This page is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Moving this here.
Was there a discussion on what to do for the COVID-19 season in terms of coaching record tables? There about a million and a half different ways it has been expressed and I am unsure as to which should be done. I feel as though there are multiple feasible ways but I am unsure of a consensus which will tie into another point.
This goes along with the next point on if a season was played, should there be a note in the record table explaining that the games were played in the spring or just leave it without.
Third point, should 2020 be grayed out on the coaches navboxes like I did for:
If we do that, that would also go in hand with what was done for World War II, but again, just a few questions for you/seeing if there was a consensus already. Thanks! Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thetreesarespeakingtome, thanks for bringing this up. I don't believe there ever was a discussion about this. It's probably worth transferring this discussion to WT:CFB to get more input. Option B seems best to me as well for consistency with how we've treated the World Wars. As for Rosenbaum and Carlton, since they never logged a single decision as head coach on their ledger, I think they fall into the category of a Bo Rein at LSU. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Burn it with fire. Changes too often to provide any lasting value. Case in point, 6 of the 14 entries are currently incorrect, as those six players are currently either in NFL camps, or have transferred to other colleges. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
An A&E biography on Admiral William Halsey Jr. is on and it mentioned how he "played football on one of the worst team's in [Naval A]cademy history." All editorialism aside, I checked his page and it didn't have the Navy Midshipmen category and the WP:CFB tag on the talk page despite having information about his playing days in prose. It makes me wonder how many pages might also have these oversights?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Probably not that surprising for someone who played pre-Wikipedia and is not primarily known as a football player to be overlooked. —Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not going to lie, I am not very strong at article improvement when it comes to promoting articles to GA, let alone FA. I can write well off Wikipedia, but I am completely unsure what really makes the threshold (and yes I've read the pages about that). But, I admire how the NFL project is working on making lists FLs. I wonder if a good start would be to raise Army, Navy, Air Force, and even the D-III Coast Guard program articles, head coaches, seasons, and bowl lists, to that standard?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I have noticed that some editors have started to move certain pages to their new conference affiliation ex, UCLA Bruins football, DeShaun Foster. When should these pages actually be updated? If it is in-fact on July 1, when should it be 12:00 am EDT, 6/30 11 CDT, 6/30 9 PDT, or 12 EDT, 12 CDT etc? (Eastern-time or institution time specific)-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any suggestions on formatting? Is the top 10 a reasonable cutoff? Should we include other categories such as punting? Team passing offense? Team passing defense? Team rushing offense? Team rushing defense? I also welcome help building this out for other seasons (the data can be found in both annual NCAA guides and in post-season newspaper reports). Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was some disagreement as to the exact year, but it's somewhere between 1962 and 1964. I won't modify those years until there's consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe we should have unified (merged) articles up to and including 1961, and independent articles for 1963 and later. 1962 is less clear (lots of discussion elsewhere on this page) but at this point I'd say leave 1962 as-is (un-merged), primarily due to the Walter Byers quote, subject to a later change should something else come to light. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm open to suggestions on whether we should have a separate section for NAIA standings. The problem is that a substantial number (maybe a majority?) were members of both NAIA and NCAA during some of these years. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm not against merging the NAIA article. But when do we start the stand-alone NAIA season articles? Whenever the University/College Division split in the NCAA happened? Also, merging the 1956 NAIA article with the 1956 NCAA College Division article will induce a CFB link call crisis. We need to create more 1956 team articles to avert this. Same for 1957, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are similar category pairs within Category:Defunct college football teams each holding a single season article. Do these really have navigational value?
Compared to recent playings, a couple games have been moved from January to December (Reliaquest Bowl, Citrus Bowl) while other games have been moved from December to January (First Responder Bowl, Duke's Mayo Bowl, Bahamas Bowl)
Quick Lane Bowl lost Ford as its sponsor and is listed as "Detroit Bowl" while they seek a new title sponsor.
