Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 1 Soccer

photo src: www.ocregister.com

photo src: x3anjlfc.adtddns.asia

Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews

First quick question

Will this be covering all of college football, or will this Wikiproject focus mostly on Division I? I"m asking since I'd probably be more inclined to help out with any Division III things that could be improved. --Wizardman 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is room to cover all divisions, if we get participants interested in all divisions. Johntex\^talk 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree ... bring it all on ... if we get too much, we can always spawn child projects. We probably do, though, need to figure out what to do with articles about individual teams. Maybe we should create a sub-category for individual team football/athletics articles (like Auburn Tigers football) so that there isn't a lot of clutter in the main category.) But by all means, from IA to III to NAIA, bring it on. BigDT 02:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bowl games

Rivalrys

...

Maybe we don't need quite that many, for UT, we currently have:

Univeristy of Texas System

Any article that isn't a player or a coach (E.g. a team season, a tradition, a rivalry game) is getting classified into Texas Longhorn football. We take care to ensure we don't duplicate, so Vince Young should only be in Category:Texas Longhorns football players and then he belongs to all the parents through each level being classified under the next highest. Johntex\^talk 05:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

photo src: www.ocregister.com

Doh

Doh - you beat me to the bunch by a day or two - I've been creating just such a project in my user space. I also have a draft of a college football portal almost ready to launch. I have added my name to the project and I've also added several suggested "to-do" items. Johntex\^talk 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• LOL ... well ... I'm new to projects ... I've seen lots of scattered efforts for college football and I thought it would be nice to have our own project. WP:NFL has a nice one. What do you have for the portal? I took a look at Portal:American football (which, by the way, I just got my first ever portal namespace edit by adding a link here). BigDT 02:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

photo src: buffalonews.com

Suggested Goals

I suggest the following as goals we should adopt:

1. To improve the quality and quantity of colleg football related articles.
2. To better organize and where appropriate to standardize information in college football related articles.
3. To bring College football to Featured article status.
4. To make Wikipedia one of the premier online resources on college football.
5. To create and maintain Portal:College football and bring it to Featured portal status.

Johntex\^talk 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

photo src: www.megabearsfan.net

Texas Longhorns

I've just tagged about 75 articles belonging to Category:Texas Longhorns football with the new Talk page template for this WikiProject. The articles now appear in Category:WikiProject College football. The visibility of those tags and the fact that the edits will show up in people's watch lists should drive some extra participants here, I would think. Johntex\^talk 02:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good grief ... 75 articles on Texas football? Don't mess with Texas. ;) BigDT 04:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, we are the national champions and all. Hook 'em Horns! ;) Johntex\^talk 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

photo src: www.sbnation.com

College coach infobox

I created {{College coach infobox}} last week. I modeled it after {{NFL PlayerCoach}}. I've added it to a few coaches already.--NMajdanotalk 13:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

photo src: www.pbs.org

Hello

I love this idea and college football! I'll start by separating college football pages from athletic pages. Bornagain4 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We can do it for programs like Michigan, and pretty much any other Big Ten team. Bornagain4 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Still before we do that, let's work on some standardization of naming. Doing so will prevent the need for page moves and disambiguation and save us work in the long run. For example the page could be named Michigan Wolverines football or Michigan Wolverine football or Michigan Wolverine football team or Michigan Wolverine football program... Aslo, I've learned from experience that it is often best to state intentions before a major change. Some of those articles may have established editors that may not appreciate "outsiders" coming in and changing things without the courtesy of discussion. For all we may know (unless we look into it) they may have already discussed breaking out football and may have decided not to do so. If we have a well thought out plan in place, it will be easier to work with these valuable editors. Johntex\^talk 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could an admin separate the Michigan Wolverines football article from the athletic article. I would like to start on that article first but I need more space.-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornagain4 (talk o contribs) 12:24, 2006 June 28

• Please see above. Johntex\^talk 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Rivalries

Per a discussion at Category talk:College sports rivalries (really, more like a 2-way conversation), I have recategorized the mess that once was Category:College rivalry games and Category:College rivalry trophies. If you should happen to come across any football (or roundball for that matter) rivalry articles, rivalry game articles, or rivalry trophy articles, please categorize them in the correct place under Category:College sports rivalries and, if it is a "named" rivalry game/trophy, please add it to List of NCAA college football rivalry games. BigDT 05:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I revert?

How can I revert a page that has been vandalized? or can admins only do that? Bornagain4 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Un-stubbing

To unstub an article, does one need to take a vote on it or not? The Paul Bunyan Trophy stub-article is still listed as a stub, but is pretty much an article. Bornagain4 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

k, thanx Bornagain4 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

I have a question, when mentioning a date in a sports related event. Do we forward them to the year in sports or the normal year? Another one, should we have a page for this fall's season or for past seasons?-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornagain4 (talk o contribs) 10:47, 2006 June 29

First steps

Hello, I have added a number of proposed to-do items above. I notice that User:Nmajdan has put a standard-lookking to-do list on the project page, which is OK - it is certainly conventional. However, I think we should delve into organizational issues first, such as creating an organizational structure for cateogires, discussing what templates we need, etc. I am adding a line called "organizational" to the to-do list to represent this area of work. Once we are well organized, the articles will flow more smoothly. Johntex\^talk 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been going through Category:College football and adding all of them to the WikiProject, and adding the college football stub to the stubs, many of them were stubbed as American football coach. Bornagain4 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Goals

I went ahead and took the liberty of adding some things to the Goals section on the project page. Take a look at em, change em, add to em, or whatever. Bornagain4 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good work Bornagain, I think those are good goals that you added. I was WP:BOLD and added some more. Johntex\^talk 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A note

A note to whom it may concern: the reason many NFL coaches are classified with this project is that they coached in college at one time or another and are classifed under the College football category. Bornagain4 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Priority List?

