Wikipedia

Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS/Archive 2017

< Talk:College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Dolenath in topic additional Colley sourcing and clarity


Ohio State being declared National Champion in 2006 by DeVold

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Should DeVold be added to the championship line for Ohio State in 2006? They are not listed on the line beside Florida, and according to page 19 of a book written by Christopher Walsh, called "Who's #1: 100 Plus Years of Controversial National Champions in College Football", DeVold listed Ohio State as its 2006 National Champion. I couldn't find a site for DeVold to confirm it, but thought someone else might be able to substantiate if it is correct. <Walsh, Christopher, "Who's #1: 100 Plus Years of Controversial National Champions in College Football", p. 19>GABinOHIO (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

DeVold isn't listed by the NCAA as a major selector, so I they wouldn't be included here. Dolenath (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove College Football Data Warehouse section

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I don't believe this section fits in with the rest of the article. The main points of this article are: 1) What does the NCAA say about FBS champions? 2) What do the schools themselves have to say about it? 3) What does the media have to say about it (polls)? 4) What do semi-official organizations like BCS & NFP have to say about it?

I'm not sure that CFDW adds anything meaningful to the article. It is well researched, but in the end it just comes down to one man's opinion on who should be named champion.

Can we get a vote on keep/remove CFDW?Dolenath (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is from a few years ago:
"Yeah, Jeff in CA, I think it would be better to ask "Why are you including CFDW when they're so inconsistent (see examples below)?" instead of asking why they are inconsistent, which none of us will have an answer to. Do we need to start a vote on whether or not to include CJDW? Dolenath (talk) 2:15 pm, 26 February 2014, Wednesday (2 years, 9 months, 4 days ago) (UTC−8)"
So, why are we including CFDW when they're so inconsistent (see CFDW Inconsistencies)? This is still an open question, as far as I know. I vote to Remove and place the information in another location. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The section was originally added to provide information from a fourth secondary source beyond the NCAA, schools, and media: college football historians. It is the most comprehensively researched on-line source available on national championships and includes information from both David DeLassus and Tex Noel, the later of which is one of the most noted modern college football historians and authors. In my opinion, the section does no harm to the article, but does provide an alternative historical view based on comprehensive research and the source website is easily accessed for further exploration by a reader. Any inconsistencies in the opinions expressed by the website are absolutely irrelevant to the process of sourcing material, as Wikipedia should be WP:NPOV. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right in that it is very good source for historical college football information. There's a lot of great stuff there that's often cited by the media. That being said, this article only references a single small page on the whole site: [National Championships by Year]. The vast majority of the site, and what they're well known for is their research into historical facts of college football. However, this one small section on national championship selections is just composed of opinions, and as Jeff in CA has pointed out, frequently inconsistent ones at that. Dolenath (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
While Jeff in CA makes a number of valid points about inconsistency, I would favor keeping the section. A disclaimer might be in order, or a note about the inconsistencies, but the section's table form with listed years is valuable. Also, all pre-1936 pre-poll era NCs involve a degree of interpretation and POV and there are inherent inconsistencies among the lists of claims by school, yearly champs from major selectors, and poll-era champs. CFDW is simply a other snapshot of the issue. Only post 1936 poll-era champs are absolutely factual in that we have a record of what those polls said, though in any number of years the two major polls are not consistent with each other. With a more strongly-worded caution than currently exists, the section should stay.IMO. Sensei48 (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Note that it's now a month after the 2016 CFP championship game and CFDW still has not been updated.... Dolenath (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DeVold's 2006 College Football National Champion pick

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 


Just an additional comment or two in response to your answer regarding whether or not DeVold's 2006 College Football National Champion pick should be included in the article.  The article currently lists DeVold as a "Math" major selector from 1939-2006.  I went back and reviewed the article and confirmed that DeVold's symbol (DeS) is listed beside a national champion for all of those years, except for 2006.  So it seems to me that the article needs to be amended to read DeVold's years as a "Math" major selector from only 1939-2005, or, in my opinion, the more likely scenario that their symbol (DeS) should also be listed beside their 2006 selection, which in this case is Ohio State.  Whichever way is decided, my intent is for the article to reflect the most accurate information possible and to thank you for your diligence in the same endeavor. GABinOHIO (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, you're right. Add away! Dolenath (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oklahoma State/Oklahoma A&M