First, I think these changes are premature. The Huskies, at least, don't join the Big Ten until August 2nd.
Second, I would perhaps like to see some kind of "Historic" information about the Pac-12 preserved in these articles and navboxes. Does this kind of information exist for any of the other disbanded conferences? What should be kept as-is for the Pac-12 and archived or marked as "historic"? What should be updated, in the short term, to only include WSU and OSU?
Seeking opinions on what should be done for the article on the historic Pac-12 Conference, the upcoming "Pac-2 Conference", their nav boxes, the team pages, etc.
Latest comment: 9 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I created this draft some time ago but couldn't find the needed SIGCOV to move it to main space. Surprising for a team with a perfect season. It is now set to be deleted. If anyone wants to adopt and work on the article, feel free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I read a couple of articles that said that Bud Wilkinson was a golf coach and the hockey coach at Syracuse? I couldn't find anything that had any statistics or years. If anybody has access to any resources, can they see if he was a head coach of either of these teams? Shouldn't this information be in the infobox as well?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's no varsity golf or men's ice hockey team at Syracuse anymore, so I'm not surprised that info is hard to come by. Which articles indicated that coached golf and hockey at Syracuse? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am looking at a few 2024 articles, and see a ton of information in the preason regarding watch lists and preseason polls. Do we really need the entire SEC preseason poll in a team article wouldn't it be better as prose?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree but I wonder who keeps adding this stuff? It is only a matter of time before I will post here about the Nebraska article having external links in the schedule table take that to the bank.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are a lot of fly-by and IP editors that tend do a lot of work on current season articles and often just do a copy-paste of whatever is there (including any bad habits) from the season before. That's why it's important that when we reach an editorial decision here about season articles, we apply it comprehensively to all the relevant articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I call it the "cfb link call crisis". I would love to help with sourcing here, but Wikipedia Library access to Newspapers.com has been down for a couple days. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As for the prior discussion, I'm not sure where it occurred. Could be in the archives here or on one of our talk pages. I'll look. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's no need for the proposed homogeneity. Decade articles (or in some cases longer durations) have worked well for 19th century and very early 20th century small-school independents. E.g., the examples you gave above. The conference season articles work great for more modern teams that lack the coverage for individual team seasons. Conference season articles provide multiple benefits, including (i) allowing us to detail the history of smaller programs by collecting sufficient WP:SIGCOV to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement, (ii) telling the coherent story of a full conference in one centralized location, (iii) following the contemporaneous sources which often provide coverage to lower level programs on a conference-wide basis, and (iv) helping with the cfb link crisis. Conclusion: These articles are a win-win-win, let's make more of them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would think there's more reader interest in a team than a conference season, so composite pages like Kalamazoo Hornets football, 1950–1959 would make reading easier than having to hop from one conference season pages to another. However, if content is sparse and being developed, I agree we should just be happy that content is being created. If a volunteer feels like wiping out a particular conference season randomly here and there, that's fine. Once a decade is completed, content can then possibly be moved to a specific team decade page, if that makes sense. —Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cbl, much of the coverage for these smaller programs is made on a conference-wide basis, but much of it focuses only a particular game or team. Some of it will focus on a particular program from year to year. The team decade articles plus the Type I conference articles will give us all the benefits you enumerate above, while also resolving the style fork. That's the real win-win. You claim there is "no need for the proposed homogeneity", but you don't explain why. Why do we have consistent style and homogeneity between analogous articles at all? Well, because consistency between analogs helps the reader understand the subject and navigate through the scope of its coverage. Would love to get some input from other editors who have been involved with these sorts of season articles. Patriarca12, Thetreesarespeakingtome, BeanieFan11, WikiOriginal-9, Dogloverr16, Butters.From.SouthPark, TheCatalyst31, PCN02WPS, Pvmoutside, Patriotsontop, any thoughts here? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I, personally, think that the conference pages are the best option. BUT with that being said I do think the season groupings for individual teams are also adequate especially for a team that is/was an independent an extended number of time. I also believe that season groupings under a head coaching tenure could work too (ieStony Brook Seawolves football under Sam Kornhauser/Chuck Priore and UMass Dartmouth Corsairs football under Mark Robichaud,) but it would get replaced once the season's conference page gets created. When you get into the very early seasons (before 1940) there were many independents and THEN it would be better for a year-by-year page grouping the decade together into one page. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jweiss and I disagree and that should be ok. Unless you are advocating that I be prohibited from creating conference season articles. Is that your proposal?