Should there be a priority list on the goals section? They are numbered but that is not priority. We might want to organize the College football articles before we work on a portal. Bornagain4 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing

I have been going through Category:College football and adding the project template to all of the talk pages and adding the stub template to the stubs. I have made my way from the beginning and am currently in the middle of the "N"s of the coaches section. I am posting this so noone overlaps in going through the College football Category. If you do start, please post what you will go through here so another person doesn't have to cover it. Thank You. Bornagain4 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed welcome to the project message

I don't know (not that I have looked at too terribly many) if any other WikiProjects have a welcome message ... but I wonder if it would be worthwhile ... I thought I would put something together:

---

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football! We are glad you decided to sign up and we hope you enjoy reading and editing college football articles.

If you have any ideas you would like to share or if there is any way your fellow college football fans can help you, please feel free to ask on the project talk page.

P.S. If you haven't done so already, please consider adding {{User WikiProject CFB}} to your user page. It lets other users who visit your page know about your involvement with the project.

---

Any thoughts? BigDT 01:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree we should have one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history is one of the best WikiProjects I know of. If you can think of it, they have probably either already done it, or figured out why doing it is a bad idea - maybe both. You can see their welcome message here. Johntex\^talk 01:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? BigDT 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks great!Bornagain4 03:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Football Image

Could someone find a football image to use that doesn't have NFL on it? Mecu 16:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking through my football photos ... I can take a picture of a plain football at some point ... but really, it might be better for us to just use something totally different to distinguish ourselves from WP:NFL. This guy isn't spectacular - I'm looking through my photos to see if I have anything better that isn't obviously a Virginia Tech player. Any thoughts? BigDT 04:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the football player, I think a football may be a little to ordinary. Bornagain4 13:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What really might be nice if anyone has the artistic skills to create it would be a pennant (like [1]) with a football or helmet on it. That would be obviously college and obviously football. (Obviously, it needs to be plain colors and not have any team logos.) BigDT 16:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can take a picture of the Orangish looking ball used by the Wilson teams (Not Nike Teams) is that a good idea? CJC47 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New template?

I think we should have a template for college athletic entries. It could have college, nickname, mascot, school colors, fight song, and athletic conference(s). -PhattyFatt 02:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seperate template/category for individual team articles

Q: do we want a separate template/category for individual team articles (eg Auburn Tigers football)?
Category I think a category for each team would be fine. A template might be overkill for every team (especially smaller/less popular ones). Though do we need this at all since everything in the category would be listed on a "(School) football" page anyways? Mecu 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New Stubs

I tried to create a stub template for college football players, and when I added the stub to the page Marlin Jackson, it added the page to Category:College football stubs. I believe there was something in the markup that I copied that directed the article to that category, but I don't know. Can someone please explain this to me!Bornagain4 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I just read the above discussion, I am sorry. Bornagain4 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard format for season pages

A discussion has been started at Talk:2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team about a standard format for team-specific season pages and the tables that go into them. Please drop by and add your comments so that we can get a good idea of a group consensus before too many of these pages are created. Z4ns4tsu 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't rate the page, so I can't tell you what decision process went into making it "high" instead of "mid" or "low." I think, from looking at the guidlines, that it was because it is an article pertaining to the current season, so it needs to be kept up until the season ends. As for which schools should have such articles, I think the top 25 to 30 programs would be a good start, but I also think that we shouldn't afd an article just because that school isn't a top school. My thought is pretty much, "if an alumnus wants to make the page, let 'em." Z4ns4tsu 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I read somewhere that there's a precedent that not every team every season should have a page, that only notable events/teams/years should (Such as the 2005 Texas Longhorns). There's a comment on the 2006 Texas Longhorns to this effect, but I can't find any policy or information about where it's stated that. I half agree if someone is willing to put the effort into making and maintaining the page (with regular updates throughout the season, weekly). If someone starts a page and gives up on it half-way through the season we may reccommend for delete. Having 50 half-finished pages to inherit and maintain would become too much work for our small crew, especially with teams we're not that interested in. Mecu 02:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally not a big fan of the {{Maintained}} template. If somone is wathcing the article, then they should see a notice left on the article's Talk page. I would rather see the discussion happen at the article in question rather than off on a User-Talk page. Johntex\^talk 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) That is an interesting hypothesis. Having participated in many AfD debates, I don't believe such a template will make a difference. There is often one or a few contributors to the article who will argue vigorously that they will maintain it. In the end, that is not usually a determining factor. Plenty of stuff still gets labeled as being non-notable and deleted as cruft. Having said that, the {{Maintained}} exists and so obviously some people find it useful. I just don't happen to be among them! Johntex\^talk 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, here is an example of an aritcle up for AfD where an author (me) is speaking up to keep the article, but that is not making much difference to the article. I doubt many of these commentors have even read the article, much less the talk page associated with the article. A {{Maintained}} template is not much defense agaist people who want to invoke Wikipedia:Recentism to delete an article. Johntex\^talk 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No one owns an article. I don't see that as being a problem. We haven't created any policy yet, but I thought that's what we're trying to do? I wouldn't want to inherit 117 football team pages. Nor do I want to just delete them without an effort to get the original person (the maintainer) to try and update it. Is there a {{Abandoned}} we could put on it? Of course, swapping that with someone saying they will maintain it would become troublesome as well. So how about this for a policy:
Individual team football pages are allowed as long as someone is willing to:

• maintain it
• provide more than basic schedule and results information
• keep it up to date in a timely fashion (weekly, or within a few days of a game played)

