Wikipedia

Talk:UCF Knights football/Archive 1

< Talk:UCF Knights football
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Poomfang in topic WP:TOOBIG / History of UCF Knights football
Archive 1

Sunshine State Showdown?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If such a section should exist it should chronicle all matches UCF has had against in state competition. Both UCF and Miami never produced statements suggesting a rivalry exist. Between USF and UCF there are a multitude of statements from coaches and advertisements from the programs that suggested a rivalry existed. There is no such evidence during the Miami series and I suggest the section be deleted. Currently UCF has no active in state rival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.181.82 (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference to the UM rivalry called the 'Sunshine State Showdown' [1] --Scpmarlins (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---The article does not state the Miami series to be a rivalry. The term was used to describe an instate game which tends to be very popular games for the fan bases. The same article even goes to the extent to compare UCF to all instate games. Neither coach is quoted as recognizing this game as a rivalry. Both programs recognized the importance of the game however no rivalry exist between UCF and Miami. Any game against two teams in the state of Florida is considered a Sunshine State showdown.

University of South Florida Rivalry

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The fact that USF will be playing Miami in 2009-13, is sourced and accurate information, and should not be deleted. It is relevant to the USF-UCF series, and should be left in this section, since the USF-UCF series ends in 08, and will most likely not be extened, due to USF signing a series with another state school. http://www.tbo.com/sports/bulls/MGBQX2WKD2F.html http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/01/Sports/USF_adds_statement_se.shtml - 131.44.121.252 20:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

While it may have some truth, neither of the articles you link to seem to mention this at all, and while USF may have a 6 year series with Miami, that doesn't prevent them from using another one of their games to do a series with UCF. Next years schedule has UCF playing USF. USF is also playing against FAU next year, so that disproves the theory that USF can't play Miami AND UCF. See WP:NOR, we need a reliable source saying that UCF and USF will not play. OT, but also please try to keep consistent with the reference style in the rest of the article, using the ref tags, thanks.

I have a source (Tampa Tribune) that states the USF/UCF series is over after 2008, as far as USF is concerned. They do not plan on continuing the series.67.11.216.245 03:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.tbo.com/sports/bulls/MGBNB9NBT3F.html

The article says it is "likely" over and they are not _required_ to compete against a C-USA team, however it does NOT say that it will not continue. Its likely we won't know whether or not it will continue right up until the sechedules for the said season are made. As the article you linked to mention, several people are pushing for it to continue, while others are not. Until we have something that says the series is NOT continuing, we can't state that as fact. --Aent 06:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Aent,

I agree with you that the series may continue at some point in the future. I tried putting a compromise statement in the rivals section (rather than creating an edit war) that would be truthful and suitable to everyone, but it was deleted. It is "likely" that the series will end or at least take a break after 08. For how long is anyone's guess. It is also well known that UCF wants the series to continue more than USF does, otherwise USF would have continued series in 09, without saying it was likely to end. Also, I think it is a good assumption to say that although many students at USF enjoy the game, "officially" USF would rather create rivalry game with Miami. I don't think you can call a 2 year old series a rivalry game. Having said that, the game full well could become a rivalry game, so I tried to capture that in my edit, that would be suitable to all. I said it has elements of a rivalry. and that it may continue at some point, and that USF has signed with Miami, which may (or may not) affect the USF/UCF game. All of which is true. Rather than someone just deleting the entire post, I think it should be tweaked and/or discussed here before being deleted. Open for suggestions. Thanks. 66.69.108.194 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little bit to fit in a little better and tried to make it sound as unbiased as possible now, as all the statements in the article now are directly from the references cited. For the most part, I left all of the information you put in there... I'm not sure if the discussion about the series with the Miami Hurricanes really belongs, but I left it in there for now. I'm open to feedback and tweaking it a bit more to make it sound more accurate, clear, and unbiased as well, we definitely don't want an edit war --Aent 04:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your edit is fine. The only thing I might add is that there is speculation that the series may continue in the future (as USF has stated they will continue to schedule in state schools), but no dates have as of yet been given. The reason I put the Miami series is because it might affect future series, but we don't know yet. USF may play both UCF and Miami some years. By the way this is 66.69.108.194, but I am using a different computer.

