Jump to content

Talk:History of American football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHistory of American football is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 3, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 19, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
January 24, 2016Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 6, 2010, November 6, 2013, and November 6, 2016.
Current status: Featured article

On the removal of the Rugby section

[edit]

I have removed (not really i just wanted to be apart of this stuff guys :) ) the section on the early influence of Rugby, for several reasons.

  • Some of the information was redundant. The influence of Rugby in the development of American football is clearly already in the article. Read the stuff on the McGill-Harvard games, and follow from there.
  • Some of the information was clearly wrong or misleading. The influence of Gunmer (of Rutgers University) was not as great as it is made out. The Rutger's version of the game was largely based on the was that Association Football was played at the time, with a few idiosyncracies thrown in. While this version is important as it represents the first interecollegiate football game of any sort, the modern code of American Football did not actually descend from these games, but rather more directly from the Rugby-style games introduced by McGill as noted already in the article (see above). If any person is responsible for moving away from rugby towards modern American Football, it is Walter Camp, and the article already makes his role in doing so rather explicit.
  • Some of it was uncited, non-neutral points of view. For example, the explanation that American football's development was done to be explicitly "anti-British"; even introducing some unrelated information from Baseball mythology. This criticism is uncited, and actually unsupported by most reliable historical documents on the development of American football. Indeed, even while American Football was developing, other codes of football were themselves changing and developing in diverging directions. Even association football and rugby had not reached their "modern" during this time period. The codes developed somewhat independently, and the development of the distinctly American code was not because of any explicit rejection of the other versions for being "British".

I would see no problem with adding more information about the relationship between American football and Rugby to the article provided that such information is

  • Relevent
  • Cited
  • not redundant
  • does not contradict established, mainstream scholarship
  • neutrally worded

If the information can meet these requirements, feel free to add it to the article. --Jayron32 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dominant, depending on viewpoint (Lomax and Smith), scholary work on History of American football, is considered: The origins and early development of professional football, 1890-1920 by Marc S. Maltby. Sadly, I have not read it. I should be able to get a hold of it tomorrow. If it's as good as everyone says, then I will edit the article to put it in further reading. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section

[edit]

So, why remove the whole section? I could see where some of the links were irrelevent or only tangentally relevent, but certain ones, like the comparisons between American football and other close relatives in its "family tree" would seem germaine to the topic. Assuming that a) some of these should likely go and b) there are likely valid entries in a "see also" section, what entries are valid and which are not? --Jayron32 03:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of 'down's

[edit]

The section 'Walter Camp:Father of American football' is the first instance of the word 'down' appearing in this article. I think this is a big turning point in the history of football as it had a big effect on rugby league football as well (a limited number of tackles being a defining feature of that sport as well). It would seem that rugby league got the idea from American football which seems to have had limited tackles/downs since 1880 or 1882. Just wanted further clarification about when they were first introduced mainstream. It seems to have been long before they were introduced in rugby league in the mid 1900s and I'd like to put a mention of that in the History of rugby league somewhere.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of downs was developed by Walter Camp, so shouldn't appear until his section. He originally wanted 3 downs to advance 5 yards. In practice, it was decided that 4 downs to advance 10 yards produced the wanted effect. Instead of a continuous scrum, the goal was to produce a series of short plays in which the strategy of each down could be changed. It was in the 1880s that his system of downs was implemented. By 1882, it was pretty much set to 4 downs per 10 yards. -- kainaw™ 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed large copyvio and other suspect text

[edit]

I removed a section of text, which was recently added to this article. Of that section, about 75% of it was a direct copy-paste from this website. Given that it was all added by the same user, it makes the other text suspect as well. It should be clear that expanding this article with new text, suitibly cited to reliable sources, is a good idea. However, copying and pasting text wholesale from another source is a bad idea. The copied text in question also largely duplicated information which was elsewhere in the article anyways, the section titled "Rules standardization (1873–1880)" already covered the McGill-Harvard series and its influence on the American game in some detail. The other information, which was uncited, more properly belongs in an article on the History of Canadian football, since it dealt with the development of Canadian football rather than American football. --Jayron32 04:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Padding / protective gear

[edit]

One clear distinction between Rugby and American Football is padding and helmets. There's a linked page that gives the history of the helmet, but I think this page could do with at least a paragraph on how safety gear has been added over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.228.1 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There really should even be an article on the old nose-guards, such as seen on the neck in the photo of Nathan Dougherty. Cake (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers vs. Princeton

[edit]

