Talk:2006 Texas Longhorns football team

	College football portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin (assessed as Mid-importance).

Prod

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I see that this article has been nominated for deletion using the {{prod}} process. I concur that this article is currently premature. The 2005 Texas Longhorn football team is a good article, and a 2006 article could conceivably be useful once the season starts. I'd endorse the prod without prejudice. Lbbzman 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is enough other information (e.g. the senate resolution) to make the 2005 article useful and informative. I don't think every team needs an article for every season, though—which is probably already precedent in the notability guidelines for sports. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I suppose we'll have to see how the seaon plays out. If there's another national championship, it might make sense. If not, then who knows. Cheers, Lbbzman 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I respect the points above but I dispute the prod and I intend to improve the article. This team will be the defending national champions and they will have a decent shot at repeating as champions. Regardless of whether they are successful or not, millions of people will tune in to watch their games and it is reasonable that quite a few people will come to Wikipedia for information. Given the inevitable media exposure, the article will quickly outgrow what is reasonable to cover at Texas Longhorn Athletics. Johntex\^talk 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am sure this team has a decent shot of repeating with their 3 losses. Fact is, this article was prematurely made and should be deleted now. I don't see any other NCAA football team having individual an article for each of their seasons.

Yes I agree with the above unsigned comment that this article was prematurely made as their fans thought that the repeat in the national championship was a given. Not only are the 3 losses hindering their chances at the national title game, the fact is they also failed to earn a spot in the Big 12 Championship game, destroying any chance in a BCS bowl game. 209.247.22.50 03:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you are not very well informed about articles here. You may wish to see 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team, 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team and 2006 California Golden Bears football team to name just a few. None of these teams are going to win the national championship, but the articles are interesting to students of the game. As I said, "Regardless of whether they are successful or not, millions of people will tune in to watch their games and it is reasonable that quite a few people will come to Wikipedia for information." Johntex\^talk 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The other thing to look at here is article quality. This article is a poster child for verifiability: extensive citations are provided for each assertion in the article. Based on the effort put in and the quality of the result, this is a well-written article, comprehensive and well-researched. I'd say it could even be put up for feature article consideration; it certainly should be allowed to remain in the Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Big 12 Championship Game

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think the Big 12 Championship Game should be put on there schedule yet they haven't won it yet Oklahoma still has a slim chance of winning the division.--Kevmicester2000 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It has been on all season. I agree, though, that if Oklahoma wins tomorrow, it should be deleted with all due haste. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

All teams in conferences with a championship game have had that game listed on their schedules up to the point that the team was mathematically eliminated from a shot at the championship. It was listed for Baylor and Colorado just as it was listed for Texas. With Texas knocked out of contention to play in the game, it has now been removed. Johntex\^talk 04:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Length

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Today, the article was tagged as possibly being too long. There is just one more game left in the season (whatever bowl game Texas ends up in), so the article is nearing its maximum length. After the season is complete, we will be attempting to improve this article to Featured Article status. FA guidelines call for articles to be written in "summary style", so we will split off portions of this main article into sub-articles to comply with that guideline. Johntex\^talk 06:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will be following the FA process for this article closely as I'd like to get the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team article GA or FA as well.--NMajdan•talk 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The bulk of the "Stadium renovations" section should probably be merged into Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium with just a summary and a "main article' pointer left here. - Bevo 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Johntex\^talk 15:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Update: I'm currently working on 2005 Texas Longhorn football team to try to get it to FA status. The peer review on that article resulted in a lot more material being added, which in turn led to a need to re-write the article in WP:SUMMARY style. If all goes well, I'll be back to do the same thing to this article after the 2005 article makes it through the process. Johntex\^talk 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Objectivity of Texas A&M game

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

The summary of the Texas A&M game is ridiculously subjective including references to "Helmet to helmet" hits that clearly were not such. Texas lost the football game, and to accuse the Texas A&M players of playing dirty is ridiculous. Both hits on McCoy are shown from angles that clearly demonstrate they are not cheap shots. Even Heard's hit can be shown as from an angle at which he has no view of dodge going down, and if you listen in to the game there is no whistle at the end of that play which would tell him to stop playing. Secondly, The Sweed pass interference call can be clearly shown in a GIF animation popular on a Texas A&M fansite, www.texags.com, that is often used as a user signature. The announcers renounced their initial reaction to the pass interference being a bad call after they saw the second angle which clearly shows Sweed pushing Gorrer's head away with near full arm extension as the ball is coming down to the two of them. In conclusion, 12-7 and better luck next year.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan blog or forum where either side can pontificate. As such, we do not engage in original research, and have five core policies you should become familiar with. The sentences you mention are fully attributed to reliable sources; they were not written by fanboys at HornFans or anything of the sort. (On a note unrelated to the actual article, since it is my personal opinion: defending Heard's despicable hit makes it abundantly clear that you are not an objective observer with regard to this topic.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