I see someone edited back that UCF and USF are rivals. I give up, and am not going to get into an edit war. If someone wants to call them rivals, go ahead I guess. I still fail to see how 2 years equals a rivalry, regardless of how many fans attended. Rivalries take time to develop. If you ask USF, they wouldn't necesarily call it a "rivalry", although it could become one at some point. In my opinion, it is overzealous fans putting POV spin into the article, rather than trying to create the best article.67.11.216.245 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We can even seem to keep references in there. I tried to keep editing it to make it sound as fair and unbiased as possible, and added a note to see the talk page before editing the section, but no matter what you or I do, it seems that a couple of people are going to edit it to try to spin it the way they want :( I think once the current series is officially over, it should be easier to edit it without fighting an edit war.--Aent 05:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Attendance figures

The article from Orlando Sentinel [5] specifically states that UCF uses "an NCAA-approved formula that incorporates paid-for tickets, student tickets and a quantifier that measures the number of people who don't go through turnstiles, such as marching bands and team support staffs". UCF's attendance announcements didn't say "the number of people who went through the turnstiles at this game was X", they rather said "the attendance is X", which includes both people who go through the turnstile and those who do not, meaning obviously the attendance is going to be some percentage higher then the turnstile account. The NCAA has approved of what UCF does, and the same formula is used by many other NCAA football programs. Also let me take a moment to add that in the Citrus Bowl, students and those parked in select booster lots also did not go through the turnstiles either, which likely accounted for a large portion of the difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aent (talk • contribs) 07:48, July 29, 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:UCFKnights.svg 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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on UCF Knights football. 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) 18:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

National championship?

Latest comment: 6 years ago56 comments11 people in discussion

Is a column in the Orlando Sentinel [6] and a statement by their conference commissioner really enough to base a claim of a national championship? And is UCF actually going to claim it in their media guide and the like? —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The article can and should cover UCF's outstanding season. But even the cited articles don't really say UCF is the National Champion some much as asserting they should have been included in the playoff or that they should be called a champion. USA Today describes UCF's claims as "trolling".[7] I have a lot of sympathy for the playoff criticism, which just highlights the inherent flaws in the current system, but unless and until a recognized independent poll or organization votes UCF #1 I don't see how we can report that UCF did win a National Championship. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the USA Today article was referring to the tweets, not the claim itself. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It says claimed National Titles. Athletic director Danny White is already claiming the title and has said merchandise and promotional material will be created claiming the title. TheJayUNF (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we refer to it as "self-claimed" or "self-awarded", then, since it doesn't exist outside the promotional office of the university? —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure on how to put it in the infobox, but at the moment, I believe the best way to mention it is something like the current version (as I write this) "The Prince George Journal and the Dan Le Batard Show, though not official, have announced that they have declared UCF the National Champions."/"The Knights claim a national championship for the 2017 season, although this claim is not yet supported by any ranking organizations as the Knights were not invited to participate in the 2018 College Football Playoff, but it is supported by minor newspapers such as the Prince George Journal." That way, we are addressing the claim as well as the fact that it is not recognized by most sources. Elisfkc (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Peter Wolfe rankings are listed in the official NCAA Record Book as a major selection and their rankings are considered to be legitimate national title selectors by the NCAA. Currently UCF is listed as #1 in this rankings, so they have a legitimate claim to the title (assuming the ranking holds after the Georgia vs Alabama game is played). -- Artimusruffwood (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting information, we'll have to watch. Elisfkc (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
UCF is ranked #1 by the Wolfe rankings. This is a recognized ranking by the NCAA so National Title claims are legitimate. TheJayUNF (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The Wolfe rankings are legitimate, but the season isn't over yet. If they are still #1 after the NCG they can then claim a national championship HuskerPower (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not the claim is legitimate, the university is claiming it. Putting up a sign, holding a parade, and everything. Even ESPN is reporting it now. It's worth noting in my opinion, even if there's an asterisk stating the circumstances. Boycool † (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. State legislators discussing making a resolution to declare UCF national champions. Link. Boycool † (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