They may, or may not, put the {{Maintained}} tag on the talk page and they are encouraged to join {{WikiProject College football}} but are not required to do so. Once 2 weeks have passed since relevant information needs to be updated (to include, but not limited to 2 weeks after a game played, or other major event(s)), the article shall be determined if someone else is willing to maintain the article or attempts to contact the major contribuiters (maintainers) to the article to encourage more input. If after 1 more week, no arrangement has been made to update and find a replacement maintainer (whether they used the {{Maintained}} tag or not), the article shall be {{AfD}}'ed. Ressurection from the same person(s) as before would require a committment to the {{WikiProject College football}} for several months before allowed, but newcomers would be encouraged to try with help from previous maintainers allowed and encouraged.
Did I forget anything? Add to it or modify it as needed. I don't own it. --Mecu 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I came across a template the NFL uses at the top of its Season-by-Season records. {{Start NFL SBS}} is the template and it uses {{end box}} at the end of the table. You can see it here. We could use something similar to this at the top of our schedule. That way every schedule will be formatted the same. Look at these templates as well: {{Start game list}} and {{Sports game}}. We could make our own versions of those.--NMajdanotalk 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Roster

I've started adding a roster to 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team. I'd appreciate any comments on the format (which was stolen from the NFL folk). TheMile 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I also like it. Along with Mecu though, I don't think you need to link even that deep. I'm not sure that the information on even most starters for many major football teams would deserve a page separate from the team page. For instance, if they had one great play in a season it would be good to have a note of it, but would not deserve a separate page. Z4ns4tsu 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying this one as well for the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team article. I shrunk the font size down to 90% as a personal preference. I like it the way it is. I have it ordered by number under position and only have wikilinks for existing articles.--NMajdanotalk 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled accross this template and I think it would be a good idea for us to have something of the sorts (omiting the flag, to start) for all rosters used. {{Football squad player}} --MECU?talk 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Depth Chart

Now that coaches are starting to talk about their expected starters, I've put together a tabular depth chart. I imagine it could be worked into a template if it enters wider use, as the markup is rather lengthy. Any comments or criticisms? -TheMile 19:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against depth chart(s). I don't think we need a complete roster of a team either, the top players at a position that are likely to play at that position (and only listed for their main position) should be done. Specifically, we don't need "Long Snapper", "Punt/Kick Returners", etc, position. I'm also not sure I like the red shirt image to signify the red shirt players. I think the 'RS ...' was perfectly fine. Is it going to matter in 5 years who was listed #2 or #1 on the depth chart at each position? No. But a list of the players that were really a part of the team would be. --MECU?talk 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In some cases it's a no brainer who's going to be number 1 (or number 2) at a position. If you have a 3-year starter senior returning and 3 other freshman for the job... but I also agree, depth charts are too fluid for usefulness in an encyclopedia. Would you want to have a template showing each depth chart for each week of the season? What do you then show at the end of the season? Are you just going to show it during the season? I do see the value in highlighting the starters (I like the way you did it with the gray), what do you do at the end of the season? Show the players that started the most? Highlight those who lettered at the position? --MECU?talk 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Coach stub

Ok, {{collegefootball-coach-stub}} has been created. We need to populate it so its creation will be justified. I'm going through the other lists right now and recategorizing. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdanotalk 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Concern about ratings

I'm not sure our current rating system (borrowed from the Military History project) is the best system. You will find that even that project is considering some changes.[2] My concern is that the quality scale seems to be effectively limited to a choice between "B Class" and "Start Class". We don't have control over the listing of GA articles, so we can't really go higher than "B Class" in our assessment. Stubs are already marked as stubs, so evaluating an article as a stub is redundant. Perhaps we should introduce another tier or two that is under our judgement? Another option would be to focus more on getting a peer review system going. I'm not sure we learn much about how to improve an article by just saying it is "Start Class" or "B Class". I'd like to see more actionable commentary on how the article can be improved. Johntex\^talk 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

(reset) Both of those use the exact same system, just in different ways. The way Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America uses the system is more of a peer review method, which I'm fine with using. I was going to object that we should do this after we initially rate everything, but it seems to be extra work, and if we're going to rate it and then go re-rate it, why not just rate it the final way first? So, the Assessment group should be a subset of the (college football) peer review group. Or, essentially the same group. So long as we initially define clear criteria to use when we classify, insofaras we should list what each player, coach, team, team-by-year, stadium, mascot, bowl, rivalry, trophy, tradition article should have in advance. --Mecu 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of article importance rating