Did this game really something in common with history of "American football"? It was the first "College football" game, but under "Association football" rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.199.1 (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, and if you read the entirety of the history section, you see how it, and later developments, fits. It actually wasn't played under "Association football" rules, but rather a unique set of rules, which shared some commonalities with both association football and rugby football. While the "Harvard-McGill" series noted later in the history section has a more direct lineage to the modern game, you should think of the Princeton-Rutgers game as something of a cousin rather than a grandfather to the modern game. It is still, however, important in the sense that nearly all major sources credit it as the first "Intercollegiate football game", including the NCAA itself, in the very real sense that it was a game, called football, played between two college teams. You'll want to read up on the 1969 college football season (which notes that the NCAA treated 1969 as its centenary because of the Princeton-Rutgers game). The article itself already notes the major rules and gameplay differences from the modern game. Noting those differences, however, is not the same as ignoring the game itself. There would be a glaring hole in this article, especially compared to other scholarship on American football history, if we pretended the game didn't matter simply because the rules of football when it was played were very different. Every single historical source on American football treats this game as important, even if they do note that it wasn't a direct ancestor to the modern game, and the Wikipedia article should (and you'll note already does) treat it the same way. Let me recommend reading reference #5 from the Professional Football Researchers Association, which covers the game in some detail and notes the controversy you note as well. --Jayron32 15:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stability and growth of the NFL (1946–1957)

[edit]

This article say: "Before he became commissioner, league membership was fluid; between 1920 and 1945, 53 teams had gone defunct." This article uses as a source: (turn ad blocker on before visiting this site) http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nflfranchises.shtml

That source should be deleted and the statement should be reevaluated. An author can easily be found that says something to the effect:"1936 was an important year for the NFL as there were, for the first time in the history of the NFL, no franchise movements."

The statement in this article attributes too much credit to Bert Bell in this respect. A clear reading of sources will easily show that the NFL stopped the influx of new teams in the 1930s as best indicated by the rights for a new franchise in the NFL jumping from $2,500 to $10,000 immediately after Bell, Rooney, and the Cincinnati Reds entered the NFL.

The source this article is utilizing has been manipulated with original research because someone is counting the number of franchises entering the NFL. I know of no published author that will give this credit to Bell. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that there were no franchise movements in 1936 does not contradict that there were 53 franchises that had gone defunct between the dates listed. --Jayron32 13:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Art Rooney utterly refutes the statement about 1946 in Claassen's book. Rooney believed at the end of the 1945 season, that his team was in its most perilous financial position since he entered the NFL in 1933. His opinion was not a lone voice, thats why Layden was fired. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Arthur Daly quote from the New York times here: [1] would indicate differently regarding contemporary opinion of Bert Bell's commissionership. --Jayron32 13:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No but its way out of context. Between 1920 and 1946 53 teams went defunct. I get that. Between 1920 and 1936, I'll just guess and say 49 teams 51 teams went bankrupt. In other words, between 1936 and 1946, 2 teams went bankrupt. I am not attacking contemporary opinion of his commissionship. Which is more relevant regarding bankruptcy: a)51 teams 1st 16 years, b) 53 teams 1st 26 years, c)56 teams 1st 39 years? This article says its b). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that website has at least one mistake in its statements. The 1958 NFL championship game was not the first nationally televised championship game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do know why someone on Wikipedia would use a website like that for a citation; it completely confuses me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In now way shape of form does this [2] say "Before he became commissioner, league membership was fluid" 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A corroboration and/or verification of team genealogy presented on that website is available in the last pages of Coenen's book see here: Bert_Bell#Sources 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of your proposed changes have been made. Do you have any other changes you would like me to make for you? --Jayron32 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks. Fyi: "Stability became a relity in 1936 when, for the first time since the formation of the NFL, there were no franchise shifts in the NFL. It was also the first year which all the teams played the same number of regular season games....."
 Done. Added the ref. --Jayron32 19:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cool, btw. Three things on stability. One, an actual quote of a complete sentence with proper context can be found of Bell bringing stability to the league. Starting off from Wikipedia:List of free online resources, I came across an article, with at least one blatant mistake in it, that mentions stability. The NFL itself was in complete turmoil, but the game of football was, trying to think what one author wrote, was on the precipice of riding the wave of post world war II stability (can't say boom because I think one author wrote there was a mini recession in 1946). The NFL was in turmoil because the competition with the AAFC which caused salaries to explode and the NFL firing Layden. The turmoil is best seen when Rooney thought the Steelers were not going to survive in late 1945, before he hired Jock Sutherland. See p. 291. bottom of the page "Despite these rumors, by the end of World War II, the NFL appeared to be on the
brink of stability." at [3] That being said, I think the overwhelming evidence suggests 1936 was when stability was first evidenced. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that website which is used for a citation on 51 teams. That website lists the Cleveland Tigers as one of the teams. There was no Cleveland Tigers, it was the Chicago Tigers; this article even says so :) (I stopped counting the teams after that mistake).

Baldwin, Coenen, this article, and the website used for the citations about 51 teams are conflicting. I need a new source. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Also see Coenen, Craig R. (2005). From Sandlots to the Super Bowl: The National Football League, 1920–1967. ISBN 1-57233-447-9 p. 235 and Baldwin, Douglas Own (2000). Sports in North America. A Documentary History Volume 8. Sports in the Depression, 1930-1940 ISBN 0-87569-224-9 (ISBN can't find it. try [4] p. 88. re: team genealogy)

The problem is all three sources make you count the teams. I just counted 62 teams from Coenen, there was 9 teams at the start of the 1936 NFL season. That means 53 teams went defunct by 1936. Now, I can't count to more than 5 without losing my place.