Over the last few years, I have spent many days of labor building out roughly 150 conference season articles. See User:Cbl62/Conference season articles. They are set up to easily navigate from year to year for each team so that team navigability is facilitated. I believe these articles are among my best contributions to Wikipedia.
I am not aware of anyone creating team decade articles for the post-World War II era. (By my count, there are zero such articles.)
A major benefit to the conference approach is that we don't leave the weaker schools behind. You might find someone interested in creating decade articles on or two schools from the Ohio Athletic Conference, but the odds of someone creating decade article for all 15 such team strikes me as quite low. The conference approach doesn't leave the weak teams behind.
If at a later date, we see momentum toward someone creating team decade articles, we can figure out how to integrate. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this explanation more than I agree with my own. I think conference articles are the best way to go forward especially to the point of not leaving behind lesser teams. Alongside each team eventually getting their own page (which I had done a while back) to navigate between seasons and general information would greatly improve this underdeveloped set of pages. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
My hope here is that we can reach a consensus about the form of conference season articles and one that resolves the style fork. It's pretty much the same amount of work to create 1960s decade articles for each of the six MIAA members during the period as it is to create 10 MIAA Type II conference season articles for the decade. In both cases, it's 60 team seasons. The long-term vision is to have 10 MIAA Type I conference season articles for the 1960s, where things like full all-conference teams would reside. My aim is to figure this out now, so we reduce the amount of effort reworking articles in years to come. Your many days of labor building out those 150 conference season articles, particularly all the sourcing from Newspapers.com are much appreciated. Right now we may have 150 articles that have to be reworked. What I want to avoid is finding ourselves three years from now with 1,000 articles that need to be reworked. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The odds of someone creating any given article are entirely dependent on what we as editors decide to do. If we want to create decades articles for each OAC (and every other sub-DI team), we'll do that. We also have programs like Washington University Bears football, Washington & Jefferson Presidents football, Chicago Maroons football who were effectively major programs in their early days, but are now NCAA Division III. We already have a long array of stand-alone articles for each of these programs covering their years of major competition. But most if not all of their post-WW2 history would probably be better served with articles bundled by decade, which would mesh nicely with the existing stand-alone articles. And again, we need to address the style fork. It's confusing to have two different types of the same thing (conference season articles) out there. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I created both branches of what you refer to as a "style fork." It's really not a "fork" at all; it's two different formats for two very different purposes.
For minor conferences (e.g., 1946 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season), there are no separate season articles for each team and so the conference season articles serves a different purpose -- it basically presents the contents of what would be a season articles for each team (including schedule chart) along with additional conference-wide information (e.g., all-conference selections).