In a day and age when we actually have a playoff there is absolutely no possible claim to a nataionl title here. I don't care how biased the committee is perceived to be, we no longer select national titles solely on the AP or coaches or other various selectors. It is played on the field and no matter what teams claim titles in the past has no bearing on this at all. I don't care if there is a section on their season page discussing their "claim" to it, but it should not be in the infobox, no matter how it is listed. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think is important to be aware that the College Football Playoff is not an NCAA sanctioned "National Championship" game so I don't see how the statement "There is no possible claim to a national title" is accurate here. At he very least the UCF National title should be stated under the "claimed" portion of the Infoblox EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about on the season article. It should not be in the info box at all on the season article. And just because it is not a sanctioned national championship does not mean they can just go around claiming whatever they want. They still play within the structure of FBS football which currently crowns it champion via a playoff. The argument that they should have been in that playoff is null and void. They were not in it. They did not win it. They are not national champions. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As a UCF student and fan, I love this whole national championship idea. However, as someone who likes to keep Wikipedia as unbiased as possible, I do see where others take issue. To other UCF fans: If this was another group of five school (let's say FAU), would you still support their claim as national champions? To everyone else: If this was your own school claiming a national championship, would you still be against it (keep in mind, SB Nation has identified at least 23 national titles claimed by Power Five schools that are as debatable and ESPN is pointing this out as well). I can firmly answer the first question as yes, provided it followed what I am about to propose:

Proposal

If the current situation stands as is (where the Prince George Journal and UCF are the only ones claiming it), it is allowed in both the infobox for the team (this article) and the season, with a note stating "This championship was declared by the Prince George Journal, which is not one the thirteen national championship selectors recognized by the NCAA record book." This note would obviously contain the citations.

If, however, one of the twelve selectors (the thirteenth is the Playoff, which obviously won't recognize it) does select UCF (the twelve being the AP poll, Billingsley Report, College Football Researchers Association, Colley, Congrove Computer, Dunkel System, FWAA-NFF Grantland Rice Super 16, Massey College Football Ratings, Sagarin Ratings, USA Today Coaches' Poll, and Peter Wolfe, see pages 109-110), then the note becomes "This championship was selected by [insert selector], one of the thirteen national championship selectors recognized by the NCAA record book."

This way, we are including the national championship claim either way, while pointing out to readers that it was not bestowed by consensus. How does this sound to everyone? --Elisfkc (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree: would add a sentence in there noting that the university itself claims the victory in addition to PGJ. Otherwise agree. Boycool † (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: current wording is fine. With Colley Matrix now out, PGJ mention is unnecessary. Boycool (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Note isn't needed. This isn't a unique situation. There are several schools that claim national championships that aren't based on a consensus of selectors. Claimed simply means claimed by the university. This "Prince George Journal" is (or should be) irrelevant. Lizard (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Could you give an example of how those claims are presented in those articles? Boycool (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
On the team season articles they're specified, such as 1941 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. But the infobox on Alabama Crimson Tide football makes no such distinction. All claims are treated equally. Question: is UCF basing their championship claim off of the PGJ, or are we just throwing the PGJ's claim in simply for the sake of having an independent source in addition to the university's own claim? Lizard (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the mention of the Prince George Journal and instead focus on the AD's claim, since this is extensively discussed in independent sources. A google search of "UCF" + "prince george journal" turns up a whopping TWO results. We clearly shouldn't be giving this paper the time of day. Lizard (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

National Championship shouldn't be mentioned at all. If so, it should be mentioned as a footnote. They are not recognized by any legitimate publication as National Champions. I don't even like them being called "self-claimed" or "self-awarded." It should only be mentioned as something dealing with the publicity of the their season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymarcc (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

They've been selected as national champion by Wes Colley's matrix, which is recognized in the NCAA's official record book. So it's no longer merely self-proclaimed. Lizard (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Colley's Matrix does not recognized national champions. They ranked the teams. They ranked UCF as the #1 team. That is not a national champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymarcc (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Being ranked No. 1 and being named national champion has been synonymous for as long as rankings have been around. Lizard (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Timothymarcc. The AP gives a trophy. They Coaches poll gives a trophy. Does Colley? Do they actually announce a champion or is it just a ranking? If they are only meant to be a ranking system and have no official champion or trophy then it is pretty meaningless. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
According to pages 108-109 of the NCAA record book, Colley is a "National Champion Selector". --Elisfkc (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Colley matrix for verification? —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, just saw the ref in the article. Courtesy link for readers here: [8]. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
And their selection has been mentioned by a secondary source, the Orlando Sentinel, which I added. Lizard (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Final rankings and ratings