By describing Heard's hit as despicable, you are clearly not as objective as you might think. The reliable source you so proudly tout is the hometown paper which omits the dissenting views given by the commentators shortly after seeing a replay (so much for "reliable"). To merely acknowledge that there are opposing views is simply being completely honest with the facts.

No angle of the play shown by ABC shows when Heard hit McCoy in relation to when the interceptor of his pass (name escapes me) was tackled
No sound on the replay means that no one can prove when the whistle blew in relation to when Heard hit McCoy
Acknowledging the controversy is merely acknowledging the facts

I think it is safe to assume that we can both agree on the following: if Heard did not hear a whistle and/or did not know the play was over, then the hit was legal. If he knew the play was over and he did the hit anyway, it was a cheap shot. Since the referees made the call, I assume it was correct. In addition, Fran apologized for the late hit (he thought it was too). All I am saying is that it can't be proven one way or another in retrospect and we have to go with what the referees saw.

That said, Heard did NOT throw McCoy to the ground (throw implies he had a hold on McCoy, pushed, and released), he pushed/shoved/hit McCoy. He was NO WHERE NEAR the sidelines; they were in the middle of the field. The way this is phrased, it make it sound like Heard went over to the sideline, grabbed him, and threw him to the ground. Heard was EJECTED, not evicted (you evict a tenant, genius)

As for Michael Bennett's hit, including a comment about intentional helment-to-helmet contact is completely unnecessary when you read the previous sentence "...Michael Bennett connected with his helmet under McCoy's jaw..." If he hit him in the jaw, how could he hit him in the helmet? It's one or the other. Since the referees concluded (and they had a lot of time to confer) that the contact (which was glancing) was incidental and immaterial to the contact made, there was no foul. Since it was not intentional, why include any reference to dirty play? On top of that, he did not hit him after an incomplete pass, he hit him as he released the ball which dropped to the ground for an incomplete pass. I can only conclude that this passage is meant to smear the Aggies, and thus is severely POV.

This brings me to Snead's pass interference call. All 3 announcers conceded "You have to call that" when Snead put his hands on the facemask of the defender and pushed off. Omitting details is also POV and thus should be reworded.

I will make the changes accordingly BQZip01 08:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your changes. The article already gives both sides of the story through reputable sources. For instance, we quote Mack Brown as saying he didn't personally see the hit. We quote Selvin Young as saying he thought it was a clean hit. We even quote The Battalion (even The Battalion says it was a helmet-to-helmet hit). I consider EJECTED and EVICTED to be synonyms. We can swap to "Ejected" if you like. Johntex\^talk 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

JohnTex, I respect you as a fellow wikipedian, but there are innaccuracies in this account of the game. In order not to get in a revert war, I'd like to come to an agreement before more changes are made (since you have made it clear I will lose any revert war).

"Michael Bennett connected with his helmet under McCoy's jaw after McCoy had thrown an incomplete pass." This makes it sound like a late hit long after the ball was thrown. In reality, it was thrown, McCoy was hit a split second later, and then the pass fell incomplete several seconds later.
"Aggie Kellen Heard threw McCoy to the ground as he walked along the sideline." He was no where near the sideline. He was in the middle of the field. He also did not throw him to the ground. He hit him in such a manner that it would have been legal had it been during gameplay (I already conceded the fact that the refs thought it was a late hit). The way it is currently phrased makes it sound like Heard went over to the longhorn bench and assaulted the guy. All I propose changing is the location and the fact that it was a hit, not a throw. Stating otherwise is omitting the truth.
"All three broadcasters working the game for ABC also spoke out against the penalty call." This statement is true, but omits the fact that the three broadcasters also reversed their decision after reviewing the replay and seeing Sweed's hand pushing the defender's face. This is selectively quoting a source to have a POV pushed.
"Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet" contact which, when intentional, is illegal in NCAA football" Since it was not ruled as being intentional, it is again a distortion of the truth and is POV; thus it should be reworded. Keep Mack Brown's comments in there and cite the rules there, but this insinuates that it was intentional, which the home fans thought it was. Why not put in there that the Aggie fans thought it wasn't?
Thank you for keeping "ejected" as this is the term that the NCAA uses. Eviction is NOT the same as ejection, though they are closely related. In retrospect, my comment ("genius") was out of line and I apologize.