My notes show the number of teams that failed in the first decade as nicely being counted for us from:

(I didn't write down the page number, oops)

Maybe there is a better source we can use than [5] if the sentence gets reworked, or maybe someone can keep their place better than me and grab Coenen's or Baldwin's book

Sorry for splitting hairs. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there's other books out there. maybe we can find a source with a citable statement that would best describe what this article wants to say. I know there's a book out there dealing with the NFL from 1919-1930 I have not read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask someone consult with the gurus at History of the National Football League, unfortunately I am the only one that has ever read any books regarding that topic and used them for citations. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the facts regarding the NFL that are pertinent to stability:

  1. at least a dozen published authors of books, probably close to 20, cite the 1933 NFL season as the beginning of modern professional football
  2. the Will McDonough statement

Sadly, the only thing I can suggest is I will count the teams again and corroborate between Owen and Coenen. McDonough's quote is pretty deadly evidence for keeping it 1936. But I really dont like to count. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay with 1936. Published authors are all over 1936 because of the NFL draft. I'll count the teams. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All authors will support that the NFL draft was approved for the 1936 NFL season because Tim Mara and George Halas supported it, although they had the most to lose. All authors will support that the New York Giants and the Chicago Bears, at that time, were profitable. All authors I have seen, which is kind of a shame, support that Mara and Halas thought league first and not team first when backing the draft. No author explicitly writes, that I have seen, that Halas and Mara had the financial resources (stability) to support the draft. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of authors write that Bell used as an arguing point when trying to get the draft approved that the draft would help hold down salaraies as teams would no longer be in a bidding war. Several authors, say the immediate effect of the nfl draft was stopping the escalation of salaries. I didn't include any of this when writing NFL draft history. Interesting, I'll have to reevaluate. I think I made a mistake in omitting some of these considerations. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: No author I have seen disputes that Bell used holding down salaries was an arguing point - they just omit discussing it. No author that I have seen disputes the effect of the draft was holding down salaries - they just omit discussing it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I changed my mind today. There is nothing wrong with having a citation needed in an article. Wikipedia clearly states that there is no such thing as a perfect article. And, the fact of the matter is I am no where in your league as an editor. I got about 1100 edits in the Bell article and its start class, you got 250 and its a featured article. But the rules are the rules. Me personally, I would add the citation from the Arizona Cardinals website and in that citation I would write:"This only provides corroboration that the Arizona Cardinal's original team name was the Racine Cardinals and includes no other information about other teams' names." Then I would not have a leg to stand on, more or less.....Really, when I get Maltby's book, I hope you are right and he says what this article says. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed NFL team and broken wikileak wikilink in this article

[edit]

Cleveland Indians of 1920 should be changed to Cleveland Tigers The link should go to Cleveland Tigers (NFL) and not Cleveland Indians (NFL 1931). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is piling up against the name Racine Cardinals being in the NFL in 1920 and being named the Racine Cardinals:

  1. Coenen says its the Chicago Cardinals,
  2. the citation [6] used in this article to substantiate the name Racine Cardinals, says its the Chicago Cardinals,
  3. Baldwin says its Chicago Cardinals,
  4. the 1920 NFL season says its the Chicago Cardinals, and
  5. the History of the National Football League says its the Chicago Cardinals.

The other source [7] used in this article to substantiate Racine Cardinals as being the proper name of the franchise in the NFL does not substantiate it. The source says they were named previously the Racine Cardinals but does not say what their name was officialy for the 1920 season.

There are other sources yet to look at to see what the official name is. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official history of the Arizona Cardinals states that they were the Racine Cardinals until 1922: [8]. --Jayron32 22:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Their official name was the Chicago Racine Cardinals. Everyone referred to them as the Chicago Cardinals. I don't think this is worth dithering about. Racine Cardinals is close enough. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a job for the arizona cardinal, history of, website wikipedia page to delve into. I was remiss in not checking that website. I am not going to bother to check that website, it's just not important. If you say Racine Cardinals, everyone knows what you're saying. I would not use official nfl websites for the be all and end all of info. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. it's a bad idea to use primary sources like that because you are allowing them to untie the team to a city - a topic which cleveland browns fans are familiar with
  2. i ignored civic booster clubs in coenen's books, and other books, about their importance in the Bell article, I will reevaluate that
  3. in the bell article, i allowed Carroll, John M. (1999). Red Grange and the Rise of Modern Football to get away with calling Red Grange "the principal witness" in congressional testimony in 1957...he was the first witness, Bell was the most important witness, I will reevaluate that
  4. there are probably a 1000 different teams/coaches,ideas that people would want in this article and this Chicago Cardinals is certainly not high on the wish list. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind, you are not using [9] as the source for the name Racine Cardinals in your citations. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to access Maltby's book tomorrow. If he supports your case, then I will delete your citations and use him as a source. You have not refuted my challenge that the citations that you use in this article are specious. If Maltby does not support your case, then I will be force to put a citation needed in the article. You have to have citations in the article that support your statements. If you want me to wait a couple of weeks, or months even, then I have no problem with that. But the rules are clear, content must be verifiable. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Chris O'Brien's team was called the Racine Cardinals instead of the Chicago Cardinals because, at that time, there were numerous semipro teams in the Windy City. Until 1920, the Cardinals were only one of the many." p. 14.
  2. p. 15 lists all the team in the 1st season and this book lists the Cardinals as Racine (Chicago) Cardinals, but really they should have listed them as the Racine Cardinals.
  3. p. 14 "However, the name caused some confusion at the September 17, meeting in Canton. Apparently, Art Ranney, who too the minutes, did not understand the nuances of Chicago football; he identified the team as Racine, Wisconsin. Ranney's misunderstanding has sometimes led some later historical..." confusion. Umm, Neft, et. al., should not have omitted Chicago.
  4. "They became the Chicago Cardinals during the 1920 season." p. 39.
  5. Since they changed their name amid season, recording of standings that year which were developed years later, use Chicago Cardinals. So on p. 41. for yearly records, Chicago Cardinals is used as the name for the 1920 season.
  • Carroll, Bob; with Gershman, Michael, Neft, David, and Thorn, John (1999). Total Football:The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League. New York: HarperCollins.
  1. Maltby on p. 182 refers to them as "Chicago's Racine (Avenue) Cardinals." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 65.88.88.174 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teams that failed before 1936

