Talk:Wisconsin Badgers football

Ron Dayne Status

I was actually at Camp Randall the day Ron Dayne broke the rushing record and they unveiled his name and number on the upper deck. I'm almost positive that they retired the number that day. Why would they honor him in that matter otherwise. I've got some people checking into it, but a change may be in order.

No change is in order. Dayne's number isn't retired. See the Official UW Football 2006 Yearbook (page 124) for a listing of numbers that were retired prior to the retirement of Richter's number this season. Dayne's #33 isn't on the list. -JakeApple 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How is Ron Dayne's number not retired? His "33" is up there in Camp Randall along with everyone else on this list. Unless someone can explain why that doesn't amount to a retired number, I'm going to change it. --DanyaRomulus 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how else to explain how it "doesn't amount to a retired number" other than to point out that the UW hasn't retired it (check the link I provided above). Thus, changing it would be a factual error. -JakeApple 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dayne's number IS retired,according to the stadium info HERE *Retired Numbers

1. 33 Ron Dayne
2. 35 Alan Ameche
3. 40 Elroy Hirsch
4. 80 Dave Schreiner
5. 83 Allan Shafer
6. 88 Pat Richter

IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Origin of team nickname"

I am removing this section, since it is a duplicate of the identical section from Wisconsin Badgers. Since the nickname does not apply solely to the football team, the section properly belongs there. --Chancemichaels 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

alt.badgers.rose.rose.rose

Anyone know about this usenet group? It always puzzled me... It seeems to have started as a badgers fan group, but does anyone know how or why? JustIgnoreMe 01:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BuckyBadger.png

The image Image:BuckyBadger.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 schedule

I hope there wasn't a reason the 2007 schedule was still on the page...I updated to 2008. KellanFabjance (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other notable players"

This section appears to be purely subjective and, as a result, pure POV. It's an unreferenced list or some random former players. And every time I try to add someone who clearly satisfies WP:N and WP:ATHLETE, someone else deletes it with dubious edit summaries. What is "notable" supposed to represent in this context? Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it was blanked without any attempt to discuss it here. Frankly, your justifications and logic make no sense to me. The list there appears to be little more than a bunch of former players, none of which are referenced or have any explanation as to why they are "notable" in your eyes. You don't own the article. If you think this person doesn't belong there, who has a school record and is a former All Big-Ten, I can think of a couple others in your list who also do not belong. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This player had one good season and was only All-Big Ten Honorable mention. He also did not have much of a NFL career besides getting on a few practice squads. If this is your criteria for notable player then the list would have at least 500 names. His record of batted ball really? Only real records should make the list of notable players like most TD's in a season or most career sack at Wisconsin. Not most batted balls. You might be this guy and you are just trying to add yourself or maybe you are a friend or family member. In any case, this player is not notable ask any real fan as I AM!!! Carthage44 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, your logic makes no sense. This is an article about college football, what does playing lots of downs in the NFL have to do with whether someone was a notable college ball player? What is "only" All-Big Ten Honorable mention? How is a batted ball record less important than a TD record? A record is a record. Your claims I'm "this guy" or some friend or family member are totally bogus, I'm not him and I don't even know him. I do not have to be a "real fan", as you say, to know who satisfies the NOTABILITY policy and who does not. Last time I checked, being a "real fan" was not a criteria for editing sports articles on Wikipedia. Sounds to me like you're just trying to WP:OWN this article and keep it how you like it and screw everyone else. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First, tone down the hostility - both of you. It's unnecessary and unproductive.

Second, I think that Burpelson has raised some good points. What is the criteria for inclusion in this article's list of notable players? It's not sufficient for us to simply trust Carthage44, a "real fan," to make unilateral and subjective judgments. But it sounds like you have some criteria that you use, Carthage44, they just haven't been made explicit. Can you please help us understand what you believe the criteria for inclusion should be?

(And it would probably be worthwhile to get some others involved in this discussion, particularly members of the college football Wikiproject; I'm sure that they have dealt with this issue many times and will have some good suggestions and guidance. ElKevbo (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering only "2% of college seniors are drafted by NFL" [1] any college football player who has any kind of NFL career is notable in that sense. The other argument is that any college football player who has an article on wikipedia where notability has been demonstrated due to their football career qualifies. I can't see any reason to exclude this name. Exxolon (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Exxolon. I'm not a "real fan" but it seems like any college player who makes it to the NFL could be considered notable. I would further state that even if a college player didn't play professionally after college, his level of play at the college level should also serve to establish notability. This player seems to have a school record, some prety good individual stats and also was a starting player in the Rose Bowl. That is a pretty good collection of reasons for inclusion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I now mentioned at the AN/I discussion, this is basically how I feel too. Carthage hasn't provided any reason to keep removing this one guy with any policy-based reasoning. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again this player is NOT NOTABLE because he never played a down in the NFL and holds a meaningless record of batted balls. The notable list is there for NOTABLE players only. Not every player that has played there or that has been Honorable mention for all-conference belongs on this list. The list would be huge. This list should be reserved for players that are NOTABLE and they are NOTABLE because people know who they are not just one guy like Burpelson AFB. Carthage44 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some points:

1) What does playing downs in the NFL have to do with being a notable college football player? Eric Swann went from high school to semi-pro to the NFL, does that make him a notable college football player? How do you respond to Exxolon's points above?

2) Why is a batted balls record meaningless? By what criteria do you judge this?

3) From the news coverage he received, it would seem more people than I know who he is. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First, everyone stay calm. Now, can I try and clarify the two positions here. Carthage44, you appear to be stating that only college athletes who went on to successful NFL careers should be listed in the other notable athletes section. Burpelson AFB, you appear to be stating that an NFL career isn't the only thing that makes a former team member notable. Am I understanding the positions here? AniMate 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the "notablity" guideline you speak of (have to play in the NFL) is a guideline, not a rule--AND it only applies to stand-alone articles, not for content within articles. EXAMPLE: John Doe may not be notable for their own article, but may be worth mentioning in an article on a team where John Doe was involved in a key way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know what Carthage is saying. I'm saying that a former Badgers starting player with a team record, who played in the Rose Bowl, who also made it to the NFL (and may or may not have played downs) and received individual media coverage for his play with the Badgers is worth including in a list of "notable players". If he is not worthy of inclusion, I want to know what criteria this list was built on. For example, why is John Hall (American football) listed? An ex placekicker? And how about Terrell Fletcher and Dennis Lick? I don't recall either of these guys being very good pro players. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To follow up on Paul's note above, the player I'm trying to add even has his own Wikipedia article, so that would seem to support inclusion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the two positions. Can I ask if most former college football players have Wikipedia articles? AniMate 02:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help here, AniMate. I'm not sure about that, but I would think the vast majority don't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. There are many many former college football players, but only some of them would qualify for an article on Wikipedia. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that any athlete who satisfies the general notability guidelines is probably a notable member of his college team. I would agree that most college athletes don't meet our notability guidelines, and when one does, that makes him or her a notable former team member. Going to play in the NfL, NBA, or MLB is a major accomplishment and a notable event for any college team, even if their career tanks. I gotta go with including him here. I don't say this as a fan or someone who knows him, I'm saying this as an editor who thinks this approach makes the most sense. AniMate 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection expired - add?

The general consensus (apart from Carthage44) seems to be this player should be included. Should we now do this as the page is editable again? Exxolon (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm disappointed that a criteria hasn't been established for inclusion but there does appear to be a firm consensus to add this one player. ElKevbo (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The general consensus seems pretty clear to me so I've gone ahead and reinserted the player. I've been trying to think of real criteria for creating/managing that list but haven't come up with anything. I do know that simply playing downs for a professional league (NFL, Arena, CFL, etc.) shouldn't be the only benchmark. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The attempts (by all parties) to keep this article sound are admirable. In my opinion, the entire section should be eliminated since it does not advance the reader's knowledge of factual information. Now, of course, I have no problem with any Badger player mentioned in the context of this article. However, it should be contained within prose or listed under a factual heading such as "award winners" or "record holders" or "current NFL players", etc..

On the one hand, I know immediately what it means when it says "current NFL players". On the other hand, I have no clue what is meant by notability. There are no citations either. I find these to be worrisome signs and problematic within the context of this article. I advocate moving all the names into prose.Obamafan70 (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

typo

Please correct "eigth" to "eighth" in the Team history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Number (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading this. It says the team finished eight out of ten seasons in the top 25. It's not saying they finished ranked eighth. AniMate 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the sentence "…the the Badgers earned their eigth Big Ten title…" should read "…the Badgers earned their eighth Big Ten title…", i.e. delete the repeated "the", and correct the spelling of "eighth". Cheers. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! I was searching for eight spelled correctly. Fixed. AniMate 19:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the content for the championship years?