In short, when in court, people testifying are asked to tell "the truth" (you can't lie), "the whole truth" (you can't omit something to make it sound different than it is), "and nothing but the truth" (you can't add ideas to distort reality). I think we can agree that these are basically good guidelines to follow. While reasonable people can see the same thing and disagree, I think the basic facts in this case are being distorted/omitted to push a POV and violate all three of the precepts put forth the aforementioned oath. If you think I am wrong, please tell me where. BQZip01 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Hi BQZip, thanks for listing out your proposed changes here. This should help us all to discuss them and hopefully reach some sort of agreement.

"Michael Bennett connected with his helmet under McCoy's jaw after McCoy had thrown an incomplete pass." I think you are perhaps looking so hard to find faults that you are finding inaccuracies where none are truly present. The article does not say it is a "late hit". Still, I certainly have no problem with clarifying this. I felt that the explanation you inserted was a bit verbose in explaining the timeline. What if we say "Michael Bennett connected with his helmet under McCoy's jaw just after McCoy released a pass."? I don't think it is important that the pass fell incomplete.
"Aggie Kellen Heard threw McCoy to the ground as he walked along the sideline." - I am researching where this phrase originiated. If you have a source that says the location of the hit, please list it here.
"All three broadcasters working the game for ABC also spoke out against the penalty call." - Do you have any source we can link to that claims they changed their view?
"Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet" contact which, when intentional, is illegal in NCAA football." I don't think this is a distortion at all. You have to read the section in its entirity. The very next sentence says no flag was thrown. We include multiple, sourced, opinions about whether it was a legal hit or not. We even include a Longhorn player saying he thought it was a legal hit. There certainly was an implication (by some) that it was illegal. We cite Mack Brown stating that the crowd thought it was dirty. We cite journalists who call it "questionable", etc. We state both sides as backed up by published sources. It is very balanced.
Thank you for keeping "ejected" as this is the term that the NCAA uses. Eviction is NOT the same as ejection, though they are closely related. In retrospect, my comment was out of line and I apologize. - No problem, I know emotions can run high on such things.

I look forward to your thoughts. Johntex\^talk 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update on point 2 - Here is a video that shows the Heard hit on McCoy.[1] We probably can't link to it due to copyrright concerns. McCoy is tackled outside of the hash mark and just inside the numbers. It may not be exactly on the sideline, but it is closer to the sideline than to the middle of the field. (A&M sideline by the way, not UT sideline) McCoy had already unbuckled his chin strap. The impression that this was well after McCoy was out of the play is a very accurate impression. I think "threw to the field" is a bit of colorful language. The announcers on the video actually say he was "earholed" which is even more colorful. I have no objection to saying "tackled". Johntex\^talk 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Update on point 3 - here is the Sweed touchdown/interference video. In this video, the announcers do not change their opinion to say that it was a valid penalty. One of them does say that they think they see what the ref was looking at.[2] Johntex\^talk 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just so we don't indent forever...

"Michael Bennett connected with his helmet under McCoy's jaw just after McCoy released a pass," sounds fine.
Being an Aggie Band member, I feel I should point out that he was clearly in the playing field, not "on the sideline" implying that he was out of the field of play at the time of the hit. Given your description of where he went down, it is approximately halfway between the center of the field and the sideline (look up an NCAA football field and you'll see what I mean). As for "tackled," I don't think that is right. He was a defender in that situation and therefore can't be tackled. How about just simplifying the sentences to read:

Shortly after the interception, Aggie Kellen Heard delivered a "cheap-shot late hit"[137][141] to McCoy. The Aggies were penalized fifteen yards [134] and Heard was ejected from the game.