There is some discussion of the "article importance" above in regards to team pages. (I think general team pages can be "high", but pages for specific years should never be "high" unless the team won the NC.) Anyways, I just added a few coaches and players that are in the College Football Hall of Fame, but are not common names: e.g. Zora G. Clevenger and Charlie Bachman. According to the criteria here, hall of famers are of "high" importance. Yet, another article I just added, Pappy Waldorf, who is even more well-known than the other two, was rated as "low" originally and then raised to "medium". Frankly, I think any Hall of Famer is as notable as the fifth down game, so the rating criteria are correct as written. But they are apparently not being applied as written. So, should the criteria for high be changed to something like "recent hall of famers" or "notable hall of famers" to account for this? (And who decides who is notable?) Kgwo1972 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you that the only team-year page that should be rated as High is the national champion's page, but even then it should be down-graded to Medium after a few years. As for Hall of Famers, I'm not inclined to list any of them as High unless they've really done something amazing. Hell, I wouldn't even put Bud Wilkinson as a High and he holds a record that has stood for over 60 years (thanks, Texas for preserving yet another OU tradition). Maybe I'm just comming at this from a different angle than the rest of the members of this project, but I think that the weight of our articles should be Medium becasue if it deserves an article on WikiPedia, the subject is already notable to some degree. So, High should be for very important things (recent Heisman winners, recent National Champions, major bowl games, big historical events, etc), Medium for almost everything else, Low for subjects with very little information, and Top for only two or three things (current season schedule, "Big 5" bowl games for the current year, any new BCS controversy/changes/bullsh*t that comes up). Z4ns4tsu 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think current and recent years should be high, especially for larger caliber (BCS playing or Top-25 finishing) teams. National Championship Team by year pages should be Top priority. All others should be Mid or Low based on how well they are. A page on the 2005 0-12 New Mexico team should be Low, if existing at all. As far as consistency in rating articles, we're just beginning. I literally put the assessment page together yesterday so we're all learning here and mistakes will happen. I believe the key item to take in assement, for now and that should be the driving principle is right on the assesment page: The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football. Thus, historical items (and important to college football) may be ranked Low, while more recent items (like Joel Klatt) would be ranked higher, even though in 20 years, Klatt may cease to be a page and the hall of famer will still be there. This seems to contradict WP:Recentism though. The guidelines were a stab at how it should be done and are a starting point and we're now discussing them. Saying the guidelines say hall of famers should be High isn't a valid argument. I further think Z4ns4tsu's system is okay, except that everything should start Low. Important events/people in college history should be medium, current important events should be High, and Top should be true, fundamental core college football (what a beginner would need to know or most heavily searched for items). --Mecu 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, so the criteria are a work in progress; I didn't fully appreciate that. I agree with Z4ns4tsu that the default for all articles should be low. And I can see how more recent events might be rated higher. But Joel Klatt is a bad example of a recent person being rated "high" for me - he is an undrafted quarterback who won no significant awards. I can't see how Klatt should be rated any higher than "low" even though he was recently in college. At best he works his way up to "medium," but I can't even see the argument for that. A person that works his way to "high" through by way of recency would be, say, Bill Snyder, who is not an all-time great up there with Paterno, Blaik, or Bear Bryant (all of whom should stay at "high"), but who was an active coach up until last season. Anyways, as far as hall of famers, I think the mere fact they are hall of famers makes them at least a "medium." Even the old ones, whose names are no longer recognizable. I think it should be the rare article that gets to high, somewhat akin to the standard for "Top" under the current draft. High should be for the Rose Bowl Game and hall of famers who a consensus acknowledge play a lasting role in college football lore. Kgwo1972 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Nevermind the stricken-out part; I see Klatt is rated at mid-level. Kgwo1972 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Would you put Vince Young and Mack Brown at high? Johntex\^talk 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's nice that you both agree with me, so for a change of pace I'm going to disagree...well, not really, but I did read over the criteria again and I've modified my opinion a little bit. Mainly, I paid attention to the lines that Mecu quoted from the assessment page. I really think that it mainly supports my orriginal view, but I'd like to add to it. The chances of a random person googling (did you see that that's officially a verb now?) for Joe Pa is a lot higher than for Bud Wilkinson, so that automatically puts his article at a higher priority for completeness and accuracy. However, it is also pretty likely that someone will search for statistics on the "new, red-hot freshman quarterback from Blah-blah U." That doesn't mean that we need to have up-to-the-minute stats on that QB, though. In fact, until he makes himself known, he prolly shouldn't even have an ariticle at all. So we have to stick with at least a two-factor process for deciding a rating. Higher ratings should go to articles that are both important and popular. Striking the ballance is where the difficulty comes in and the toes get stepped on. We've done a good job not getting mad at each other yet, and I think we'll keep it up, but remember to avoid personal attacks (or worse yet, Alma mater attacks) and fully explain your thoughts. There are only a handfull of us on this project right now, and we're going to need all of us to make it work. Ok, enough being sappy. Z4ns4tsu 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Right now, yes. I think both deserve a rating of High until at least the mid-point of this season. Z4ns4tsu 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the original topic - ratings - we really need to decide something. I just looked at Category:High-importance college football articles and there are some articles that are not high priority. For example, Chris Simms shouldn't even be here - he's a starter in the pros ... I think that means he isn't our's any more. Then, there's Civil War (college football game) and Civil War (college rivalry) (the latter shouldn't be here either). I don't know that anyone outside of Oregon has really cared about that rivalry in five years. (It's kind like VT-UVA - if we're both good, it's important, but the rivalry factor doesn't matter to anyone outside of Virginia.) Chicago Tribune Silver Football is the name of the Big 11's MVP trophy ... umm ... okay. Dave Meggett's article barely mentions his college career and as he played at two different 1AA schools, I doubt he is high priority for college football. Earle "Greasy" Neale's article doesn't mention his college career.