[edit]

It's 53. The exit columns are not precise. Coenen does not explain when what months and days of the year that teams left exactly the NFL. For the intrepid, there are sources that delve into such detail. :) I apologize for the size of the post but this is the only way to close this situation out. The table does not contain teams that entered after 1936 as its not pertinent to the discussion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry # Entered Original Team Name Name Changes and Years Exited Exit #
01 1920 Akron Pros Akron Pros (1920–1925), Akron Indians 1926 1926 26
02 1920 Buffalo All-Americans Buffalo All-Americans (1920–1923) 1923 10
03 1920 Canton Bulldogs Canton Bulldogs (1920–1923), Cleveland Bulldogs 1924 1924 15
04* 1920 Chicago Cardinals Chicago Cardinals (1920–1959), St. Louis Cardinals (1960–1987), Phoenix Cardinals (1988–1993), Arizona Cardinals (1994–) not applicable not applicable
05 1920 Chicago Tigers Chicago Tigers 1920 1920 01
06 1920 Dayton Triangles Dayton Triangles (1920–1929) 1929 45
07* 1920 Decatur Staleys Decatur Staleys 1920, Chicago Staleys 1921, Chicago Bears (1922–) not applicable not applicable
08 1920 Detroit Heralds Detroit Heralds 1920, Detroit Tigers 1921 1921 04
09 1920 Rochester Jeffersons Rochester Jeffersons (1920–1925) 1925 24
10 1920 Rock Island Independents Rock Island Independents (1920–1925) 1925 25
11 1920 Hammond Pros Hammond Pros (1920–1926) 1926 33
12 1920 Muncie Flyers Muncie Flyers (1920–1921) 1921 05
13 1920 Columbus Panhandles Columbus Panhandles (1920–1922), Columbus Tigers (1923–1926) 1926 31
14 1920 Cleveland Tigers Cleveland Tigers (1920–1921) 1921 03
15* 1921 Green Bay Packers Green Bay Packers (1921–) not applicable not applicable
16 1921 Cincinnati Celts Cincinnati Celts 1921 1921 02
17 1921 Evansville Crimson Giants Evansville Crimson Giant (1921–1922) 1922 09
18 1921 Washington Senators Washington Senators 1921 1921 08
19 1921 New York Brickley Giants New York Brickley Giants 1921 1921 06
20 1921 Minneapolis Marines Minneapolis Marinds (1921–1924) 1924 17
21 1921 Louisville Brecks Louisville Brecks (1921–1923) 1923 12
22 1921 Tonawanda Kardex Tonawanda Kardex 1921 1921 07
23 1922 Oorang Indians of LaRue, Ohio Oorang Indians (1922–1923) 1923 14
24 1922 Toledo Maroons Toledo Maroons (1922–1923), Kenosha Maroons 1924 1924 19
25 1922 Racine Legion Racine Legion (1922–1924) 1924 18
26 1922 Milwaukee Badgers Milwaukee Badgers (1922–1925) 1925 23
27 1923 Duluth Kelleys Duluth Kelleys (1923–1925) 1925 22
28 1923 Ollies's All-Stars of St. Louis Ollies's All-Stars of St. Louis 1923 1923 13
29 1923 Cleveland Bulldogs Cleveland Bulldogs 1923 1923 11
30 1924 Frankford Yellow Jackets Frankford Yellow Jackets (1924–1931) 1931 51
31 1924 Buffalo Bisons Buffalo Bison (1924–1925) 1925 20
32 1924 Kansas City Blues Kansas City Blues 1924 1924 16
33 1925 Pottsville Maroons Pottsville Maroons (1925-1928), Boston Bulldogs 1929 1929 46
34 1925 Canton Bulldogs Canton Bulldogs (1925–1926) 1926 30
35 1925 Providence Steam Roller Providence Steam Roller (1925–1931) 1931 50
36* 1925 New York Giants New York Giants (1925–) not applicable not applicable
37 1925 Detroit Panthers Detroit Panthers (1925–1926) 1926 32
38 1925 Cleveland Bulldogs Cleveland Bulldogs 1925 1925 21
39 1925 Kansas City Cowboys Kansas City Cowboys (1925–1926) 1926 35
40 1926 Duluth Eskimos Duluth Eskimos (1926–1927) 1927 41
41 1926 Brick Muller's Californians Brick Muller's Californians 1926 1926 27
42 1926 Buffalo Rangers Buffalo Rangers 1926 1926 29
43 1926 Milwaukee Badgers Milwaukee Badgers 1926 1926 37
44 1926 Louisville Colonels Louisville Colonels 1926 1926 36
45 1926 Racino Tornadoes Racino Tornadoes 1926 1926 38
46 1926 Hartford Blues Hartford Blues 1926 1926 34
47 1926 Brooklyn Lions Brooklyn Lions 1926 1926 28
48 1927 New York Yankees New York Yankees (1927–1928) 1928 43
49 1927 Cleveland Bulldogs Cleveland Bulldogs 1927 1927 40
50 1927 Buffalo Bisons Buffalo Bison 1927 1927 39
51 1928 Detroit Wolverines Detroit Wolverines 1928 1928 42
52 1929 Buffalo Bisons Buffalo Bisons 1929 1929 44
53 1929 Orange Golden Tornadoes Orange Golden Tornadoes 1929, Newark Tornadoes 1930 1930 48
54 1929 Staten Island Stapletons Staten Island Stapletons (1929–1932) 1932 52
55 1930 Minneapolis Redjackets Minneapolis Redjackets (1929–1930) 1930 47
56* 1930 Portsmouth Spartans Porstmouth Spartans (1930–1933), Detroit Lions (1934–) not applicable not applicable
57 1930 Brooklyn Dodgers Brooklyn Dodgers (1930–1943), Brooklyn Tigers (1944) 1944 54
58 1931 Cleveland Indians Cleveland Indians 1931 1931 49
59* 1932 Boston Braves Boston Braves 1932, Boston Redskins (1932–1936), Washington Redskins (1937–) not applicable not applicable
60 1933 Cincinnati Reds Cincinnati Reds (1933–1934), St. Louis Gunners 1934 1934 53
61* 1933 Philadelphia Eagles Philadelphia Eagles (1933–) not applicable not applicable
62* 1933 Pittsburgh Pirates Pittsburgh Pirates (1933–1939), Pittsburgh Steelers (1940–) not applicable not applicable
63* 1937 Cleveland Rams Cleveland Rams (1937–1942) and (1944–1945), Los Angeles Rams (1946–1994), St. Louis Rams (1995–) not applicable not applicable
64* 1944 Boston Yanks Boston Yanks (1944–1948), New York Bulldogs 1949, New York Yanks (1950–1951), Dallas Texans 1952, Baltimore Colts (1953–1983), Indianapolis Colts (1984–) not applicable not applicable
65* 1950 Cleveland Browns Cleveland Browns (1950–1995) and (1999–) not applicable not applicable

[1]

  1. ^ Coenen, Craig. From Sandlots to the Super Bowl. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press. pp. 235–237. ISBN 1-57233-447-9. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no complaints. I will edit the article accordingly. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This link Football Almanac should not be utilized in the external links section. The last time that website was updated was over 2 years ago. (I'll ignore the fact that they refer to the Chicago Cardinals as the Chicago Cardinals and not the Racine Cardinals because it is not a reliable source.)

This link should be deleted without prejudice.

66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no complaints. I will edit the article accordingly. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kjdmaldf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.166.205 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy with this article

[edit]

I link to this article from Bert Bell so I want it to be better. I think the people involved in this article have done an absolutely fabulous job.

  1. external links: [10] I am going to remove this link without prejudice because it was last update over 2 years ago
  2. further reading: further reading needs to be reevalutated: It appears as Marc Maltby's belongs in it. I can not put it in because I have not read the other books in further reading...yet
  3. the use of Hickok.com and nfl.com as sources for the original teams is not a good idea. I would suggest, Carroll, Neft, and the professional football researchers associations are a vastly superior source of information (which is utilized in this article contemperaneously as citation 1) The NFL had to change their published history because of the PRFA. The NFL is a business and not a research organization.
  4. hickok.com is a specious source...I went to their feedback page and there was only 1 post by a user in the total lifetime of that website (at least 3 yeras). I do not believe anyone can construe that as a reliable source. Coenen published his book in 2005 and that website is circa 2008 and that website never challenged/nor corrected its information regarding Brick Muller's Californians of 1926 (and at least one other team) I want all the hickok.com stuff removed and other sources utilized. I have no idea who the owner of the website is. But there is an encyclopedia authored by a hickok

I don't mean to be a bad guy, but if a knowledgeable and intelligent wikipedia editor comes along and evaluates this article, then I think it will be dropped down to a GA class article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, this is an absolutely fabulous article, but it can be improved in order to ensure that it keeps the featured article status that the editors involved with it deserve for all their hard work. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. [11] list of franchise transactions, Racine Cardinals is not listed. I will work through it to see if I come up with the same number as Coenen. That will take a few days at least.
  2. When Football Was Football: The Chicago Cardinals and the Birth of the NFL. ISBN 1572433175. To be honest I would be leary of trusting this book unless they took a critical look at Carrol's professional football researchers association (PRFA) to see if they made mistakeS because that book was published in 1999. The PFRA admits they made mistakes, which they corrected, in some of their research. As they admit the NFL made mistakes in their history which the PRFA helped them to fix. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length of article

[edit]

In the past year or so, some very excellent additions have been made to this article, which have added greatly to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. However, the problem with all of these well-researched and written additions is that they have made the article itself too large and unwieldy. Wikipedia's guidelines on article length at Wikipedia:Article size recommend that articles greater than 50 kb in length should start to be candidates for splitting into smaller articles, and that articles greater than 100 kb should almost certainly be split. When this article was first promoted to WP:FA status, it was already pushing the 100 kb limit. The current additions, while excellent in quality, have increased the size of the article by a 2/3rds, raising the size to 160 Kb. The time has come to have a conversation about how to split the article up into smaller articles, and to retain this article as an overview article rather than a comprehensive article. What does everyone think? --Jayron32 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it should be kept intact and added to when and where necesary. A much briefer treatment of this topic is given on the main american football page (which I assume is far more heavily trafficked and more regularly edited) and many of the topics mentioned on this page are discussed in far greater detail in their own articles already. This article should should be as comprehensive and imformative as it can be, without adding unnecessary detail or data. In my own edits, I have made it a point to focus on American football in America, (except for the beginning which discusses how football first came to be in America) as much as possible. It is important, however to place American football within its global context and how its history has influence the development of non-american football codes. It is also important to include all necessary information as to give a full and complete and accurate picture of the history of American football. This being said, I will attempt to remove any and all extraneous info when I come across it. 184.96.184.201 (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NO! Don't remove any information. You misunderstand. We should keep all of the good stuff. It isn't that Wikipedia has too much information on the topic, it's that we need to consider dividing it up a bit, like having articles on different eras, or something. Keep adding it, don't remove it! It doesn't need to go away, it needs to be organized a bit better, that's all! --Jayron32 02:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, out of info that I have been adding, that I will edit out extraneous info, not from anything which was already there on the page. In any event, I do not support dividing up the article. It is important that the entire history be in one place. 184.96.184.201 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One can argue in general I am not the best for deciding what to remove. If you must, one possibility is to move it to the article on college football specifically, but it was a long time before professionals made it so football wasn't synonymous with the college game. I am glad someone added the rocky mountain region. I could add more coaches than Rockne or Warner too (say, Stagg), but I won't if the article is already unwieldy. If you must chop it up by era, one common method is: 1869–1918 (ww1, 1st 50 years), 1919–1969 (NFL merger, 2nd 50), 1970–present. Also, in my opinion the grid concepts, e. g. single-wing formation, are the most lacking part of the game for readers on wiki, both individually and in articles such as this. Cake (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may need its own paring down, or perhaps a History of college football is in order, but I've moved most of the recently added content on the college game to College football#History, so you need not feel amiss in trimming the fat on this one covering a broader topic. Cake (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron32's assessment that this page should be split up. The question then becomes how to do so. I'm not all that familiar with this article, but in taking a quick look, I see two possibilities to break this up: it can be done chronologically (e.g. Early history of American football and Modern history of American football or some such) or thematically (e.g. History of College Football and History of Professional American football). Either way, this article would remain with greatly simplified summaries of whatever portions are calved off. Which approach do you think makes more sense? — DeeJayK (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to be split up, chronological breaking makes much more sense. This is mostly because of the influence that the 1932 NFL Playoff Game had on the game. I would recommend that "early history" be everything prior to 1933 and that "modern history" be everything after 1933 to present. This being said, I still oppose breaking up this article. 147.153.93.67 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given WP's page length guidelines (cited above), the article either needs to be split up or shortened considerably. Given that it's a well-written and researched article, I don't think anyone is advocating the latter option, so that leaves us with the task of trying to find some way to split it up. Doing nothing isn't really an option at this point. In fact, given the article's size and the breadth of the topic, it may really need to be split into more than two articles. I guess 1932 seems like a logical enough spot to break it up, however that would leave us with just a few years of NFL history in the first article with the bulk being in the second (and perhaps third), which strikes me as a bit odd. What do you think about splitting it at the start of the NFL (1920)? By the way, I appreciate the additions you've made to this article, 147.153.93.67 ; why not create an account and stick around. Doing so would make me feel less like I was having a conversation with and android. ;) — DeeJayK (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the natural break points are 1920 and 1960: Prior to 1920 is the foundational years, amateur and very early pro leagues. 1920 makes a natural break because of the foundation of the NFL. 1960 is the foundation of the AFL, which precipitates the eventual merger and creation of the super bowl. Lots of history availible for all three articles then. --Jayron32 16:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That approach (before 1920, 1920 through 1959, and 1960 to present) seems logical enough to me. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to 1933, the rules college and the NFL were identical. It makes no sense to start the split at 1920 as pro football had existed since the 1890s, long before the APFA came into existence. The 1932 NFL Playoff Game was the true beginning of "modern football" as a result of its contribution to the rules of the game. "Before 1933" and "After 1933" seems to be the most logical breaking point. 1933 is also the ending year for Parke H. Davis's early history of American football.
I edit here far too infrequently to warrant an account, just yet. If I become more involved in this page, I will most certainly consider making an account. 147.153.93.67 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that pro football didn't start with the formation of the NFL in 1920, but the NFL's formation seems like a good line of demarcation for the article.— DeeJayK (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's purpose is to document the history of the game itself, not any particular comeptition within the game. The NFL's history is already covered in History of the National Football League and it would be redundant to make another article which covers essentially the same material. 1933 was when professional football and college football trully diverged from one another, as after 1933, the NFL began developing its rules independent of the college game. The introduction of hashmarks, and allowing forward passes anywhere from behind the line of scrimmage in 1933 were far more significant developments than the consolidation of midwestern pro football leagues which is what essentially occured in 1920. The 1933 season also marks the first time the NFL had pre-scheduled playoffs and championship game, and the first time the competition had been split up into divisions. Also, the next year in 1934, was the first time the AP released their college football poll.
Also, I caved and made an account. Hi guys! ParkH.Davis (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. Any relations to Parke H. Davis? ;) Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just thought is was an appropriate name given that I'm working on a page about the history of american football. Thanks for the welcome! ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is large, but I wanted to note that WP:SIZERULE is based off "readable prose size", not the raw size of the article. The readable prose size is currently 87K, as opposed to the raw size of ~160K. As such, it falls under the > 60k recommendation of "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)", which is not as dire as the the >100k rec of "Almost certainly should be divided". This is not necessarily an endorsement on my part to leave the article as is, which I currently have no opinion.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to let everyone know: I think we've got some good work going on. Great collaboration, and I like where things are going. I have some contributions to make, but RL is interfering here with Wikipedia life, so I haven't had time to really sit down with this and make some progress. But I do have some more ideas, as soon as I have time to put them together, I'll be adding to this as well... --Jayron32 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in History of American football

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of American football's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sfmg":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Early history of American football and Modern history of American football articles

[edit]

The Early history of American football article will begin with a section called "History of American football before 1869". The next section will be "Early intercolleigate football history (1869-1933)" and include the subsections discussing three different periods: the period between 1869 and 1875 called the 'Pioneer Period'; the years 1876–93 called the 'Period of the American Intercollegiate Football Association'; and the years 1894–1933 called the 'Period of Rules Committees and Conferences'. The final section will be entitled "Early history of professional football (1892-1933)". Sections concerning the early history of high school football and the game outside of the US should also be included. ParkH.Davis (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this proposal, if you are willing to do the work. Frankly, I've got enough half-finished projects underway already. And welcome! — DeeJayK (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern history of American football article will begin with "Modernization of intercollegiate American football (1933-1969)", which will begin with the introduction of the AP poll, the first Heisman in 1935, the proliferation of the T-formation, and college football's first televised game in 1939. Sections that will follow will be entitled "Intercollegiate football (1970-present)" and "Professional football (1933-1969)" and "Professional football (1970-present)". Likewise, high school football and American football outside the US sections should also be added. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, we have Parke H. Davis here. Though I am wary of copying his schema outright. My vision is colored by a southern lens, but compare the history I go over in College Football All-Southern Team. 1933 is also the first season for the Southeastern Conference. Others use 1945 (WW2), 1930 (such as this very article), and 1917–20 (WW1, game's semi-centennial) as cut-offs. Cake (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the text is being copied from one article to another, note that WP:PATT should be followed to provide proper attribution.—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I split the text, I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy dictates be done next. ParkH.Davis (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any text copied from one article to another needs to be attributed. One option listed at WP:PATT is to use the {{copied}} template.—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to History of American football (disambiguation)

[edit]

This page should now be moved to become a disambiguation page. I do not believe that I am autoconfirmed yet and therefore do not have the authority to move pages. I would appreciate any tips and/or help that can be given concerning this process. ParkH.Davis (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought History of American football would summarize the spunout articles per WP:SS, and not simply be a disambiguation page. Being that it is currently a featured article, I think it is a valid standalone topic.—Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest I go about consoldating information? How much should I remove, if any? ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't read Wikipedia:Summary_style#Basic_technique already, that is the general technique I'd apply. Sorry, I personally won't be getting involved with copyediting this article. Perhaps Jayron32, who initiated the above #Length_of_article thread and brought this article to FA status, can be of assistance. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Jayron32 in their post above says they are busy, so may take a while to get back here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious editing down for size

[edit]

As this article has been split, it has become clear that this article is no longer necesary as a comprehensive article, but should instead serve as a simple summary. I am not sure how much should (or can) be removed. Can anyone advise me on how to go forward with this process? ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, don't delete 95% of the article without leaving an edit summary. Meters (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try suggesting the changes you think are appropriate and your reasoning and see if there is consensus. What seems obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Meters (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that much or even all of this article is now redundant, but I'm not sure where to go with it. The history of the other two articles depends on the contribution history of this article so we can't get rid of it (the history was not carried over to the new articles) but there does not seem to be any real need for content here now. Once we remove modern history and early history, there simply isn't any history left to discuss in this article. We end up with a placeholder article that points to the other articles. In any case, whatever we do with this article slow down a bit and ensure that the remaining article is not broken. Meters (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I entered an Andy Smith subsection section into 1920s coaches

[edit]

Is this article being deleted? Has this been started and if so will it be best that I remove that subsection? Right now I will insert the info from the subsection into an Andy Smith entry in the Early History article. Rybkovich (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an inbetween place right now. Its status as a featured article is making it hard to abbreviate it right now, but pending review of its featured article status, this article is likely to be significantly shortened, especially as the excessive size of this article was the primary reason for its split in the first place. ParkH.Davis (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abridgment and summarization

[edit]

I have begun the process of abridgment and summarization. I would appreciate any advice/help which anyone could provide to this project. Please feel free to re-insert any content which you believe should still be included and feel free to rearrange any elements which you feel are out of place. I also changed the headings so that they resemble those of Early history of American football and Modern history of American football. ParkH.Davis (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the earlier version of this article, the major sections were for the two major levels of football: college and pro. However, the proposed splitting is to group the history chronologically, combining all levels. It seems like this would result in a major shifting of content in History of American football, as opposed to just summarizing existing content. Is the new chronological grouping important enough to perform this type of overhaul?—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The chronological grouping is based on the previous one and is still split into intercollegiate, professional, high school/youth, and outside the US. The change I am making is to bring this article into compatability with the "Early history" and "Modern history" articles so that there is not a major difference in the content. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the earlier version of this article, section 2 was for college, and 3 was for pro. Even the lead had one paragraph for college, and another for pro. As "Early history" and "Modern history" were recently created, and are not FA yet, is there a compelling reason to make this article a slave to the newer ones, instead of visa versa?—Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the current version of the article, section 2 is for college, and 3 is for pro, just as in the previous version; all I did was add years to increase clarity and consistency. The lead retains all of the text from the previous version (i made one new paragraph break). The two new articles are most certainly better than their ratings imply. I have requested peer reviews for both of the new articles, hopefully beginning the process to increase the rating of both of those articles. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Summary_style#Basic_technique, it says: "Ideally many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." Not that it is necessarily required, but I just don't see how the use of summary style can be neatly applied to pare down this article using the two new articles. At any rate, these are just points to consider. Good luck, and thanks for taking this on.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on History of American football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on History of American football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on History of American football. 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:

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) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of American football. 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:

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) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of American football. 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:

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) 03:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of American football. 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:

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) 07:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the game

[edit]

US Football is clearly derived from Rugby, which is clearly an offshoot of football. Handling the ball is more or less obligatory in the first two and in the third is confined to the two goalkeepers during play. The term 'goalkeeper' is significant. Outside play any player can handle the ball. Football, as the name specifices, is played (only) with the feet. Use of the feet in the other two seems to be done on a limited scale. Any connection between the American handling game and the Britisn (now world) non-handling game is pretty tenuous Pamour (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TFA rerun

[edit]

Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed, apart from the 3 dead links? The Other professional leagues section has some text that needs references, and the last two small sections might need references (or maybe just a little rearranging). The lead has a clean-up tag. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Leagues section seems to lack any contentious statements; the leagues so noted existed and have well-referenced articles on their own. If anything, I may remove some of the lesser notable leagues, but for most of the other leagues that made a notable stab at becoming another major league (WFL, USFL, XFL) the statement that they existed seems uncontentious. The minor leagues (UFL, etc.) can probably be dropped from the text. --Jayron32 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jayron. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: there were already archive pages for each of the links identified as dead by the tool. I just improved the formatting to make them more prominent. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get a blank screen when I click on http://www.the-game.org/history-timeline-harvard.htm (the cite right after " which played at Harvard, Yale and Princeton"). - Dank (push to talk) 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Fixed it with an Internet Archive link. I'll see what I can do about the unreferenced bits, time permitting. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of American football. 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:

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) 01:57, 1 January 2018 (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]

Shape of the ball

[edit]

I searched within the text for "ball" (no quotes but spaces before and after) and found nothing about origin of the shape of the American football. Seems a worthy topic for inclusion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curly2004 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly2004: It's probably mentioned instead at Ball (gridiron football). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina-Duke football game

[edit]

There's no reason for the mention of the North Carolina-Duke football game in this article. However, if it is kept the citation to Jim Sumner's 1990 article should be removed because the article is factually incorrect. The game did not take place at the State Fairgrounds in Raleigh, but rather at the Athletic Park, or Ball Park as it is noted in the newspaper of the day. Jamesleegilbert (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "list of historically significant college football games" redirect here?

[edit]

As the subject says, why was list of significant college football games redirected here? This article is not a list, is not specifically about college football, and does not highlight any particularly significant college games. The redirect is basically misleading anyone who is looking for a list of significant games, it would be better to tell them that list does not exist than to present them with an irrelevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:F80C:5A26:97AF:5CC0 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_American_football&oldid=1254811969"