3. Aw crap, I don't have another link. Your link shows what I remember, but they continue to talk about it after this clip is over. I guess there isn't much that can be said on the subject, but I think that many pass interference calls are judgement calls and in this one neither one had the advantage until Sweed pushed off the face of Gorrer. Since he gained an advantage, it is offensive pass interference. Just my 2 cents

4. I think the major sticking point however is the implication that it is illegal in the first place. In the NFL, it certainly is, but this isn't the NFL. In the NCAA it is a legal hit. 88,000 people can be wrong (I've seen that at Kyle Field too, so DKR isn't unique in that respect). By stating that an intentional H-to-H hit is a major penalty and then saying it wasn't called is like saying that "XXX was involved with YYY. YYY ended up being murdered and many people thought XXX did it; some even swore they saw it. The penalty for murder in this state is 25 to life, but no charges were filed." Do you see how it leaves a bad taste in yoru mouth about XXX? Fan/Mack Brown opinions are fine, but I think the part about the ramifications for a penalty that didn't happen should be removed. How about rephrasing it to read:

Replays revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet"[144] contact, which can be a personal foul if intentional, [145] but the officials viewed it as incidental contact and no flag was thrown on the play. When the replay was shown in the stadium, the Longhorn fans felt otherwise erupted in boos[140] before lapsing into silence as McCoy lay on the ground for 10 more minutes before being strapped to a body board and taken off the field on a cart.[146] Mack Brown said after the game "I didn't see it, but it sounded like 88,000 (fans) thought it was dirty."[143][140]

Ah, in typing this, I think I found the word that irks me so very much: "when." Switching to "if" and "can" draws a more neutral line and lets the reader make up his/her mind.

5. Sounds fine to me

I need sleep BADLY. See you tomorrow BQZip01 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I made some of the changes that I think we can agree to. Here is the current list:

Done.
Well, we didn't actually say "on the sideline" we said "along the sideline". Still, we can make it more clear he was in the field of play. As for "threw" vs "block" vs "tackle" - certainly defensive players do get tackled. Not legally, but it happens. In this case, one thing that is clear is that McCoy went to the ground. I changed it to "Aggie Kellen Heard knocked McCoy to the ground as McCoy walked along the field unbuckling his chin strap."
If you find a different link or a new source, by all means bring it back and we can review it again.
OK, I didn't use your exact version becuse I don't want to mind-read the officials. I changed it to "Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet"[144] contact which, if intentional, is illegal in NCAA football.[145] " I think you are right about the "if" vs "when". I left out the "can" because I don't think it is disputed that intentional helmet-to-helmet contact is illegal. The NCAA rule book is very clear on that, and we provide a link to the rule. The only controversy is whether or not it was intentional. Naturally, regardless of whether a flag is thrown or not, there is no fool-proof way for any observer (not even the referee) to know the players intentions.
I think we took care of this one yesterday.

Get some rest and then see what you think. Best, Johntex\^talk 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Johntex, referees make that distinction all the time and I think the fact that they didn't throw the flag shows that they didn't think it was a penalty, despite the fact that they had a LOT of time (10 minutes or so?) to review the tapes (something else not mentioned in the text). I think the phrase "which can be a personal foul if intentional" is the most accurate and points out that helmet to helmet contact by itself is not necessarily a foul. I still think that my phrasing is better, though I hope we can reach a compromise. Wikipedia should be mandatory training for all diplomats... BQZip01 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's because judgment calls are not reviewable under NCAA D1 replay rules. They couldn't have reviewed or overturned even if they wanted to. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well that's 'cause I was thinking forwards...when the quarterback...passing the ball...

Shut up...<muttering> lousy stinking rules </muttering>

They may not have been able to review it with video (as I stated earlier), but they certainly had time to think about it before the next play (which started 10-12 minutes later). I've seen flags 1-2 minutes after the play was over after the referees discussed it. BQZip01 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The trouble with trying to read the mind of the referee is that there are several reasons why the referee may not throw a flag:

They simply didn't see the penalty.
They saw the infraction, but they didn't understand the rules or the rules conflict or are unclear.
They saw and understood, but they didn't believe that the play was truly in violation of the rules.
The believed it was a penalty, but for reasons of their own they decided not to call it - maybe it was a "make-up call", maybe they had money on the game, who knows.

You may argue that not all of these are equally likely, but that is not our call. Certainly refs sometimes just don't see something happen. The guy who could have made the call on that hit may have already been looking downfield. It is not up to us to speculate as to why he didn't throw a flag.

