![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
It just didn't look right. Now it's perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:348:380:1890:D974:10AC:EC0C:B9A9 (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to improve this section's quality. The descriptions of the games lacked consistency in content and grammar.
Note that Auburn itself does not claim national championships for either 1983 or 1993. http://www.auburntigers.com/trads/02_auburn_national_championships.html. As noted above, the fan site (www.auburnfootball.com) may not satisify Wikipedia's rules for [Reliable Sources]. It may make more sense to include only those championships following Iron Bowls claimed by each institution. 63.96.7.3 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A recent addition by anon: User:24.136.36.173 was copied verbatim from http://www.angelfire.com/al/bamacrimsontide/ironbowlhistory.html. Reverted. Autiger
the alabama status as "flagship unversity" is hard to argee to when auburn has been ranked higher than alabama in the top public universities consistantly. Also the statement about Auburn students coming from smaller towns has no eveidence what so ever to back that up
"Like many intrastate rivalries between public universities in the United States, much of the animosity between the two schools stems from sociological differences between each school's fan base (alumni and other supporters). Many of the more heated in-state rivalries involve a state's perceived "flagship university" and a land-grant university. Traditionally, flagship universities educated the more urbanized and economically upscale portions of their state's population. Land-grant schools, which were specifically established to provide education in agriculture, engineering, and military science, drew heavily from rural and small-town dwellers. Although this is a gross oversimplification, and there are numerous exceptions to this rule on both sides, there is a core of truth to this divide. In the Iron Bowl, Alabama is the "flagship" school and Auburn the land-grant school"
None of this is verifiable at all
Yes, that part needs to STAY deleted
I was always told growing up, all the rich, spoiled and snobby kids went to Tuscalooser, while the intelligent and mature kids who come from RESPECTABLE families go to AU. Take a stroll through their crappy campus today and ours, and you'll see that things haven't changed. They wanna make fun of us for being a "cow college", I hope they think of that next time they're eating a burger. Besides, I'd much rather be known as a "cow college" than a coke college filled with soon to be dropouts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AUalumnus (talk • contribs) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Auburn University has an established and verifiable history in the arts and pure sciences. The seal of Auburn states; "For the advancement of the sciences and the arts." In short, Auburn is more like an LSU, a flagship / land-grant hybrid, than a Mississippi State, a pure land-grant school. What makes Auburn, and therefore the state of Alabama unique, is that there is also a pure flagship university in state. Fgmoon353 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alabama is hardly unique (unless you mean only as compared to Louisiana) in that it has a landgrant university with other respected programs alongside another university that is the focus of a wider university system. Michigan comes to mind. You might fairly say, I meant among schools that think football is more important than that education crap, but then Florida comes to mind (as does Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arizona). The list multiplies depending on how loosely you define "flagship" and land grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:25CD:80C9:B17E:8802:F890:142E (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the overall record of the series, which currently stands at 38-31-1, not 38-32-1 as previously stated. Being an Auburn fan myself, I hope that 38-32-1 is correct this time next year, but for now it is not. Adamepling 15:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to go through and fix all the scores. An anonymous user changed every score to reflect Auburn as the winner, but the user was too dumb to change the table colors and bolded type to really make that sort of inflammatory edit noticeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.157.80 (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image File:Alabama Football.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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image is also not the proper logo for the school, merely the football helmet: http://visualid.ua.edu/logos.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.24 (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly. Go back and read the article dispassionately (or better yet, someone who has absolutely no horse in the race do so) and tell me that there's not slant to this article.