As a UW alumnus, I am somewhat appalled by this: where is the content for the great seasons in UW football history? Countless other schools have write-ups going back decades for even the most mediocre seasons, and yet UWs best seasons have no content at all. I created the following pages because I could not believe they did not already exist: 1952 Wisconsin Badgers football team, 1953 Rose Bowl, 1959 Wisconsin Badgers football team, 1960 Rose Bowl, 1962 Wisconsin Badgers football team. Unfortunately, they remain only stubs as I have no ready access to content and few have contributed any content beyond what I was able to find. Surely, someone's alumni parents or grandparents must have scrapbooks full of material which could be added. Sadly, 1993 Wisconsin Badgers football team page still does not exist. What self-respecting alumni base lets their conference championship seasons go undocumented (at a minimum, those in living memory)? -- these are the Rowl Bose years! For that matter, who would ever know that the 1896 Wisconsin Badgers football team was the first "Western Conference" champion?

Also, with Barry Alvarez's imminent induction into the College Football Hall of Fame, a page like Wisconsin Badgers under Barry Alvarez (1990-2005) -- similar to Maryland Terrapins football under Jim Tatum (1947–1955) -- to document this significant period in UW football history would seem to be in order -- especially since most of the season pages during his career are missing -- but I doubt I would ever have the time or resources to write one. Nusumareta (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

as requested, fact tags added

The tone in some parts sounds more like the announcer at the stadium than it should, I've added a "tone" tag too, "dismal lows" etc is more of an opinion than a fact (although, ya, they apparently sucked for a while!). Anyways, if you can fill in some of those fact tags, that would be great, I think I got most of the important ones, let me know if you see any I missed. Thanks for the help! -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 03:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

New Wisconsin Uniforms

Wisconsin came out with new red helmets this past season, could the uniform section be updated to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.203.28 (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1892 game vs. Minnesota

I have changed the page to reflect the fact that Minnesota won the 1892 game vs. Wisconsin. This 32-4 Gopher victory was on the books by that score until 2 or 3 years ago when a someone working for the Wisconsin Athletic Department found some information in an old folder which said that the game was actually a 40-32 Badger win. Wisconsin changed its records and convinced the University of Minnesota to change its records as well to reflect the new score. However, we recently uncovered new evidence that the original score (32-4 Minnesota victory) is the correct one and have started the process of getting the two Universities to update their records. The college football data warehouse (which is the primary online source for this kind of information on Wikipedia) agreed with the evidence we presented and updated their records. Instead of presenting everything here, I'll post a link to the discussion we had on a message board (Gophers vs. Wisconsin 1892) which includes links to the original online article which led to changing the records in 2011 along with the evidence we have to change it back to its original score.

Also, when making the changes, I originally updated Wisconsin's all-time record (which was listed as 653-480-51) to remove a win and add a loss, but when I checked the college football data warehouse (which has updated the result of that 1892 game already), it said that the record should be 653-481-53 (same number of wins, one more loss and two more ties than the page had indicated before) so I updated the page with that record instead. Gopherguy | Talk 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Return to Dominance

I am not sure how this era in Wisconsin Football could be considered a RETURN to DOMINANCE. The Badgers did not DOMINATE during this era, nor had they DOMINATED during a period so that it was not a return. The were good, even very good, but not dominate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 13:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

National champions

@PK-WIKI I've never seen this before. It's like half claim. They put in their official fact book for anyone who cares to read through all 334 pages, but they don't put it on their stadium, which would be a first for a school claiming a national title. Somarain (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Somarain This used to be more of a problem in the Claims by school table. We've since begun using Template:Cite sign to cite the big public claim at the stadium rather than obscure mentions in a media guide that don't properly communicate the level of "claim". This solves it for any school with a sign at the stadium.

In my opinion, I don't think Wisconsin Athletics actually "claims" 1942. The mention in the Fact Book is, in my opinion, a complete listing of all years in which they were selected by an NCAA-designated "major selector" with no statement presented as to the validity of each selection.

As far as I know, this is mainly still a problem at:

• Wisconsin
• Iowa – 5 in media guide, no stadium sign(?), true claim is probably 1 (1958) or 0.
• Rutgers – 1869 had a mention in a single media guide. Unclear if their claim should be 1 or 0.

They good thing is that this can easily be fixed by any athletics department writing a brief note somewhere on their website, like Washington has done here. This link fixed a decade of wrong information on Wikipedia.

I think fans and athletic departments are generally annoyed/embarrassed by the wrong information, they just don't know how to properly "claim" the correct number. If you can help an athletic department set the record straight, please do! Often times the AD will state their opinion in a private email. We just need to get them to write it down somewhere.

PK-WIKI (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Check ownership reference, paragraph one

The Badgers are not owned by the Minnesota Gophers Head Coach PJ Fleck. Funny, but not accurate. 2600:6C44:6C00:1637:DCF4:6F4B:CD88:AF20 (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)