I think that high priority articles need to be those fundamental to college football itself (college football, BCS, if we ever get overtime split out from the generic overtime article, bowl games, etc), people who are legends and whose primary notability is college football (Bobby Bowden, JoePa), national title teams and seasons, and the current season itself. Just my opinion ... BigDT 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• While organization is great, I believe we are now getting to the point where we are spending more time discussing organization than actually working on articles. We are either over organizing or over complicating. --NMajdanotalk 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. No one is saying stop working on articles, we're just trying to sort out how to attack certain aspects of the project. The articles will wait for us. --Mecu 14:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mecu, it is far better to think through a system before we do work that may have to be redone later. Nothing in this organizational process keeps us from writing or imporoving articles. Johntex\^talk 15:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree with getting the organization done now rather than later. We have about a month and half until college football really ramps up in popularity, so if we hammer this out by next week, we can spend the rest of the time banging out quality articles. Now, about the criteria: overall, pretty good. I think more emphasis should be put on the timeliness of articles affecting their ranking (i.e. not every season page for a school is Mid-Class but only the one for this season. I made changes to the above table and highlighted them with italics.
    • Oops, forgot to sign it. Z4ns4tsu 15:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think your table is too weighted to popular rather than important. Also, it stresses the NFL too much. Also, I think that if Low is the default category, we should list it first to make this clear. Here is my pass at a system that stresses keeping most articles in Low. Kgwo1972 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Marcus Vick of higher importance than Reggie Bush? I think even VT alumni would concede that's wrong. VegaDark 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I was thinking Michael Vick. I have changed it. Kgwo1972 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't make sense that Top is at the bottom and Low is at the top. Plus, I'd say Reggie Bush is popular and important (important is a given since he won the Heisman) but popular since there is media about him and he was a 1st round draft pick and now in the NFL. Please re-read this segment as to why popular is ALSO a consideration and may outweight importance!: Ratings attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football. --Mecu 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In addition, OJ Simpson and Joe Montana as core subjet matter? No way. They are specific persons and cannot meet the criteria. A beginner into college football should learn about these guys before they learn about the BCS? or the current season? They are definately important, but not popular anymore. --Mecu 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the second system better, but Joe Montana and O.J.Simpson cannot be top. Maybe we can have a numbered system, 1 being low, 2 being mid ... That would put 1 at the top and 4 at the bottom so we don't have top at the bottom. Just a thought. Bornagain4 02:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• If someone's primary notability is from pro football (like Joe Montana), I can't imagine them being high priority for the COLLEGE football wikiproject. If they made a quick exit from the pros (Eric Crouch) or even if they have been in the pros for a long time, but everyone knows them for their college time (Herschel Walker, Ty Detmer), I would put them up high, but really, the top ranking ought to be for those things essential to the project. Like some others above, I agree that this isn't really something worth wasting a lot of time on. I'd be perfectly content to see us either (a) get rid of it or (b) instead of ranking things by priority, sort them by topic BigDT 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Has this discussion concluded? Are the importance and quality descriptions on the Assessment page accurate and should we follow that?--NMajdanotalk 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A new way of looking at things

I am finding the discussion above a little difficult to follow. I suggest a new way of looking at things. Instead of trying to come up with text to describe each level, let's figure it out by examples. Let's list some categories of pages, then we can each place a recommendation as to where you think that item should rank.
Here is how I think this should work:

• If you agree with my assesement of that category of article - just add your name right after mine.
  
• If you disagree (Eg. I said "High" and you think it is "Mid"), simply add a new line after mine with your proposed ranking and your name. The next person then agrees with one of us and adds their name to the appropriate line, or they add a third view
  

Here we go:

• Pages generically related to understanding the game of college football. These pages will probably never change unless the system dramatically changes. They will be top priority to college football for the forseeable future. (Ex: college football, touchdown, fumble, punt, bowl game, Bowl Championship Series)

• Pages related in a generic way to the current season (Ex: 2007 Fiesta Bowl, 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season)

• The main football article (if it exists) of the top 25 football programs of all time (by winning percentage - Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas...)

• The main football article (if it exists) of all other Division I programs

• An article on any specific team season (Ex 2004 USC Trojans, 2005 Texas Longhorn football team if they won or shared (AP, Coaches or BCS only) a national title since 1995.

• An article on the specific teams about to play in the BCS bowls (once known) or the ones that just played in the most recent BCS bowls through the off-season.

• An article on any other specific team's single season (all 2006 team seasons would be in this group until the BCS bids are announced)

• An article on a specific person in the college football hall of fame or who is a recipient of a major college award (Heisman + ...?) or was the subject of a media frenzy.

• An article on any other specific player, coach or person

• An article on a football stadium or other facility

• An article on a specific rivaly or rivalry trophy or a specific historic game

• An article on a bowl game played for at least 10 years, and/or in current existence (Ex. Rose Bowl Game, Cotton Bowl)

• An article on a very well known team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. (Eg Bonfire, Sooner Schooner, Hook 'em Horns)

• Any other team tradition, mascot, saying, hand-signal, etc. that has been in existence at least 10 years but is not generally well known.

• Any tradition less than 10 years old

• A current coach of a BCS/Top25 team (eg Mack Brown).

• A player or other coach that is current (college or NFL) but not an award winner (at either level)/Top25 (e.g., Dan Hawkins, Mark Mangino).

• All other historical players and coaches covered for reference (Joel Klatt).

• A major conference (ACC, Big Ten).

• A mid-major conference (MAC, C-USA).

• A defunct conference (Big 8).

• A DI-AA conference.

• Add a new category if I left anything out.

I'd like to lobby against using Top for the "major conference (ACC, Big Ten)" items. I believe Top should be items that would require daily review from several members and/or constant edits. The conference articles will be fairly static and (should) contain more information than just about football, which shouldn't dominate the article either. Thus, it wouldn't really require the daily attention. I further don't think it should be required for someone new to college football learning to read about conferences in their first strides. Knowing about the conference system, sure, but reading about each (major) conference? As a side note, I think we can begin discussing items where there is no clear consenses (should we define consenses as 75% or more?). --Mecu 12:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've compiled the results of this list here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Classification determinations.--NMajdanotalk 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Get Started?