Regardless of all the above, we don't need both "if" and "can". If it was intentional then it was a penalty. Saying "which can be a personal foul if intentional" is misleading. It is always a penalty if it was intentional; there is no "can" about it. Johntex\^talk 14:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Interesting... --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding hit on McCoy by Heard: "Following the change of possesion" implies that the play was over and action stopped. Since there is still uncertainty as to whether the whistle had blown yet, it would seem to be more correct and clear to use the phrase "As the whistle blew, ending the play on the field".

As to the Bennett hit on McCoy: The phrase "helmet under McCoy's jaw" and "Helmet to Helmet" contradict one another. Pictures of the tackle indicate that initial contact was made between Bennett's helmet and McCoy's chest. Further, the link supposedly stating that replays on television or in the stadium showed helmet to helmet contact is broken and not verifiable.

Finally regarding the Bennett hit on McCoy: NCAA rules specifically state that spearing or helmet to helmet contact even if intentional (which did not appear to be the case anyway), is not a foul unless there is intent to punish the opposing player. Therefore the phrase ""helmet-to-helmet"[164] contact which, if intentional, is illegal in NCAA football" is incorrect and has been eliminated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macae (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2007 March 29 (UTC)

Hello Macae, thank you for coming to the talk page. Please sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes like ~~~~. I'll adress each of your points:

The change of posession happens during a play. This does not imply that the whistle has blown at all. It only means that A&M had the ball.

Wikipedia does not rely solely on on-line references. Links change. Papers move their older stories into archives. Some papers are not available on-line, etc. You may have to put in some work to verify the source. For instance, you can go to a local library and look at the hard copy version of the Austin American-Statesman to see that it is a direct quote, or you can search their archives.

We have multiple viewpoints cited about the Bennet hit. They use different language to each other. That is not under our control. Besides, it is entirely possible for a player to be hit in multiple places.

You are incorrect about the question of the rules. We like directly to the NCAA rulebook which says that helmet-to-helmet contact is illegal if intentional. The exact quote in our cited reference states "Intentional helmet-to-helmet contact is never legal, nor is any other blow directed toward an opponent’s head. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified." It never says it is legal unless the "intent is to punish the opposing player" as you say above. We have the rule correctly stated.

Thanks again for your discussion. Johntex\^talk 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the "Change of Possession" term: I agree that it can occur during a play but just to elimate any confusion have edited the statement to read "Following the change of possession and as the whistle blew ending the play on the field, Aggie..."

Regarding the helmet to helmet rule: There is indeed a quote in the reference mentioning intentional helmet-to-helmet contact being illegal if intentional. However, this statement is not in the rules but rather mentioned as a point of emphasis. The rules say specifically "Spearing is the use of the helmet (including the face mask) in an attempt to punish an opponent." Section 24, Article 1, page 53. Nowhere in the rules is any mention made of the need for intentional contact but it does require that the contact be made in an attempt to punish the opponent. Macae

Regarding the "change of possession": Although I think it is clear the way it is, I certainly have no objection with clarifying it further, so long as it does not become too verbose, of course.

Regarding the rules, I think it is clear that the "points of emphasis" are a portion of the rules. It is very clear that they consider "intentional helmet-to-helmet contact" to be illegal. They state very specifically that it is "never legal". I don't think it can be much more plain than that. Johntex\^talk 23:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also found another source that called it a "cheap shot" - Chip Brown of the Dallas Morning News.[3] It also says Bennet's helmet hit McCoy's face mask. I'll add the new reference to the article. Johntex\^talk 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

And here is one that called it so "blatant" that the player was ejected.[4] I'm not going to add this one right now unless others think one more link it needed. Johntex\^talk 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although I think there is some spin and bias in the use of these descriptions and links, I will accept current format in order to avoid an edit war. I admit bias on my part as well and will simply choose to agree to disagree.

I have added two pictures in order to assist and clarify two of the more controversial plays of the football game. Macae

Hi Macae, thanks very much for uploading those pictures. They are awesome. Now we have to make sure they conform to Wikipedia policy so the image-deletionists do not relete them. I added the {{fairusein}} template to both pictures, which is a requirement. Another requirement is that we must provide the source. Can you please add that information?

