Talk:College football/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

"As the score would indicate, the game bore little resemblance to the game of today" -- Probably though not necessarily: 6 could equal a touchdown without an extra point or two field goals; 4 could equal two safeties. Perhaps this sentence should not appear. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Rename

The phrase "College American football" is used by no one. Try American College football or College football (U.S.). --Jiang/talk 03:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but there are lots of links. RickK 04:41, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Redirects are fine; time will lead them to be changed, so we don't need to worry about that. --Jiang/talk 04:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Do other countries have "College football"? If not, this belongs there. --Jiang 06:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Canada has college football.--RLent 18:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Polls

It would be nice to decribe the polls. How they work, who votes, and how they affect the BCS, etc.

 -I think so too

Wikiportal

How about a Wikiportal for College football? -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:38, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

OK.--J3wishVulcan 16:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed: Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Portal:College_Football --Mecu 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Structural Changes

I'm considering making some fairly significant changes to this page, so I thought I'd ask for opinions before I proceed. My main objection is with the lists that make up the second half of the article.

• Right now there are three separate listings of the current bowl schedule. I suggest we keep the infographic at the bottom of the page as a reference to this year's schedule. One of the things I'm working on is a complete list of both current and defunct bowls. I'm not sure that the defunct bowls need to be listed on the main page. I'd like to just provide a link to the list.
• There some other sections that I think could be better served with separate list pages. Conferences that formerly sponsored football, Division I colleges that no longer play football, and Division I colleges that have never sponsored football are all sections that I find too specific to have on a page like this.
• The history section is the most important part of the page, but right now it's rather paltry. I think that by cutting down on the extraneous lists we'll have more room to expand it. Right now we have a history section so general it doesn't even mention Walter Camp.

If no one voices any objections I'll probably make these changes in the next week. --djrobgordon 20:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

military academies

I changed this sentence College football is American football played by teams of students fielded by American universities and colleges, including United States military academies. by removing the word 'some'. With the exception of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (a medical school) all of the US military academies have college football. The Coast Guard and Merchant Marine adacemies play D-III football.--RLent 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Teams that have three jerseys

This section only lists teams, without giving any explanations. As I understand, usually teams use a colored home-shirt and a white away-shirt? What is the third jersey in these cases? --Matthead 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the encyclopedic value of this section. Why is it notable that some teams have used a 3rd jersey style? Doesn't seem like crucial information for someone looking to learn about college football. --mtz206 22:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuing, seems now all Div I teams are listed with some kind of "(2+U)" designation if they have more than 2 jerseys. Two problems here:

1. I dont' see why all Div I teams should be listed in this article. Instead, there should be a sub-article of Colleges and Universities with Division 1 Football Programs, or the like;
2. The (2+U) is awkward, and no argument has been made why the designation is notable in the first place. --mtz206 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur, since this section was introduced it's gotten worse and worse, applying no new information of value? How long until we can remove the ugliness? ;) Peter J. Mello, Jr. 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of List of Division I schools that have never sponsored football and List of defunct Division I football teams, I have created List of NCAA Division I-A Football Programs, and removed the list from this article. --mtz206 12:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

where popular

A lack of a pro franchise is not necessarily an indicator of where the college game is most successful; for example, in California, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- states which all have multiple NFL franchises -- there are universities that also rank in the upper financial echelons of the college football.

Hmm...seems to me this is kind of true, but kind of misleading. In Ohio, there is one major college football school, Ohio State, which is in Columbus. The two NFL teams are in Cleveland and Cincinnati. The big football schools in Texas are in Austin and College Station, the professional teams are in Houston and Dallas (although I suppose College Station is not that far from Houston - but Dallas is, in any event, the big NFL city in Texas, and is quite far from both). In Pennsylvania, Penn State is also quite far from any NFL team (although Pitt, obviously, is not), as are Florida and Florida State in Florida (but not Miami). In California, the biggest football school is USC in LA, which notoriously does not have an NFL team. In terms of BCS schools, only a few are in the immediate vicinity of NFL teams - Boston College, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cincy, South Florida, Arizona State, California, Stanford, Washington and Vanderbilt. Of those, only Miami is really in the top ranks of college football, and Cincinnati and South Florida are pretty minor football schools. Maryland and Pitt are probably bigger basketball than football schools. I think it would be fairly fair to say that there really are very few major college programs in places with NFL franchises. We shouldn't think on a statewide basis - a state like Texas or Florida is enormous, and the fact that both the University of Texas and the Dallas Cowboys are in Texas, or that the Raiders and USC both are in California seems like a pretty silly point. john k 15:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject College football