Peter Wolfe final ratings have been released. Alabama jumped to #1 with a 9.184 rating; UCF is second at 9.078.[9] —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Close. I can very well see someone ranking them No. 1, especially since the title game was so close. Lizard (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Decision time

@C.Fred, Lizard the Wizard, TheJayUNF, Arxiloxos, Artimusruffwood, HuskerPower, Boycool42, Bsuorangecrush, EdwinCasadoBaez, and Timothymarcc:

I am pinging everyone who has so far been in this conversation because its decision time. This page and 2017 UCF Knights football team get unprotected in a little over three days from when I am writing this. We have numerous other articles that depend on the decision we come to right here about how to present this claim (Scott Frost, University of Central Florida, Shaquem Griffin, and McKenzie Milton to name a few). The current version of the statement seems to be stable on this article, but that doesn't really work on all of the others, nor does it work in the infoboxes. Now, I made a proposal above on how to deal with this, which right now has a 4-1 vote for (counting myself as a vote for it). I'd like to either see votes from the six of you that have not voted on it yet, or another proposal that we can come to a better agreement on. If there is no other proposal by the time this page leaves protection and the one I proposed has more votes for than against, I'm saying that is our decision (since normally on Wikipedia, proposals have a window of 7 days to discuss and vote on, and that one will have been open for two weeks). Elisfkc (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the way the article is worded. If we need to, we can find other situations where a school's national championship claim is based only one of the "minor" selectors, like Colley, and not the CFP/BCS/AP or UPI poll, and mirror that presentation for UCF. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep current wording on this article and 2017 UCF Knights football team. I don't think the PGJ distinction is necessary now that the Colley Matrix rankings are out. Current wording makes it clear that the team wasn't invited to the playoffs and the nature of the claim. Boycool (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me how it is. There's no need to specify anything. The specifics are discussed in multiple places in the body of the article. Lizard (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard and C.Fred: Ok, but how are we presenting this on the other articles I mentioned? --Elisfkc (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd say for Scott Frost, McKenzie Milton, Shaquem Griffin, put it in the infobox without a note and then say something along the lines of "The Knights claim a national championship for the 2017 season despite being excluded from that season's College Football Playoff, citing their no. 1 ranking in the Colley Matrix." in the body. It looks like the University of Central Florida needs some updating overall in the athletics since the last football mention is about the Fiesta Bowl. I'd say mention the undefeated season, the Peach Bowl win, and a similar line about the national championship claim that I mentioned above. Don't need some of the detail (FL lawmakers, parade, etc) that's in other articles like this one. Boycool (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Boycool42: Good point on the University of Central Florida article. I'd also mention the 2015 season, as well as last year's basketball season. But as for the different sub-articles, you are saying to include it in the article? I'm copying the Shaquem Griffin article into my sandbox with my idea of the note being used. Feel free to put in how you would put it in the body in the sandbox version so I can understand how you'd do this. Elisfkc (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Boycool42: Like that? Elisfkc (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Yeah. What do you think? Boycool (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
"...citing their number 1 ranking in the Colley Matrix." Be wary of synthesis. They made the claim well before the Colley Matrix ranking came out. As for its inclusion in those infoboxes, a related discussion took place regarding Bear Bryant a few months ago with no consensus either way. Edit warring thus continues to this day. Lizard (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: Do you have a better way to phrase it? I think that, as long as it is mentioned in the article like Booycool42 proposed, there is no need for the note in the infobox. Elisfkc (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the note is necessary either. But the fact is many readers don't even bother reading the article, so a note may be helpful. As for how to word it, I would mention the university's claim and the Colley Matrix ranking separately. Lizard (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe something like "The Knights claim a national championship for the 2017 season despite being excluded from that season's College Football Playoff. This claim is validated by UCF's number 1 ranking in the Colley Matrix, a NCAA-recognized major selector of national champtions"? Or "After making the claim, the team was ranked..." Boycool (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The best way to avoid original research is to be simple and to-the-point. Just the facts. "UCF claims a national championship for the 2017 season, and the team was ranked number 1 by the Colley Matrix, an NCAA-recognized selector of national champions." Lizard (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. @Boycool42: what about you? --Elisfkc (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. @Elisfkc:. Boycool (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Cool. @Boycool42 and Lizard the Wizard: Finally, on Scott Frost's table at the bottom, national champs or just conference champs? Elisfkc (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Adding the note as discussed to Shaquem, McKenzie, and Scott's articles. Elisfkc (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Using Johnny Vaught's and Pete Carroll's tables as precedents, I'd say put it as national champs in Frost's table. Lizard (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, seeing as IPs wasted no time after protection wore off, I'll see about getting the page protected for an extended amount of time. Lizard (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: Sounds like a plan. Make sure to ask to protect 2017 UCF Knights football team as well, and maybe also Scott Frost. Elisfkc (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Consider semi-protecting