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

We're having a minor edit war on this, so let's get it decided here once and for all. Are we going with "Oklahoma State" or "Oklahoma A&M"?? Dolenath (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The sections which callout the annual winners within a range of consecutive years should continue to use the contemporaneous names:
Agreed. Greggens (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Sections which aggregate historical titles earned by a school use the current WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, "Oklahoma State (2)" and "Oklahoma State (1)," as Oklahoma State University is the holder of those titles, regardless of the era and name in which they occurred. "Oklahoma A&M" no longer exists in 2017, so we use the successor name (WP:COMMONNAME) to attribute their achievements. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate, one might say that the NCAA Record Book (on which this whole page is based) calls the 1945 team "Oklahoma St". Dolenath (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a fair point to raise. Our use of WP:COMMONNAME and contemporaneous names on sports articles is established. I think an argument could be made (not by me) for the 1945 row using "Oklahoma State," but the apparent issue in the introduction of the "Oklahoma A&M/Oklahoma State" hybrid in the summary count sections. That's pretty absurd, as it needlessly refers to the same entity by two names where one of them is invalid. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Greggens: Thoughts? It appears we are debating your edits which are outside of our consensus, in my view. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the section titled Total championship selections from major selectors by school, not very many people necessarily know that Oklahoma State used to be called Oklahoma A&M. For that reason, it is necessary, IMO, to list the name "Oklahoma A&M/Oklahoma State" when referring to all titles earned by that school. If it had earned all of its titles under one name only, that would be a different story. Greggens (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Caveat, COMMONNAME applies to article titles. Your view of the popular awareness of "Oklahoma A&M" doesn't seem like an encyclopedic standard and isn't supported in any manner beyond your good faith statement. Also, can you point to any similar college sports championship summary articles which make a callout for previous name(s) of the academic institution? I cannot. All records in the 2016 NCAA Record Book prior to the 1957 name change are attributed to "Oklahoma St," consistent with our current consensus. There are no references to "Oklahoma A&M" in the publication. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment. Only the original editor via WP:BOLD has supported the format of Oklahoma A&M/Oklahoma State (2). Reverting editors and I disagree with this change. No examples of similar dual display of current and historic names have been offered. Therefore this has been reverted to the consensus format of simply Oklahoma State. This does not preclude additional discussion or a new majority emerging to change this consensus. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Georgia major selectors

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

An IP updated Georgia's Major Selectors title count from 5 to 6. A quick count (recount for yourself) in the section indicates 6. However, the current 2016 NCAA yearbook link is dead and just now tagged with Template:Dead. The citation should be updated or fixed via archive.org, and then we should reconfirm 5 vs 6. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Checked with recordbook and it is 6. Fixed. Dolenath (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

status of CFBDW section

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The College Football Data Warehouse website has apparently ceased, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#College Football Data Warehouse - out of business. Many links are being transitioned to archive.org for preservation.

It is unclear to me why we ever created the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#College Football Data Warehouse recognized national champions section. If that reasoning remains valid, the existing citations can still be used via the archive.

Do we want to continue to have a section displaying CFBDW champions? UW Dawgs (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I just removed it. Since the site has been taken down I think we should keep it off as well. Any who feel strongly against this please post here and we can talk about putting it back. Dolenath (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


The reasons College Football Data Warehouse was originally added were several, but the first was that it was an independent site published by a college football historian with contributions from a second who has published books on the subject. Foremost, what it attempted to do was gather as much raw data on college football as possible, minus interpretation and bias that shows up nearly everywhere else. What that meant for this article in the truest sense of WP:NOTFORUM/WP:NOT#FANSITE, is that it presented the most comprehensive collection of national championship selections anywhere. Even the NCAA Records Book is in some way biased by the opinions of the historians that deemed certain selectors to be "major", which obviously means the opinions of some historical selectors did not make the cut based on the opinion of these historians. CFDW listed everything it could find, including some selections from scarce historic primary source material that would otherwise be difficult to duplicate. In that sense, the loss of that material being available to the public is very unfortunate. At one point I believe that list may have been present in the article. The second thing it did was to provide its own opinion on which of those national championships were most legitimate. In this second listing of championships, which was perhaps less important for the article here, but it did provided an alternative comprehensive viewpoint (and most alternative lists aren't comprehensive) to the historians that contributed to the NCAA Records Book. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
CFDW site is back up. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

additional Colley sourcing and clarity

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Recently an IP editor has been modifying specific team content related to Colley (Matrix?) content.

Wiki from College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS#Math currently states:

  • CM
  • Colley Matrix
  • 2001–present
  • With selections present for 2001-2010, 2013-2016

The existing citation pg. 108–116 states:

  • Wes Colley, 1992-2016
  • Colley (1992-present), a mathematically based power rating developed by Wes Colley of Virginia. His work is published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Colley is a graduate of Princeton University with a doctorate in astrophysical sciences. Member of 2011 BCS.
  • Selections from 2001-2006

So believe we're missing some citations, at minimum. Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with including it or not - but not OK with an individual RVing a single CM notation despite the fact (as my edit summaries note) that CM appears in this article as a "major selector" and is listed as such for every season in which Colley had a post-bowl poll, leading to some unusual selections like OSU in '11, Notre Dame in '12, and Alabama in '16, despite the fact that two of the three lost their bowl games those years. The older NCAA record book through 2015 listed CM as a selector in years that Colley's choice didn't conflict with the consensus choice but omitted it in the rest. Discussion is certainly warranted and sourcing a must. Sensei48 (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the 1992 year is a typo on the NCAA's part. As far as I can tell, Colley didn't start doing his rankings until 1998. If we want to include 1998-2000, that's fine by me. He picked Tennessee, Florida St, and Oklahoma, respectively, those years.Dolenath (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS/Archive_2017&oldid=845324833"