So there it is. Not a "fork" at all -- more lack a fork and a spoon (different utensils to fulfill different needs). Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course it's a fork, and Type II of the fork is indeed your creation, as you initiated it decade after Type I was established. We already have a stable form with dedicated templates like Template:CFB Conference Schedule Start, created in 2010. You came up with a local solution that has global problems, now you are denying that such global problem even exist. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You call it a "fork". I call it a "fork" and a "spoon". Different tools for different functions, as described above. And by the way, I was the one who created what you call "Type 1" as well (back in 2016 (here)) -- just modifying the tools a bit to achieve best functionality. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I may have mis-remembered, but that's beside the point. The key is that the "spoon" (Type 1) and the "fork" (Type 2) are both valid utensils that serve different purposes. Innovation is permitted (and should be encouraged). Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You didn't just misremember. You're not in touch with the reality of this situation. Breaking standard forms is not innovation, and this is not the first time you've done that. You're still denying the forking you initiated here, and instead of examining that, you've gone ahead hastily to create two more Type II forks since this discussion started, increasing the work load will have to done in future years to resolve it. And even within the Type II fork itself, you make the same mistakes over and over again, like mis-titling the title field of the infobox, omitting proper category sort keys, omitting needed categories on the associated categories that you create, and leaving rafts of table entries un wiki-linked. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You didn't just misremember. You're not in touch with reality Jw -- You are acting like an ****** (unpleasant fellow), and I respectfully ask that you adjust attitude . Cbl62 (talk)
Jeesh. So much for adusting the attitude. 00:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: If you seriously want to discuss the need for competence, don't forget that the reason I've had to spend hours creating all of these 1961 articles is because of your incompetence in creating true content "forks" for "NCAA College Division" football seasons for each year from 1956 1957 to 1961, when even a modicum of due diligence would have shown you that the "College Division" didn't even exist during those years. When we fixed your mistake and recombined the articles, it created tons of work in trying to resolve the cfb link crisis. It would be nice if you tried to help fixing the problem instead of making wacky charges of incompetence at others. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cbl62, those articles were created (not all by me) when there a wide consensus belief that the NCAA College Division went back that far. In fact, the College Football Data Warehouse, which you still hail as a reliable source, suggests that University and College Divisions go back to 1937; see [2] and [3]. I never made any any such mistakes that created a cfb link crisis. The cfb link crisis arose largely because I created tons of well-sourced standings templates like Template:1950 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football standings to make our coverage of minor conferences more complete. I've made repeated calls here for help regarding the link crisis, which also affects seasons prior to 1956 that were never split by division. I've created many season articles myself, particular for 1949, to help ameliorate the crisis. If 1961 college football season had never been split by division, we'd still in the same exact place with respect to the cfb link crisis. Once again, you're completely out touch with reality about the dynamics here, and defensively contorting history rather than examining your own shortcomings. You're out of your depth. Let someone who else who is competent enough to understand what's going on here take the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh my goodness, your capacity for rewriting history is startling. You created the 1957-1961 "College Division" articles unilaterally and without any "wide consensus". See diffs: [4], [5][6], [7][8]. After you unilaterally created them, I objected, noting there was zero evidence that the College Division existed in these years. As is your tendency, you resisted any challenge to your imagined authority. Now you attack the person cleaning up your mess. Come on, dude! You should be thanking me for cleaning up your mess. Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link to your talk page discussion. It confirms that, indeed, I told you several years ago that the College Division didn't exist until 1962. I am pretty sure we had another discussion back then as well, but you ignored my warnings and left your mess intact. I chose not to challenge you more aggressively on the issue back then, because I know how unpleasant you can get when your authority is challenged. Cbl62 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
In February 2019, did you didn't tell me College Division didn't exist until 1962. We, as a project, didn't arrive at 1962 as the cutoff until this year, 2024. In 2019, you told me you suspected it didn't exist in 1956 and 1957. I never said you were wrong. And this wasn't my mess. For six years prior to 2019, 1956 college football season carried a lead that read "The 1956 NCAA University Division football season...". And the same for 1957, etc. As I explained above, this reflected a project-wide consensus belief that College and University Divisions were introduced in 1956. And when, in 2019, I suggested we break out College Division articles from the University Division for 1957 to 1972, you endorsed that move, prior to raising your doubts about 1956 and 1957. I never stopped you from re-combining 1956 or any other year. It's incredibly pathetic what you're still carrying on with this confabulatory charade, even when I've plainly laid out the evidence for you. You are either lying or you're not competent enough to assess the reality of the sequence of events here. Which one is it? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
My goodness, your effort to rewrite history is impressive. Here's the actual sequence of my efforts to advise you about your error in creating the separate University/College Division articles.