What do you think about adding one more photo to show the hit by Kellen Heard? Johntex\^talk 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I do not have a good pic of the late hit by Heard but if you have one, I think it would add to the article and be appropriate.Macae

I remember the sports commentators saying something about this game being a first (after a while) that the Longhorns had been unscored upon. Anyone remember this? This would be a good addition. --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I meant to say a game that the Horns had been unscored upon in the first half. Sorry for the confusion. --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that got chopped out of the article somewhere along the way. I put it back. The previous first-half shut-out against the Horns was the 2004 OU game. Johntex\^talk 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Post-season vs After the season

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I notice that Blueag9 changed one of the headings from "After the season" to "Post-season". I originally considered "Post-season" for the heading but went with the longer heading title for three reasons:

In some sports, "post-season" refers to a tournement or play-off (E.g. the baseball playoffs and World Series are considered "post season" play). For this reason, I thought the term might be confusing.
Although it might seem to be easy to say what the "post-season" includes, it is actually somewhat difficult because it has no defined meaning in college football. Is the NFL draft part of the "post-season"? Is signing new players part of the "post-season" or are they part of the next year's "pre-season"? What about transfers? All-star bowls? Spring practices and scrimmages? Fall practices and scrimmages? I feel that "After the season" seems more encompassing and it is a better title to encompass all these things.
The Wikipedia Manual of style frowns on non-numerical characters in section headings.

For these reasons, I went with the original title of "After the season". I look forward to everyone's thoughts on what we should call this heading. Johntex\^talk 08:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is the "Pre-season" heading in the beginning of the article, and I thought changing it to "post-season" would make these two headings consistent with each other. However, I do agree with your reasons as to why this revised heading can be ambiguous. Perhaps a more descriptive title is appropriate, such as "post-season rankings?" Can that section expand or will it just have the rankings? --Blueag9|^Talk| 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, interesting. I did not catch that somewhere along the line the "Pre-season" heading started to be used in the article. Originally that heading said "Before the season".

In the article on the 2005 UT team we have "Leading into the 2005 season" at the start. Towards the end we have "Rankings" followed by "After the season". The "Rankings" section does not just talk about the final ranking; it discusses how USC and Texas were 1 and 2 the whole season.

I tend to think these encompassing titles give the most flexibility to discuss miscellaneous off-the-field action that occurs before and after the schedule of games.

I am going to publicize this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format. I see that the guideline there does not have anything for prior to the season and uses "Post-season" for after. Johntex\^talk 15:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that post-season is ambiguous. Pre-season is as well because there isn't a pre-season like in the NFL or MLB (spring training). I don't really like "After the season" and "Leading into the season", but they are better than post-/pre-season and I can't think of anything better so I'm fine with their use. --MECU≈talk 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The other Longhorn football articles also use "Leading into..." and "After the season". I'm going to change the headings to these. --Blueag9|^Talk| 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I think post-season, I am thinking playoffs. This should be changed as proposed. VegaDark 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for everyone's input. Based on the discussion, I am changing the heading recommendations at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format to "Before..." and "After..." for now. If we come up with any pithier titles we can substitue them. Johntex\^talk 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Move

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved in accordance with discussion on Talk:2008 Texas Longhorns football team. Strikehold (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article size

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

The article is over 500kb in size. 290kb of that is the references.

Can someone perhaps try and cut these down a bit ?? For example is there any need to have:-

5 refs to say "one of the most anticipated college football games of the regular season"
8 refs to say " It is still the largest high-definition video screen in collegiate sports"
4 refs to say "We do not teach this type of play or condone it."

In the main text there are many double and triple refs which are completely unecessary.

WP:MOS states at least one ref per para and, while not condoning cutting down to that level, it seems that many of the refs are really superfluous.

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article is similar in size to 2005 Texas Longhorns football team, which is a Featured Article on Wikipedia and that means it is considered to be one of the very best, most comprehensive, and best-referenced articles on Wikipedia. We should aspire to get this article to that same standard. Regarding the specific items you question, all 3 of these are controversial questions. In the first case, the references would certainly be needed to support the claim, else someone might say the fact needs to be removed if it was simply an opinion from one sportswriter. In the second case, there are multiple ways to measure screen-size, and multiple claims made about what screen is bigger, etc. It is important to state that this is not the biggest screen, but only the biggest screen in college sports. Multiple references nails this down. In the third case, it is important to note whether the type of play is sanctioned by the school or not. Johntex\^talk 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply