it to the SECCG but wasn't competitive. They both struggled to the end of the season, both went to mediocre bowls. and will each end up in the fringes of the top 20. Is ending a long losing streak enough to make it "memorable"? I'd say probably not. Zeng8r (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just adding my two cents to others thoughts here. If you would like my full argument here it is: If you are going to claim that 2015 is worthy of being included then surely 2016 is as well. A team breaking an 11 year streak against a hated rival and doing so by scoring 35 unanswered points is obviously a much bigger game in the history of the rivalry than a game that simply decided the winner of the east during a time when the entire east and especially Tennessee was historically bad. Maybe if Florida had won the east and then gone on to beat Alabama in the SEC championship you could say it was a game worthy of inclusion because it would have helped to determine the SEC Champ. Instead Florida went on to lose to Alabama by two touchdowns in the SEC Championship game and then to lose to Michigan by 34 in the Citrus Bowl. If you are looking at historic seasons for Florida 2015 is definitely not one. I will quote what you said above about 2016 to bolster my point about 2015. As Ben said above, "the loser (winner in 2015) made it to the SECCG but wasn't competitive. They both struggled to the end of the season, both went to mediocre bowls (Florida went to a New Years day but lost spectacularly) and will each end up in the fringes of the top 20." Both teams ended the season with essentially the same record and in fact Tennessee had a higher final ranking in both the AP and Coaches poll. You can not throw out all other considerations simply because a game didn't determine who won the east. It appears to me that these two games are not being judged equally on their merits, and the only conclusion that I can come to is that it is because of team bias. We need to either get rid of 2015 or add 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.96.220 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I still disagree that the 2016 should be included in the notable games section, as it did not end up having much affect on either team's season. If it is going to be included, however, it must be written better than it is right now. The current version is full of personal opinions and flowery terms that would be much more at home on a fan website than on Wikipedia, or even on any reputable sports page. Also, among all those opinions stated as fact, the only citation in the whole section is for that duck/truck quote. That's weak.

Look at the other game summaries, and you'll see lots of references and a minimum of opinion and original analysis. That's how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written, even in sports article. I was waiting for somebody else to clean up the mess, but I'm gonna have to do the deed myself if nobody else steps up pretty soon... Zeng8r (talk)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in a manner so that the most basic information isn't incorrect. I changed the quote attributed to "Butch Davis" to "Butch Jones" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.70.7.1 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Florida–Tennessee football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402035222/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402035222/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yxZ7ROzm?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la84foundation.org%2FSportsLibrary%2FCFHSN%2FCFHSNv06%2FCFHSNv06n2g.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/CFHSN/CFHSNv06/CFHSNv06n2g.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 recentism

As I have for the past five years in a row (!), I'm going to go ahead and delete the latest entry in the notable games section, at least for now. You can read my reasons over and over again in previous discussions further up this talk page, so I'm not going to repeat them all again. Suffice it to say, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a breaking news site but is supposed to take a wide-perspective, long-term view of events. As a life-long Gator, the "Hail Feleipe" instantly jumped into my personal top 10 most enjoyable moments. As long-time Wikipedia editor, however, I know that writing a breathless account of an amazing play minutes after the fact is probably not for the best. It's only September; the full impact of yesterday's game won't be known until December, at least. If we still think it's truly memorable, the section can be re-written and re-added then.

Feel free to argue, of course, but before you do, please review the previous discussions from prior years on this talk page. I'm still cleaning up from Hurricane Irma; don't have time to retype all that stuff right now. --Zeng8r (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that in December,. even with both teams not bowl eligible, it's still memorable. One of the most memorable in the rivalry---especially considering the last second nature of it. --Yakkityyack (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Yakkityyyack

It ended on a Hail mary. Why wouldn't this be included? Unless you're a TN fan, which for obvious reasons it wouldn't be. But, Hail Mary games are instantly memorable---as the 2015 game was.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Florida–Tennessee football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727234334/http://www.utsports.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Football/07fb-p124-185.pdf to http://www.utsports.com/uploadedFiles/Sports/Football/07fb-p124-185.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.utsports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/2010-fb-media-guide-records.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016001011/http://cfreference.net/cfr/schools/tennessee/341/1995 to http://cfreference.net/cfr/schools/tennessee/341/1995
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013204948/http://cfreference.net/cfr/schools/florida/443/1995 to http://cfreference.net/cfr/schools/florida/443/1995
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/CFHSN/CFHSNv06/CFHSNv06n2g.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Combining comebacks in the "memorable games" section

Looking over this article and its talk page just now gave me an idea. The games from 2014 to 2017 were not very particularly important in the big picture of college football, but they all featured dramatic second half comebacks. So instead of listing them separately with a lot of details for each game, they could be combined into one long-ish entry that focuses on the fourth quarter heroics. I'll do the rewrite over the next couple of days unless anyone has other ideas. Zeng8r (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Done, btw. I'm not so sure about the Dickey / Graves / Woodruff table, but I put it in to try to clarify the confusing interconnections between the schools. It would be nice if somebody could color code the table cells and add a caption, as my table-making skills are weak. Zeng8r (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

2018 game

Before anybody jumps in, let me say that no, I do not think this year's contest belongs in the memorable games section. Yes, you could argue that there were some unique aspects to it, but you can say that about almost any game in the series. As hashed out repeatedly in prior years, the section should only include games that stand out due to high stakes or remarkable events, or both. Another rule of thumb - if a game gets only a 30 second (or less) recap near the end of the ESPN college football wrap-up show, it probably doesn't belong on the list. We should reevaluate at the end of the season, of course. Zeng8r (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)