First warning. In February 2019 (diff here), I raised my concern about your creation of separate University Division/College Division articles. In particular, I informed you that I had done research into the matter and that 1962 was "the earliest item I have found so far showing that there was a formal division of football teams with 140 teams in the University Division and 370 in the College Division." You did not respond to my note about my research findings.
Second warning. Because you had not responded, I followed up with you on June 5, 2020 (here) advising you as follows: "We still need to resolve the WP:V and WP:OR concerns in connection with our University Division and College Division football season articles ... It is pretty clear from my research that there was no such thing as a 1956 NCAA University Division football season or a 1957 NCAA University Division football season. The extension of the concept to football came later. The 1956 and 1957 seasons should IMO be reverted to 1956 college football season and 1957 college football season. If you have sources to show that I am wrong, let me know. ... Given these uncertainties, our current University Division articles and templates raise 'red alert' level concerns with core Wikipedia policies, including WP:V and WP:OR." For the second time, you ignored my warnings and did not respond.
Third warning. Having no response to my June 5 note, I followed up for a third time on June 11 (diff here), pointing out: "[T]he issue remains with respect to my conclusion that there was no 1956 NCAA University Division football season or a 1957 NCAA University Division football season. Do you have any sources showing that the 'University Division' concept was recognized for purposes of football in those years? Do you have an objection on my proposal to revert these to '1956 college football season' and '1957 college football season'?" For the third time, you ignored my warnings and did not respond. Given your tendency to overreact (including personal attacks and name calling) when critized, I decided not to poke the bear further and left the issue alone.
Fourth warning. On May 5 of this year, Dmoore noted he could find no sources to support existence of a separate College Divison in the 1950s. I was pleased that someone else had revived the issue. I immediately jumped in, noting that there was no "College Division" in the early years and that these articles should be deleted or merged. There was lengthy discussion with Dmoore, PK-WIKI and me all concluding there was no "College Division" in the 1950s. It was only after this fourth discussion had pretty conclusively established the error (and five years after my first warning to you), that you finally responded and conceded the error.
So, yes, you created the mess. You looked the other way for five years, despite repeated warning. Ultimately, I fixed the mess by merging the applicable articles (1956-1961) with considerable effort. This then triggered a "cfb link crisis" which I have been trying to remedy by creating valid conference season articles. And your response is to question my competence, assert that I am out of touch with reality, accuse me of lying, and call me "pathetic". Seriously? Have you heard of projection?Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, you mentioned your suspicions about 1956 and 1957 to me multiple times. I never told you were wrong. I wasn't sure about the extent of the issue and I was busy with other things. I'm not required to respond to and act upon everything on my talk page. I never stopped you from recombining those articles. If it was such a big deal to you, why didn't you something, like boldly edit or open a discussion here? No clear view of 1958 to 1961 was ever made until this year, and I supported those conclusions when they were made. Back in 2019, I took the initiative, with the project's endorsement including yours specifically, to clean up 1957 to 1972 based on what was then consensus belief, including yours. What will it take for you to cease with these lies and distortions? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
My very first comment on the matter, back in 2019, noted that that 1962 was the first year when evidence existed for separate divisions. When you ignored and diden't respond to my politely worded warnings in 2019 and again in 2020, I didn't open a discussion here, because I don't enjoy conflict, and when I had criticized or challenged you in the past, it had blown up into ugly incidents of personal attacks and name-calling. I assure you that I will not be deterred in the future by your bullying and name-calling -- which in this round has included saying I am "FOS" ("full of shit" I infer) and "out of your depth" and calling me "pathetic", incompetent, and out of touch with reality. Cbl62 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's funny, I was going to use a "Trumpian" reference (more accurately, "Trump-via-Roy Cohn") in describing your approach to conflict: Never admit a mistake. Just attack, bully, and call names. Cbl62 (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The name-calling this round started with calling me an "asshole" with asterisks. Remember? Never admit a mistake? We all, yes, that includes me, made a minor understandable mistake about an abstruse and poorly covered subtlety regarding NCAA organization. This error had abounded here for over a decade and has been repeated elsewhere by many reliable sources. But because I criticized your approach on another issue, you've concocted an absurd confabulation about how this mistake was all my fault and imputed extra fake costs onto the mistake. You behavior here is menacing. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