Since things seem to have stalled, I'd like to propose that the items that were accepted (and now on the assessment page) be generally applied. Other items that fit in some of the other areas should be rated probably as above. But, in all cases, the rating is up to the view of the assessor. If the view is much different than from the general ideas agreed upon above (ie, if I wanted to rate Dan Hawkins as "Top") then justification must be given. Disagreements should be discussed specifically on that individual article's talk page. In all cases, no one who has ties to the article should be rating (ie, I shouldn't rate a Colorado item) unless it is fairly clear or I don't seem to be going against the general consensus. If I do and someone else applies a different standard, their views should outweight mine, as long as there is some justification given. I know that's clear as mud, but does everyone generally agree? --MECU?talk 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have these determinations been translated on the Assessment page?--NMajdanotalk 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For consensus, I'd say that if there is an alternative viewpoint held by just one person with at least 4 people voting, that's consensus. As for my example. Let's say I rate article BLEH "High" and it fits the guideline. Someone else comes along and see's that the rating no longer applies to the origional guideline, so they change it to "Mid" because it now fits that guideline. No discussion needed or entry on talk page. "Update Rating" would be all that's needed in the edit summary to justify - as long as they did things right. Let's say coach of Texas get fired and ends up at Troy. No longer needs to be rated High, but there could be argument for it since he's still a promenent coach, so they could hash it out. I'm all for whatever these get rated, that it's probably correct the first time (assuming someone has the project best intentions in mind, and not just promoting their team) so changing shouldn't happen too much anyways. I converted the items from long ago over to the assessment page, so they should be correct unless votes since then have added items that I didn't copy that weren't in consensus. So, someone should doublecheck thing and edit it to make it make more sense that I seem to be able to do. I guess it's now time to start the peer review department and building the tables that are empty at the bottom of the assessment page. If you volunteer to peer review a page, please list it, the ratings and your justifications on that page. This could give us a good starting point of how much work we really need to do. Clear as mud still I hope. MECU?talk 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been asking around about the Comment field on the worklist and I'm getting some answers. For some reason, my test page wasn't picked up by the bot but I don't know if the bot just missed it or if I did it wrong. The Comment feature is not documented but somebody said today they would work on some documentation on it as he implements it on another WikiProject. Go here for the discussion.--NMajdanotalk 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard Formats

I'd like to suggest that each type of article contain a standard format of information that should be included to be considered a complete article, to be used during the peer review process. Missing imformation would mean the article could not qualify for a FA (or GA?) status. --Mecu 14:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Player
  • {{Infobox gridiron football person}} filled out with Image (if applicable)
  • {{Persondata}} filled out
  • Birth and death dates, birth and death city.
  • School(s) played for with compilation of stats in a table (need to standardize tables)
  • Awards received, mention also if they were a finalist for the awards, include All-American too, HOF info
  • High School career (should be fairly short section)
  • NFL Information (if applicable)
• Coach (if they were a player, player information also)
  • {{succession box}} complete with all head coaching positions in College/NFL listed
  • {{College coach infobox}} filled out with image
  • {{Persondata}} filled out
  • Table of year-by-year coaching info/records with summary at bottom
• School football (eg, Colorado Buffaloes football)
  • Table of year-by-year results of full schedule
  • Table of all coaches by years with summary of record
  • Section on Major player/coaches from the school
  • Section on any National Championships year(s)
  • Table of Bowl records
  • Table of year-by-year summary result
  • Retired numbers
• Yearly School page (eg 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team)
  • Pre-season comments/awards
  • Schedule (using table and format discussed elsewhere)
  • Roster (at least 2-deep, complete preferred)
  • Week-by-week discussion of games (see 2005 Texas Longhorn football team)
  • Full stats table (minimum stat leaders)
  • Post-season comments/awards

Discussion

• You're wanting the full historical record of every year's win/loss record? That is quite the daunting task.--NMajdanotalk 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think this is a very daunting list. These are all good things to look for, but I don't think these are minimums - these are more like the Gold Standard List. As Nmajdan says, a year-by-year set of results is quite a table for most teams, and I doubt any of our team articles currently go into much detail on that team's national championship seasons. Also, not all players will go to the NFL, so the {{Infobox gridiron football person}} is not appropriate for all players. Perhaps we need to make our own variant of that template? Johntex\^talk 14:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• If this is a gold standard list, do we want to include yearly rosters, starter lists, or two-deeps? The latter two are fluid and subjective, so maybe not, but I wanted to put it out there. TheMile 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I saw, for teams with yearly pages (i.e. 2005 Texas Longhorn football team), I wouldn't be against including a two-deep roster on there.--NMajdanotalk 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Why not shoot for the moon? I agree, some of this is idealized, but should be have an ideal and work towards it? Why set the bar low? I would think that this list would be the criteria of an article that could reach FA status. If an article is missing a few items, then it could still be GA status, but it would help reviewers with what to look for, what's missing, aside from "expand content". Plus, anyone creating an article would have a standard of what to work on/towards. --Mecu 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created a potential template in my userspace for the Yearly Team pages. Let me know what you think and I will move it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format.--NMajdanotalk 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FG made/missed and XP made/missed from <20, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50+. If you want to make the argument that FG detailed stats aren't important, I'll apply that then to the full kickoff and punter stats as well. --MECU?talk 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Allay general copyright concerns

Obviously, the CFB Data Warehouse as well as athletic dept websites, media guides (very, very useful for individual school info) are the Bibles for non-copyrightable information. Actually, let me clarify: how they arrange the data on their page is copyrighted (but you would have to program a lot into Wikipedia to make it look alike), however the data (schools, score, location) is not copyrightable. This is analygous to the landmark copyright cases about copyrights and phonebooks (you can short-hand reference it as Feist). Anyhoo...good to know my degree was worth something. But back to media guides for a second: most are intended to disseminate PR info so, at worst, you can probably fair-use most of the content as a press kit. --Bobak 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Also, a quick note on fair use of press kit info: the concept of fair use includes the concept of how much material is used. We can't just take an entire press kit and copy its prose over to Wikipedia. Even smaller sections need to be appropritely cited to avoid issues of plagarism. Again, when creative work has gone into writing something, that would not be a case of simply copying information, which is what the Feist case covers. - Johntex\^talk 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I opened up a can of questions. Let me see: (1) Media Guide Images: Johntex brought up the key point of publicity photo tags for fair use. I concur with him that you should read the fair use page on Wikipedia with the thought in mind that media guides are intended as publicity books for the press. However, don't overuse the images --the use of a fair use image should be directly related to the article (reference to a key player in an article, an article about a key player, an article about a specific game, an article about a location prominently featured: there's a bit of art to balancing what's in the photo with what can be used under fair use). (2) How much of a Media kit: indeed, use a media guide to supply facts, not supply copy (text). Like all Wikipedia articles you should put things into your own words unless it's an important quote or you're assembling a data table. If you get data that might otherwise be only available in the media guide (or would require citation anyway on Wikipedia), then cite the Media Guide (which is a notable cite). (3) Lists: Indeed, the creativity that goes into a creating a list is what is copyrightable. Thus, if you copy a list of things that were ordered through the creativity of an individual (i.e.: Chuck's top 100 movies), then you have a violation. However, if you're simply taking the data set that's been compiled from public information (football records, phone numbers, box office grosses) then you can get away with arranging them in the same, logical order, just not copying any distinguishing additions (CFB uses those hideous colors, for example: don't use them). I think everyone is on the right track, and I hope that above clarifies things a bit. --Bobak 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I got busted. Not on the test image used above, but on images I was using on 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team page tagged as {{Promotional}}. See here for some discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Yearly_team_pages_format#Fair_use_images. --MECU?talk 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Navigation template

I made a quick navigation template to use. It will be especially useful as we progress out of organization mode and into edit mode. I modeled it after {{WPNOVELS}} and {{WPMILHIST}}. It is stored in my userspace as of now until people can look it over and suggest any comments. I will eventually create it here: {{WPCFB}}.--NMajdanotalk 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rose Bowl Good Article

I nominated Rose Bowl Game for good article status. Bornagain4 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Master School Table

Would a master school table be useful? Something like the following (with all NCAA D1A teams? or do it for each level each team?): I think it would pool together information that's scattered around and show what exactally is missing from certain schools. --Mecu 17:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also this page List of NCAA Division I-A Football Programs. --Mecu 18:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(removed sample table so it doesn't get used/updated/modifed by accident --Mecu 01:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ) Above table is a sample, please add teams to Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/MasterTeamTable

Portal

It having been 7 days since Mecu proposed a portal, I have created one. Please have at it! Johntex\^talk 07:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Team bowl game history articles

As of right now there are only 2 team bowl game history articles, and I think we should agree on a naming convention for them before more are made. As of right now we have List of University of Oregon football bowl games and List of Oregon State University football bowl games, but I think it may be better if we used the nicknames instead of the official school name and also if we added history, i.e. List of Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history. Or perhaps Oregon State Beavers football bowl game history and leave off the list at the beginning? Thoughts? VegaDark 21:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think it is necessary to say "football bowl games." If there is any possibility of confusion about whether "bowl game" refers to football, the article itself can make it clear. Also, whether "list" is included in the title depends on whether it is a list or an article. If a list, then it should be List of Oregon State Beavers bowl games. If an article, then I'm OK with Oregon State Beavers bowl game history. Kgwo1972 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A separate article for bowl games .really. seems extraneous ... I'd suggest adding the table to the main athletics or football article ... BigDT 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Need opinion

I need some opinions for list layout here: talk. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdanotalk 15:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

New idea

I have an idea for a slightly different assessment scale for our WikiProject. I got the idea from WikiProject Indigenous people. Here she be.

Bornagain4 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an issue I've thought about with regard to our tagging of NCAA conference articles (i.e., Big East Conference). I think we have to remember that the conference pages are not SOLELY about college football and that the conference pages represent ALL sports. I just don't feel as though we should overdo the football section of the ACC, for example, when basketball is equally, if not more, prominent in that conference. Just my two cents. Like the new scale, BTW! Masonpatriot 22:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

UK College

Sorry to ask but I presume this College Football Project only applies to Colleges in the USA and taking part in NCAA competition. I know that in the UK we have a College league as well are we to be fitted in or ignored? Thanks, BCAFL 1:25pm GMT

Year Pages Template

Do we really want year pages templates like the LSU one seen on LSU Tigers football? I am very against this since I don't think it's a good use of resources, really needless information, a succession box could be used instead, and the pages links could be just linked like 2006 LSU Tigers football team with a Main Article or something of the sort in the same section. --MECU?talk 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:LSUTigersFootball

Template:LSUTigersFootball has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU?talk 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:LonghornsFootball

Template:LonghornsFootball has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU?talk 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:LonghornsQuarterback

Template:LonghornsQuarterback has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MECU?talk 17:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Current roster with flags

Is it typical for articles about college football teams to list the current roster with the flags of the state from which the players hail? See, for example Notre Dame football. If this is a standard format, where is the appropriate place to discuss it? Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It just looks really cluttered with all the flags. They are unnecessary. Every college has athletes from many states.--NMajdanotalk 18:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the flags are unnecessary and detract from the page. Johntex\^talk 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the flags. --MECU?talk 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Player and Coaches Lists

I've stumbled accross some lists of items I think are useless. Such information could be contained on the school's football article, if important enough. List of Penn State Football Players for example, but also List of Penn State Football All-Americans and List of Nebraska Cornhuskers football coaches. And these are the only ones that I can find at the moment. The only argument I can see for these, is the prevent the football article from becoming too large (like the Colorado one is now). Do we want these? Should there be a standard format for each? Should these be listed with {{WikiProject College football}} under NA, or should these be classified? Should they allow current roster information? Who decided these are key players for 2006? --MECU?talk 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Also this template {{SEC football coaches}}. --MECU?talk 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Video Games in WP:CFB