Hey guys ... I have created a WikiProject for college football - I think it's passed time that we had one. (Please see the NFL project for an example of the utility of a WikiProject.) I know that there are a number of people who are making efforts at improving various college football articles and this project gives us a place to coordinate those efforts and ask for help.

Please join the project if you are interested, add items to the to-do list, tag articles with {{WikiProject College football}}, invite other pockets of football fans to join, or do anything else to help support articles about the best sport in all the land. BigDT 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Network for College Football Sports Information Departments

I am trying to submit a new online network Elite Football Network to the "External Links" section. EFN enables college football SI departments from every football conference and division to publish their game summaries, news and press releases. The goal of EFN is to help college SI writers compete for online traffic with the large sports networks that typically cover only the high profile D-1A schools and not typically link back to the school's football URL. It has been deleted a couple of times which may be due to improper submitting on my part. I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any assistance. Thank you. Bbowenjr 13:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "submitting links". Please see WP:NOT and WP:EL. If you want your link listed somewhere, please consider submitting it to a link directory like DMOZ instead. Thanks. Haakon 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: studysphere.com and other links have been campaign-spammed to Wikipedia; see 29 November 2006 discussion at WT:WPSPAM. Bbowenjr added them to a wide range of articles from Dental implants to Military robots. There's been a misconception among some spamdexers that if they get a link deleted they can question the deletion on the talk page and still get the page rank benefit; this is wrong since all Wikipedia talk and user page links are automatically coded with the html tag rel="nofollow"; search engine bots don't follow these links. --A. B. 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible POV

"College football remains extremely popular today among students, alumni, and other fans of the sport, particularly in the Southern and Midwestern parts of the country."

Is there a citation for this? Many northwest fans would take exception to not being included, as attendance numbers and television ratings rival those in the south. PDXblazers

Not only the northwest, but every other area of the states with major programs. Its an unecessary and exclusive phrase.

I've put unreferenced and cite requested tags in these locations, as well as on the parent article where it was probably taken from History of American football#College football in the 21st century. --MECU≈talk 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFCM October Article

The current College football Collaboration of the Month is ?. Every month a different College football-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked. Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

See featured article nomination for items to work on. --MECU≈talk 18:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the FA nomination is generally vague, other than most don't like the long lists of items (I don't either), I've got a few other ideas for subtopics: Recruiting, polls, bowl games, rivalries and conferences (with BCS conference sub of that). I think most of the lists could/should be reduced to just the link to the main item that covers that topic. So, for conferences, just the link to Division I-A conferences. Perhaps even make a list of those conferences as a seperate "article" and then link to it there as a main or seealso. Anyone else have some input? --MECU≈talk 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read the comments and objections, and I have to agree with most of them. It really desparately needs citations and references. The intro needs work too. It really should be a lot more than just a few sentances. Expand what's here and get rid of the lists, though, and I think we'll be well on the way to passing an FA nom. z4ns4tsu\^talk 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We're going to need more images too. Off the top of my head, I think a picture of one of the larger stadiums would be nice...maybe the Big House in Ann Arbor or OMU in Norman. It would also be nice to have a short discussion of how strategy is different in college football than pro. I'm reading over the "how to write a featured article" pages and brainstorming still, but I expect to get started actually editing in the next few days. How do you want to break this up so that we don't overlap in our efforts? I can take the intro and history without problem. We're going to need to move and then link to all the lists that make up the bottom half of the page too. z4ns4tsu\^talk 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguate "NCAA Football"

I typed NCAA Football into the search looking for NCAA Football series, but I got to College Football. Should there maybe be a disambiguate page for NCAA Football? Cbuhl79 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has changed the redirect from NCAA Football to now go to NCAA Football series with a line at the top that refers to the sport College Football. This it probably the best way to handle this. --MECU≈talk 12:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone re-directed NCAA Football back here, which makes sense to me, I'm guessing most people who type in "NCAA football" want to know about the real sport, not the video games. I just added a disambig note to the top of THIS page to solve this ;-) Cbuhl79 18:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much to me either way as long as we give the reader an easy way to get where they are going if we send them to the worng place. However, I would suspect that if they capitalize the "f" (NCAA Football) they want the video game series and if they don't (NCAA football) they want the sport. Just my guess. Johntex\^talk 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Awards changes

I don't see the reason for splitting up the awards (as an anonymous user just did), but assuming good faith, I don't want to just revert it out of hand. So, what do we think? Should all awards be listed together in alphabetical order (the old way) or should the Division I-AA, II, and III awards be separated from the Division I-A ones (the new way)?

I don't like either way. I don't think it should be just a list. Perhaps just including the template that shows all of them would be a nice visual presentation. But there should be a general description about the awards, especially the Heisman. This template: {{College Football Awards}} --MECU≈talk 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like that template. I guess we should put it at the bottom of the article...probably before the current season bowl games. I also agree that a short (like 3-4 sentence) description of the major awards would be good. Heisman, Maxwell, and Nagurski should cover it, don't you think? z4ns4tsu\^talk 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Along a similar vein, I've just created the {{NCAA DI-A Conferences}} template. Take a look at it and let me know what you think. The only thing I'm not sure about with it is that I put the Independents in the right place. If it looks good, I can make up one for each division and we can use them to replace the lists on this article. z4ns4tsu\^talk 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Good work. --MECU≈talk 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All of the conference templates have been added to the page. I took off the long, nasty-looking lists. z4ns4tsu\^talk 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tostitos Championship game and deadly assault by Auburn on Oregon player

please add the folloowing to the Auburn football tiger article during the first half at the end, an Auburn player , after the play ended, kneed an Oregon player who was down on the ground with his knee , and that oregon player had given no provocation... so that this assault was intentional and criminal... and had nothing to do with the ball game and was esp designed to injure as it knocked the helmut off the Oregon player though such helmuts are disgned to take blows and also badly bloodied the Oregon player's head... such an assault is deadly and like booting or kicking to the head is clearly a serious criminal felony and such is treated routinely as even attempted murder being to the side or temple area of the head where it can kill... why was this player still on the sidelines ? and why is he still in Auburn uniform ? and why was he not arrested for this deadly crimnal assault witnessed by millions ? and esp note the fighting by Auburn players during Georgia game and intentional assaults in several other games ... all having nothing to do with football and indicating a very weak environment by the coashing staff ... /s/ Mike Tyson Sr ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bowl Games

Is this right?

For the 2006 season, there are 32 bowl games plus a separate national championship game, so 64 of the 119 Division I-A teams will be invited to play at a bowl and two teams will play in two bowls.

I thought so when I put it in, but reading the next section about the BCS National Championship game, I'm not so sure any more. Does anyone know? z4ns4tsu\^talk 18:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What two teams will play in two bowl games? There should either be 31 + NC game or 32. I say for the sake of introducing the topic to a beginner, it should just be 32. The NC game isn't a real bowl, but it's post-season so it is but it's almost a meta-bowl game. Not that such a thing exists either. --MECU≈talk 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What I thought I'd heard earlier was that the main bowl games would get to pick who they wanted and then the BCS would take the top two for another game. I think I just got confused, because typing it out now it doesn't make any sense. I'll go fix that. z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The BCS first takes the #1 and #2 rated teams into the new championship game. Then, each BCS conference winner is placed into their game with their tie-in (ie, Big 12 Champion, if not #1 or #2 goes to Fiesta Bowl). Then the at-large selections which the BCS picks at their leisure really, probably mostly money driven. Then all the other bowls that have their tie-ins get them and then when there are open slots, they select teams at their leisure, also probably mostly money driven. Teams like Navy that have a contract with a bowl and no chance at the BCS level games just "accept" their bid as soon as they can (partly contract driven). Looking at the tie-ins page is probably the most informative. Once we go through this new BCS style a season, it'll make more sense. I remember when it came out everyone was confused (and most probably still are). --MECU≈talk 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Hey quick question and comment about the maps on this page. Who set them up they are really sweet? and two, could they do something similar for the NCAA Basketball Tourniment page on Wikipedia also, though it would be more crowded with all of the teams and programs. Still it would be good and it is really a great addition to the College Football page. --Intrepidsfsu 14:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the image page (:Image:2006_Bowls-USA-states.PNG) you can see you created the image. You can also see that the image was derived from a blank map which is linked as well.--NMajdan•talk 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to take a look here and make a request.--NMajdan•talk 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules -- Two Minute Warning

except in cases where the scoreboard clock has malfunctioned

Does anyone have a source for this quote? I have never heard of the two-minute warning being used at all in college football, though I'm sure there have been times when the clock has been re-set to two minutes after a malfunction. Maybe that is what the editor who added this saw? z4ns4tsu\^talk 15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAA Rulebook, Rule 3-3-8-b: "Unless a visual game clock is the official timepiece, the referee also shall inform each field captain and head coach when approximately two minutes of playing time remain in each half. He may order the clock stopped for that purpose....(b) The clock starts on the snap after the two-minute notification."

MORE MAPS

The first map has Arkansas State situated in Little Rock. This is wrong. Arkansas State is in the NE corner of the state. Whoever made the map needs to change it, or bring it down.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.91.212.26 (talk)

I have notified an editor of the image of the issue. Hopefully, he can make the change when he gets time. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.↔NMajdan•talk 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The map of FBS teams and their conference affiliation shows Western Kentucky as an independent. This season they are now a member of the Sunbelt Conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.235.5 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Colorado State versus Air Force?!?

Who cares 68.5.171.77 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is referring to the images used in this article. We use these images because they are free because they are taken by the armed forces, which can't copyright their images. If you have good quality football images that you would like to license for free use, please upload them and we'll talk. Contact me if you need help with this: --MECU≈talk 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rutgers game of 1869 should be a footnote

I've attempted to distinguish the 1869 Princeton-Rutgers soccer game of from college football, which is the topic of this article. The 1869 game was an evolutionary dead-end and belongs in the prehistory of American college soccer, not here. It is not related to college football and did not influence it, other than to delay some schools switching from the soccer rules to those of football. The 19th-century use of the word "football" seems to be what's causing the confusion. Just because players back then called it "football" (and could use their hands in some situations, as all soccer players then could do) does not mean it belongs in this article. It's a distraction and should be eliminated or reduced to a footnote. --Patent law 22:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree. The 6-4 game was played under rules that would not be recognizable today as soccer or football, and was the starting point for the development toward rugby style rules, then toward the rules we know today. This game is considered the first college football game by just about every source. *Mishatx*-In\Out 23:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So cite a source BQZip01 06:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Game, David M Nelson, 1994, University of Delaware press. *Mishatx*-In\Out 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a link to that? Any other sources? If so, just put them in the main article. Kinda hard to refute it otherwise. BQZip01 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The NFL's own website, for one. http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1869-1910.

"Rutgers and Princeton played a college soccer football game, the first ever, November 6. The game used modified London Football Association rules. During the next seven years, rugby gained favor with the major eastern schools over soccer, and modern football began to develop from rugby."

NFL just bought Rutger's desire to claim the first intercollegiate football game. The Rutgers game were under the soccer association's rules and looked like soccer. The McGill-Harvard game under the "Boston Rules" looked like American football, and - in fact - was explicitly not like Rutgers-Princeton. The first ever US intercollegiate football game was Tufts-Harvard in 1875, played under rules that included the oval-shaped ball, 11-man teams, and tackling to end a play. The Rutgers game had 25-man sides, a round ball, no tackling, and no moving the ball with your hands -- ie soccer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.0.34 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The real first game played between two colleges with its own codified rules that differed from the then-predominant ones of Association Football (aka soccer) was played at McGill University in Montreal in 1874 against Harvard. see http://athletics.mcgill.ca/varsity_sports_article.ch2?article_id=111, http://www.mcgill.ca/news/2005/summer/epilogue/

Wikipedia agrees on other pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard-Yale_football_games_(The_Game)

"The first meeting between the teams occurred on November 13, 1875 at Hamilton Field in New Haven. Harvard won 4-0 by scoring four touchdowns and four field goals (at the time, a touchdown merely gave the scoring team the opportunity to gain one point by converting the field goal). This was the first intercollegiate football match between two U.S. teams. (Harvard had played McGill University of Montreal the previous year, and acquired the rules of the game from that team; previous intercollegiate matches were played under the rules of soccer, or European football.)"

maybe a little bit exaggerated

I m sorry but you can verify : it was not "the first documented game of any sport called "football" ".

http://www.theoldestfootballgroundintheworld.com/history.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_in_association_football http://www.sheffieldfc.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=13&Itemid=182 http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=621801.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Club_of_Edinburgh http://www.nationalfootballmuseum.com/pages/fame/Inductees/sheffield%20fc.htm

and many others links...without citing rugby!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasq789 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: History section

I think we're getting pretty close to vanispamcruftisment in the history section here. There are a lot of un-sourced claims that look like they need to be either cited or removed for PoV violations. In my opinion, everything past the third paragraph could be removed and the article would be better for it. Would someone else take a look at it and see what they think? z4ns4tsu\^talk 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. The 4th paragraph about Army/Navy was just added today and can go. "Even with the emergence of the NFL..." can be slimmed down, but has been a sore point for the article (and a good vandalism target) for quite awhile about more popular locations. It's never been sourced though most (I think) would agree it's generally true. And then everything from "The popularity of the sport has led to increased..." and after could go away. MECU≈talk 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Second.--ProfessorFokker 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

external link to a college football player fan site

While searching for photos of a friend who played at SMU I came across a web page strictly comprised of college football player profiles with bios and photographs. It describes itself as fast, friendly, and easy to use and welcomes family, friends and fans of college football players. I in good faith added it to the external links as one line at the bottom of the College Football page. The site link is http://www.collegefootballplayers.info/index.html.

It was deleted by an editor with the following explanation: I do not think this like is useful, especially since the site images don't work and the layout is horrible and has no original content.

I responded to the editor thus: "On the contrary, I found it a useful source of biographical information and photos. I think the site fulfills it's mission of serving fans, family and friends of players, especially since the schools' own pages have limited content that gets trashed annually by the schools' webmasters. If the original content rule applied, there would be no Wikipedia, whereas this football fan site is a major aggregator and growing, obviously with the full cooperation of the schools themselves. The picture quality is high,, even to the extent of using png instead of jpg (a wretched compression scheme if I ever saw one) and it's layout is supposed to be user friendly, and I thought it was. I'm puzzled that you had problems with the pictures as I tried it with both Safari, Opera and Firefox. If you have the final word, I shall be extremely puzzled but so be it, however, I think it would be a useful reader service to have the external link reinstated.

The editor then responded with: "The original content lies at the biographies at the school websites. I don't understand how they get "trashed"? I've found bios for all current players and many former players in media guides for many past years. I am not the final word, it's just my opinion. If you want further input, post on the talk page of the article asking for input on whether it is useful to include this. I don't see a college player biography site being useful on an article about college football. "

I feel the deletion was not in the best interest of Wikipedia users, of which I am one, so I've taken the suggestion here to open a discussion about it.

So here are my points: (1) My original contact with the site contained high quality images of my friend that I could not find elsewhere, so I found it useful. Many of the players listed were requested by family and friends, and so the usefulness to them is moot. Some players may have had as high as 50 or 60 photos. (2) My original contact was using Safari, but after the editor's complaint about pictures not working, I tried Opera and Firefox with no problems whatsoever. It was then I noticed the images were higher quality png. If other browsers have a problem, I can't confirm. (3) The layout is admittedly simple, but I queried the webmaster who replied the objective was to avoid long load times for dial up and avoid any use of plug-ins, so even a kid's grandmother wouldn't have trouble getting to his page. Besides, I don't think aesthetics (an elusive topic itself) of a web page should be part of this consideration. (4) As for original content, the biographies are provided by the schools, and many of the photos too, but there are photos up as well contributed by the players, or their family or friends which are not available anywhere else. The schools often delete this information in subsequent years and is no longer available on the web. (see points 5 and 6) The schools appear to be cooperating in providing the material to the site which suggests they see it as an extension of their own promotion of their athletics. (5) The site is continuously under construction but claims it will not delete players once posted. This makes the site an historical record, which ought to be desirable to Wikipedia users. (6) Although as the editor said, there are archives on many school pages, the fact is they often get removed (I previously called it trashed) during the subsequent seasons), and all that remains is a roster list for a given year, if that much. This varies from school to school and many don't keep previous year bios and especially don't keep photos on-line from previous seasons. (7) The final point of the editor is the one with which I disagree the most, "I don't see a college player biography site being useful on an article about college football." What is the College Football page about, if the guys on the teams aren't essential? Football is not just about stats, the rules of the game, organizations, or wins and losses, or gambling odds. Certainly, it's the players and the people that go to games to see them play.

Please reconsider the deletion. It's one line of the external links, it's a valid site, family oriented, aggregating information in an easily accessible form, and is not commercial nor supports gambling. I don't see the problem with it's presence, but I do think it's absence is a disservice to users of Wikipedia. Homoperfectus 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The other use was me. I still stand by my decision. I just revisited the site and still can't see any images. I clicked on one to view it specifically and got "Forbidden". If someone else could verify this that would be good. Also, I don't think there's any useful content there, as bios are all on the school pages and the images may not be used legally. Further, this isn't a good external link for this article. It may be elsewhere, but not here. I think it's an attempt of spam and the user trying to insert it is the owner which explains why they can see the images and I can't as well. If this is true, please be aware that inclusion of the link on Wikipedia will not help your website as we have told search engine robots to ignore external links. In short, I just don't think this link is useful. MECU≈talk 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Mecu. While I can see images, the site design is atrocious; florescent green, exposed tables for layout, poor navigation. Beyond the aesthetics, and in addition to Mecu's comments about potentially copyvio content (non-attributed, etc), the site is far from comprehensive in scope, and inclusion seems to be based on players' (and family/friends) self-selection, rather than any sort of notability. The site contains profiles on less than 300 players; in the 2005-06 season, over 40,000 players participated in NCAA football. Most of the players that are represented on the site wouldn't meet notability standards for Wikipedia. The site does not represent a general reference or resource that is useful for a general college football article. AUTiger » talk 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, looking at your comments and at the page, I concur that the discussion of college football here is more about academic descriptions and its usefulness to stats fans and gambling odds. So I withdraw my effort to include an external link. I still disagree about Wikipedia decisions based on aesthetics, which is either personal, trendy or both, but certainly deep in the realm of opinion rather than fact. If we are to discuss page layouts, the front page of this site is a big clutter, and hardly artistic, but I don't care because of what it contains! What I was attempting to address may be an expression of something I found lacking here which is the idea that with the 40,000 players you mentioned and the millions of attendees of their games, it's obvious football is first and foremost the players playing the game and their fans, friends and families rooting for them. Where is the proper place to address the love of the game, the passion, and the pride people feel in their players? At least that site was trying to address what I believe is fundamental to football, whereas this college football page is devoid of why anybody cares about football.Homoperfectus 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiebreak criteria for teams with matching conference record

I'm unsure whether to ask this question at here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Portal:College football, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football or elsewhere; feel free to move it if needs be. I’ve added a bit about college football to Group tournament ranking system#Tiebreaker criteria based on what I've inferred from reading a few of the articles. I'd appreciate if someone could confirm/correct/refute and/or add/point me to citations/Wikipedia articles for this edit:

In college football in the United States, many conferences permit joint champions. However, if ranking within the conference determines eligibility for a postseason Bowl game, tiebreak criteria will be used for this. Where a conference is split into two divisions whose winners qualify for a conference title game, tiebreaks are similarly required for the divisional champions.

Assuming it's true, what are the tiebreak criteria for teams with identical win-draw-loss records: is it head-to-head, points differential, ... ? jnestorius^(talk) 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

My edits are being reverted even when they are correct.

Article says "*In the 2006 season, the clock would use a rule that started the clock immediately after the chains were set on either change possession or kickoffs, reducing the time of games. This rule only lasted one year." That is not correct, the clock started on the ready for play signal.

Here is the quote from the rules "When Team B is awarded a first down, the clock will be stopped and will start on the ready for play signal. (Exceptions: After a team timeout and the succeeding play after the end of a period.)"

Also try is the correct term. The article states "Two point conversions are attempted from the three-yard line. The NFL uses the two-yard line." As I have already stated, the down is called a try. And the article makes no statement to where the ball is normally snapped from if the team intends to convert a 1 point try.

A try is an opportunity for either team to score one or two points while the game clock is stopped and is a special interval in a game which, for purposes of penalty enforcement only, includes both a down and the “ready’’ period that precedes it.

a. The ball shall be put in play by the team that scored a six-point touchdown. If a touchdown is scored during a down in which time in the fourth period expires, the try shall not be attempted unless the point(s) would affect the outcome of the game.

b. The try, which is a scrimmage down, begins when the ball is ready for play

Also "starting with the 3rd overtime, teams must attempt a two-point conversion after they score a touchdown because a successful field goal will not score any points" was undone for some reason which I do not understand. Starting with the third extra period, a field goal on the try scores no points.

"Beginning with the third extra period, teams scoring a touchdown must attempt a two-point try. A one-point try by Team A (although not illegal) will not score a point." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokedadro (talk • contribs) 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of Teams

I'm finding there are 120 Division 1 teams and 242 total teams from preliminary checking. Does anyone know if there is an official number of teams in the NCAA? -Taospark (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)\

Defensive Back coach

I'm Making some edits on this page and I was wanting some feedback or possibly get some ideas to make this page a success. If anyone can look at it please let me know. -16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Cyclones2 (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:Foxbcslogo.jpg

The image Image:Foxbcslogo.jpg 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. --09:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility query

OK, here's a question that's probably obvious, but which I've always wondered about. Are graduate students generally eligible to play college ball? And if so, are there some sort of byzantine regulations, etc. that determine overall eligibility? --Grahamdubya (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The basic requirement is that a student gets four years of eligibility. If a coach decides to "redshirt" a player by keeping him or her out of their respective sport's competitive year, then the student can retain that year of eligibility. So, if a student-athlete is redshirted his or her freshman year they could be a "redshirt" junior in their senior year of their academic career. So, in order to use their last year of sports eligibility, many student athletes in this situation enroll in one of their school's graduate programs so that they can complete their final year of sports eligibility.207.238.6.40 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"See also" section

The box at top of "See also" section says there are too many entries. Does the link to "List of famous American sports figures who became politicians" need to be in "College football" article? Eagle4000 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Same query re this link: "2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season". Eagle4000 (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the See Also section a bit curious....there are links to defunct conferences and defunct teams, etc.. but no links to current conferences and teams....Obamafan70 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1