menacing ("threatening or foreshadowing evil or tragic developments") -- I have to assume you used that word in jest. But at last, you've admitted a mistake in creating the 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961 College Division season articles. Thank you for your honesty in that regard. I have no problem with admitting mistakes when I make them, and I do see that you did not create the 1956 College Division article -- so I was wrong on that one. As for name calling, I didn't call you an "asshole" -- that word has seven letters -- my six asterisks were meant to self-censor a six-letter word that I chose not to use, even after being accused of being out of touch with reality. We've both admitted some fallibility, and hopefully we can now put this to rest. Cbl62 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Forgive me for miscounting the asterisks. But you last comment contains yet another distortion, or an inability to follow what's going on. But at last, you've admitted a mistake in creating the 1957, 1958..." I never denied this. I clearly stated this several hours ago toward the outset of this branch of the discussion. What you still haven't acknowledged is that NCAA divisional verbiage and organization for all of the sensitive years (1956 to 1961), was introduced onto Wikipedia years ago, as far back as 2008, by several editors not named Jweiss11. And you still haven't acknowledged that these mistaken article splits were not my "unilateral" decision. If fact, you were one of the other editors that greenlit them. And you haven't acknowledged there was indeed some evidence to suggest that NCAA divisions existed in the sensitive time period because trusted sources like the College Football Data Warehouse said they existed. Back in 2019 and until the last couple years, the prime version of NCAA's own website even implied the existence of College and University Divisions for years prior to 1962. You can still view much of that now latent version of their database. Go to https://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch and search for Will Lotter as a coach. Then click on his football records. You will get a report that in turn links to individual season reports with URLs like https://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men's_College%20Division_1954_108_California%20Aggies.pdf. This file now resides at https://stats.ncaa.org/team/108/stats/13796 in a newer scheme. But "College Division" for 1954? That's weird, isn't it? And you still haven't made it clear that you understand that these article splits did not create the link crisis, bur rather that the link crisis would have been the same had they never been split in the first place. The link crisis is the product of minor conference standings template creation, largely done by me. Perhaps it is our personal rivalry that has rendered you unable to make sound and sensible moral judgements. But whatever the ultimate cause, your distorted and confabulatory tales of fake culpability ensue. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, my two cents are that for Division I (FBS and FCS) should have Fork I formatting due to each team mostly already having their own singular articles while Division II and lower (including NAIA perchance) should have Fork II that Cbl62 (and I) have been working on. I think that grouping seasons by decade works best in the early (1880s to 1940s). Although, a hybrid could be done as well by combining both for lower division seasons. From my understanding the big discussion is whether they should be grouped by conference or by team by decade and I have to favor by conference. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A follow-up question could they exist in the same page? Format one page with the elements of both? The biggest difference between Type I and Type II is just the week-by-week schedule as a whole compared to each team having it's whole season at once. Could, in theory, they be combined and have both? But even if they are the issue with the decade-by-decade page still doesn't fit into play but it most definitely makes sense as to why it should.
So do I change my opinion once again. They should definitely be formatted like Type I. The format and information provided is most definitely best suited for a conference page instead of what Type II is.
A decade page which is the target of the redirects with the standings template heading and categories guiding readers to the separate, but dually important, conference page makes the most sense. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would have to agree. Division I FBS should set the standard for what the lesser (for lack of a better word) divisions coverage and substance should strive to be like. That is at least my ideology at least. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Template:Southeastern Conference starting quarterbacks navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