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 2017 nat'l title parameter is removed or vandalized several times an hour by random users on mobile. Consider semi-protecting until the controversy dies down

Semi-protection has been enabled. --Elisfkc (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{ Stickit99 (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ToThAc (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
RolltideTusk (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Head coaches

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "Head coaches" section has been updated with a citation for UCF's 11 head coaches.[10] It's a primary source and reflects the schools' view. The content also has been updated with an omitted callout for one interim coach.

A prolific WP:DE IP has repeatedly introduce copy edits around the sequence of coaching tenure and excluded interim coaches from these count. Ex, "George O'Leary was named UCF's new head coach" becomes "George O'Leary was named UCF's sixth head coach" where the existing is accurate and non-controversial, while the revised text conflicts with the schools' view and offers unsubstantiated edit summaries including "...interims aren't counted"[11]

What say you, IP? UW Dawgs (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The UCF Knights did not win the College Football National Championship for the season 2017, as wiki erroneously has it. They will not win the College Football National Championship for season 2018 as they are ranked 8th or 9th nationally, and, did not make the college football playoff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_College_Football_Playoff_National_Championship

Please note that this UCF wiki page is not fact but editorial and misrepresenting fact. It is essentially propaganda. Leeroy151 (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Leeroy151: There are sufficient sources to state that UCF was selected as a national champion by a selector during 2017. It is speculation to predict that no selector will choose UCF as #1 in their last poll this year.
They did not qualify for the College Football Playoff either year, true, but the CFP is not the only selector. This article is not the place for commentary on the relative merits of the selectors and the CFP system. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

National championship

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Just because you say your the nation champions don’t make it so. Grow up. Alabama Crimson Tide is the National Champs of 2017. They earned their spot they did not just wake up and decide to claim it. Trickks13 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Trickks13: Thanks for your opinion, but a consensus on how to deal with this seems to have been reached above. --Elisfkc (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Again I read The articles associated with the claim they are the National Champions. I say Again that still does not make it so. You are actually disrespectful to the 2017 NCAA champs. I would Think the school would consider that before allowing the students to falsely elevate their status. So sad. Trickks13 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Trickks13: I understand your opinion but that does not change the fact that a consensus about this situation has been reached above. Also, the school does not control its students freedom of speech or freedom of expression, since that violate numerous laws. --Elisfkc (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Trickks13: Late here, but since you bring up that Bama is the 2017 national champion and that "just because you say you're champion don't make it so," what are your feelings on Bama's national championship claim for 1941, a season in which the team finished 20th in the AP poll? Lizard (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The NCAA recognizes Bama as the champ on their website. And that's pretty much all there is to it. The NCAA acknowledges that UCF finishes #1 in one poll and thus lists them in the record book, but as for official recognized national title, it's Alabama. UCF simply claims the title based on one poll. The page has been edited to reflect the NCAA's recognition.--LesPhilky (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The NCAA only lists selected polls/selectors/championships methods. It's not a full list. The only Division I team that can claim an official, NCAA-sanctioned national championship for 2017 is North Dakota State. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not an NCAA recognized national championship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMiller88 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't you want to get in your own States discussion of whether you're the best in the state or not before you want to pretend that you're a national champion??? I mean wouldn't you try to be the champion of your state at least before you go for the whole country? Seems pretty simple to me if you want to get in the game start playing Florida, Florida State, Miami. Then maybe if you act you beat one of them, you might be in the discussion RMiller88 (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It should say “the Knights claim a national championship” instead of “the Knights have a national championship” because the championship has not been popularly recognized outside of the fanbase. Draptr18 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG / History of UCF Knights football

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is currently 128,915 kB[12]

WP:TOOBIG gives: 

> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

One option is moving some of the History section to History of UCF Knights football, as seen in Category:History of college football by team. Other options include addressing non-standard sections and those with sourcing issues. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UCF_Knights_football/Archive_1&oldid=1211248929"