Talk:Mark Richt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Change to Coaching Record Table

Hi all. I would like to propose making the the table with season-by-season records look more like the one on the Jim Tressel article. I think it gets more information across more clearly. I would like some feedback before I make this change, especially on replacing certain columns:

• Where OSU lists "Big Ten Ranking", I assume we should list SEC East ranking, since overall conference standings aren't really possible to determine in the SEC
• Should SEC Championship get its own column, like the bowl game? (with a blank for years UGA didn't go)
• Should we lose the "Michigan Game" (i.e., Rival) column altogether (since I think we'll probably add a column for the SEC game), or list the Tech game, Florida game, or even "Record vs. GT, UF, and Auburn"?
• Is the "BCS Game" (yes or no) column really needed?
• Any other adjustments that need to be made, or if this is even a good idea

Thoughts? I'd like to make this change soon, but want to make sure it's done right. --SuperNova |T|C| 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Tressel table is far too school-specific and overstructured. In as much as consistency is important from article to article with how we display common information like this for similar article subjects (coaches), it makes sense to take up this conversation at the College Football Wikiproject for standardization.

But some quick detail thoughts on the subject; please take a look at the table at Tommy Tuberville (and similar tables at Ralph Jordan and others) which is much more minimalist, but covers the basics and has some key links (related to team year pages as standardized at the Wikiproject). It could probably benefit from a little more structure (dedicated column for bowl, final ranking), but rival specific columns go too far. As you posit above the BCS game column is unneeded; if that indication is desired and not obvious from the bowl game name, use a widget - dagger, asterisk- to indicate that. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The controversy previously stated in the article deals specifically with Mark Richt and his coaching decisions and therefore is will within the spectrum of information that should be included in a biography of him. Articles should be written from a neutral standpoint and therefore ALL relevant information about the person should be included, not just what makes them look good. I am undoing the deletion until I hear an actual reason why the section should not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.1.148 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

one controversy does not deserve a section it would be ok if you put it in the main coaching career.--JMay from tampa bay 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the section fails to mention the coaches and media that thought it was a great move! --Good ol' boys 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Controversy section only makes the layout smoother. If that was your reason for deleteing it, you should have simply moved it. Because Richt himself admitted it wasn't "a great move," there is no reason to add that. Alas, I'll move it to the main section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.48.17 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

supported the troops

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3314378 192.88.158.211 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1