Furthermore, it does absolutely nothing to capture the rivalry. Where's mention of media (books, shows, etc.) that have been devoted to this game? What about off-field events? Love them or hate them but you can't leave them out and still communicate what this rivalry means to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.25 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page doesn't appear to contain much in the way of bias. This is true as of today's revision, and I also checked the revision of your previous comment. The overall language is neutral. At the time, there were 2 more Alabama victories listed under "Notable Games", which is understandable given the series record. However, today this has reversed as there have been 4 additional victories added for Auburn (1983, 1957, 1983, 1986), 1 added for Alabama (1948), and 1 deleted for Alabama (1999). So there are now 2 more "Notable Games" for Auburn than Alabama, and given the record, would seem to be biased toward Auburn. I am considering at least adding back the 1999 victory for Alabama. --Bondsbw (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In full disclosure, I'm an Auburn fan, I'm guessing you're a Bama fan, but that's just a guess. Some of these do seem a bit like filler, and while I think all of these games were exciting, I agree that not all are notable. '83 Bo set the rushing record, so it should stay. Along with being the cap to a signature season for Auburn, it remains fairly noteworthy to Auburn fans too. '84 Bo blocking the wrong guy doesn't seem note worthy, so I agree it should go. '86 This game was noteworthy due to the circumstances surrounding it's ending, and aftermath in the press. I believe some of the footnotes indicate this. I think it should stay. I think it's a solid second place to "punt bama punt" for crazy game endings. Reverse to Victory is also an officially named print, yade yade... '93 Noteworthy because JHS was sold out, and more than half of BDS as well. But you're right, this was because of Auburn's sanctions, due to probation, which prohibited games on TV. So it should read "due NCAA sanctions from Auburn probation" Minor edit, but it should stay. '94 Is borderline, it's a stretch, but I vote it stays. '96 yeah, just because it's a coaches last game doesn't make it noteworthy. It should go. '04 yeah, basically you're right. I guess it becomes more noteworthy for Auburn fans being a perfect season. But if you can 04' as being a generic come from behind victory, 09' should go too. '05 Totally disagree with taking this one off, and your reasoning behind it. I looked, and the NCAA record is 15 sacks, so 11 sacks, and being a series record, seems quite noteworthy. I couldn't find the SEC record, but if it's not that game, this game was close to it. I also don't see your logic about the coaches, and some slippery slope of other categories. Fgmoon353 (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think it may just be that we draw different lines at what exactly "significant" entails. This may well be tainted by my position on the rivalry, but that's part of the reason I'm not going to actually touch the article (well, and in general I don't edit articles because I'm terrible with wikimarkup). I initially talked about bias because the treatments of the Auburn victories were noticeably more in depth and (imo) seemed to be less significant from a series standpoint (i.e. to both schools and their fan bases, not just one). Not enough to cry havoc and throw a neutrality tag up or anything, but enough to notice.
I highly disagree with this new historical results format. The previous was easier to put into a spreadsheet for the purpose of quickly getting statistical data. I plan to change it back to a single table, and to split the scores into separate columns (although for easier readability, I'll leave the score columns next to each other). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.129.102 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the 2-column format is easier to read. In a single-column format, I know immediately that 1974 is farther down than 1973. In the dual-column format, I have to find where the break is and determine which column to read, and then determine where it is in that column. Then comparing the years on the break (the 1970s) is more difficult because I can't see them at the same time.
And excuse me, but I reverted to the original format of the article. It should be left that way pending discussion on this talk page. --76.27.129.102 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please cast your vote and let's see what our fellow Wikipedia editors think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I want to point out what you said:
You are implying that you are unbiased, but you in fact were the author in question who changed it initially. So please don't change the page back until this has been talked through.--76.27.129.102 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vote (I'm 76.27.129.102); it says I need a named account, but voting doesn't allow people who created a named account since discussion started to vote.--Bondsbw (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I flagged this for a reassessment b/c it is rated Low Importance and should be at least a mid per the importance scale as a rivalry game. There is a case for ranking the game as a high too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.160 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the list of "Notable Games" [1]. However, I do agree to a large extent with the person who removed it in that there's a whole lotta OR in that section. Basically I think it should be trimmed down to the most notable games, ones for which we can actually find a source which explicitly states something like "this was a notable Iron Bowl". Volunteer Marek 14:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've seen "The Prayer in Jordan-Hare" and "The Happiest Return" among others. We should probably chill before we put it in. And wait for all the commentators to chill too. Volunteer Marek 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to toss my 2 cents in and say the notable games section is incredibly biased as well.
1.) Many of the game "nicknames" are frankly made up. Some are well known to the fans "Punt Bama Punt" and "the Run in the Mud" being two examples of such, but many aren't. I say scrap them all together and use the description to define why the game is "notable," not just the fact that the fans have a nickname for the game. 2.) Some of the more recent games have a sentence describing every scoring drive...it's too much. 3.) I would be in favor of significantly trimming this section and making a separate "notable moments" section...most of these aren't notable games, per se, but notable moments. The first game, the resumption of the series, the first televised game, the first night game, 315, etc are all notable games though perhaps nothing notable happened in the game, while the 72, 82, 85, etc games had notable moments at the end of the game while nobody remembers much else about those individual games.
Addendum:
I searched the wikipedia pages for the top 15 college football rivalries as determined by NFL.com [1], and have found that of those 15 pages, 7 of 15 have an equivalent "notable games" section.
Oregon-Oregon State: Lists 15 games out of 118 total meetings (13% of total games), no "nicknames" listed
Ole Miss-Mississippi State: Lists 30 games out of 111 total meetings (27%). 12 of 30 games listed have nicknames.
FSU-Miami: Lists 10 games out of 60 total meetings (17%). All have nicknames.
Florida-Florida State: Lists 12 games out of 59 total meetings (20%). All have nicknames.
Cal-Stanford: Lists 12 games out of 117 total meetings (10%). Only one has a nickname (The Play)
Army-Navy: Lists 5 games out of 115 total meetings (4%). No nicknames.
By comparison, this article currently has 25 games out of 79 total meetings (31%) and all had nicknames before my last edit. In addition, 15 (60%) of those games listed have occurred since 1984.
I think this section needs significant improvement, or needs to be removed all together. Also, there are some areas of improvement in other articles as well.
References
"Auburn came into the game as heavy underdogs but jumped out to a 14–0 lead, thanks to a 67-yard TD run by Terrell Zachary and 1-yard pass TD pass to Eric Smith from Chris Todd. Alabama responded with a Colin Peek 33-yard touchdown catch and a 2-yard TD run by Trent Richardson, tying the game at halftime. Todd set a new Auburn single-season passing TD record with a 72-yard strike to Darvin Adams. Leigh Tiffin cut the advantage to 21–20 with a pair of field goals, setting up the final drive. Auburn had one final chance, but a Hail Mary pass was knocked down in the end zone by Rolando McClain as time expired. Mark Ingram was held to 30 yards on 16 carries but still managed to win the 2009 Heisman Trophy."
This is a section I deleted from the 2009 game. It is a full paragraph game recap. The "notable games" section has been progressively lengthened by the addition of new games of questionable notability and summaries such as this. What makes the game notable is the game winning drive by Alabama at the end of the game that kept their national title hopes alive; that can be explained in one sentence or less and does not need a full game summary.
The statement about Mark Ingram "still managing" is editorialized. Instead of reporting a fact (i.e. "2009 Heisman Trophy winner Mark Ingram was held to 30 yards rushing on 16 carries"), the wording has a negative connotation, suggests the author's opinion was that he shouldn't have won the Heisman based on that performance. And frankly, it's not relevant to the notability of the game, anyway.
As for the deleted years,
1974- not a specifically memorable game as compared with several other games that decade
1994- I was at this game and couldn't remember the specifics of how the game ended until I looked it up
1997- The game ended on a game winning FG, but beyond that, how memorable was it for Auburn to beat a really bad Bama team?
This goes to my point above. Why is the "notable games" section even needed? What constitutes "notable?" All it really takes is for one fan to come to wikipedia and add a given year, and it becomes notable. At some point, decisions will have to be made about what constitutes "notable." I suggest that we agree upon general "notability" guidelines. Until then, we are going to continue deleting and re-adding games. This has been an ongoing discussion on this page for years.
CH52584 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and divided the section like I suggested above. In reading the old section, some games listed are notable because of firsts...for example, first game, first game after resuming the series, first game in Auburn, first game in Tuscaloosa, etc. The notability of those games have nothing to do with any specific occurrence during the game, but a significance of the game itself. Games that are notable due to a specific thing that happened during the game have been moved to a "notable moments" section. I think this is a good first step in evaluating and framing the discussion on the notability of each of these games/moments. CH52584 (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iron Bowl. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iron Bowl. 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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]