Should items like NCAA Football 07, NCAA Football series, NCAA Football 06, and NCAA Football series soundtracks (and so forth) be a part of the WP CFB? I'm mostly convinced they shouldn't be, as it's more a video game than about college football. They certainly shouldn't be rated Mid-importance. --MECU?talk 12:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Template: CFBlink

I have created {{CFBlink}}. Please read the instructions, specifically on the talk page. Let me know of any improvements, comments, suggestions, critisisms you have. Only Colorado and Colorado State are currently populated. I want to see if this is useful (I'd see it especially useful on items like the Poll pages) before I spend the time to fully populate the items. --MECU?talk 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:POPUP

I'd like to reccommend WP:POPUP to everyone out there. Someone just let me know about it, so I'm letting everyone else know about it. It's quite easy to install as well. --MECU?talk 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yearly Team Performances

I understand that there are a lot of things that are somewhat notable in a season but I think we should start limiting the 200X University football. I actually made one for GT's upcoming season but in retrospect I see it as too much. Maybe we could consolidate them into the actual football team pages. What do y'all think? - Excaliburhorn 17:35, 21 July 2006

USC year pages

I hope those are finished. They all contain information that appears to have been just copy/pasted from another website. The 2003 USC Trojans football team article merely states "Won Orange Bowl." These either need to be updated and formatted as agreed upon or deleted.--NMajdanotalk 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Another image for logos

I found this image Image:Football helmet gerald g 01.svg today on openclipart.org (their images are PD). Would someone who has software to do svg be willing to recolor it to something less flashy than green? I think this image would be nice to try out for the stub images. The football is wonderful for the UBXes and wikiproject tags ... but it looks a little small on the stub and I thought it would be nice to try this one.

stubCategory:American football stubs

Any thoughts? This would be something nice to distinguish us from WP:NFL ... but it needs a less obtrusive color ... BigDT 18:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

REQ: Please review before requesting Featured status.

All, we are nearing completion of 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings. Upon completion, we will request this be a Featured List. Please review the page and make sure there are no grammatical mistakes or factual mistakes. Coding all these tables has been tedious and I would hate it if I messed up by putting the wrong color in a cell or something minor like that. Any help would be appreciated.--NMajdanotalk 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, this article has been promoted to Featured status. Thanks to everyone for your help. Please feel free to help update the 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings article as we will be putting this up for featured status after the season concludes.--NMajdanotalk 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiQuote

Hello, I started an article on Wikiquote about college football. The article is currently being considered for deletion. If you have additioanl quotes that should be added, please make them to the article. If you have a wikiquote login and wish to participate in the deletion discussion, it is here. Note that deletion discussions are not votes, so please be prepared to discuss and not simply vote an opinion. Johntex\^talk 02:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Review before submit for GA Status

I'd like to submit Bowl Championship Series for GA status. It's quite well written and has some great content. The only area I think it may be weak in is the Controversies area. Also, maybe the {{future}} or {{Future sport}} should be added to the Future section? Please review and provide feedback on the whole article. Thank you. --MECU?talk 01:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose

Hey, I think other people have already caught and reverted his edits, but keep an eye out for edits from 64.81.90.226 on your pages. He has been hitting a lot of school athletics pages in the Big 12. I know Johntex already caught a few and fixed them. Just a "heads-up." Z4ns4tsu 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed policy clarification

• I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Contest

Would anyone be interested in a college football pickem contest for the project? We could use the Yahoo! version unless someone knows of another version that is good/better. --MECU?talk 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles

I was going through some of the unassessed college football articles and assessing them and I found several that would be ready for a good article nomination with only the slightest of effort. Whether it be some prose alterations, more thorough citation, slight structure changes, etc. It was times like that that I wished the quality rankings went Stub>Start>B>A>GA>FA. But, they don't. I would've rated the article A if I felt it was almost ready for GA. However, I had to rank it B. So there are some Bs that are ready for GA and some Bs that are not (but were still better than Start). So, I think we should start going through the B category and getting those ready for GA nomination.--NMajdanotalk 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the creator and so far prime mover for the Ohio State article. In the case of citations I wonder if you might not mean "reduce the number" since I'm at fifty now with half of the history subarticle to go. Speaking of which, when I'm done I'm going to write a synopsis/referral and make that segment a main article "History of Ohio State Buckeyes football". Also I may do the same for the Buckeye MVP list and NFL list. I did not contribute the MVP list but somebody went to considerable effort and I've left it alone. That will reduce the overall article to a readable size and shape. Any other suggestions please let me know at my talk page. I started this article to present facts to the reader needing information without being a comic book. Usertalk Buckboard.

I'll bring it up for discussion before making a separate main article (I've had it done to me for sections of history articles that got pretty lengthy). As for any GA nomination, I'll leave that to other more objective members than myself. Thanx for all the advice.--Buckboard 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article already has a list of things that need to be done to get it to GA from a previous failed GA nomination. I may take a look at this next week unless somebody beats me to it.--NMajdanotalk 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Team Userboxes

I've noticed a trend recently of some admins deleting user boxes. This has usually been addressed by one user taking on the task of putting the german solution into effect in their own userspace. Do we want to head off the possibility of these boxes being deleted and go ahead and implement TGS now? If so, I'll get some space set up, but I'll need help moving all of the boxes and getting redirects put into place. Thoughts? z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I lost my cowbell userbox already. I consider it vandalism, pure and simple, and admin abuse, no matter what the rules say, but what can one do and no big deal. My Buckeye userbox is another matter. Its sole purpose is to let another with the same interest know they can call on me for assistance. However, I'm fuzzy on the whole German solution concept here despite reading TGS and this discussion ad nauseum. Be patient and walk me through this. What does my user page wind up looking like? Does the box disappear or what? Usertalk: Buckboard --Buckboard 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team Articles

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Team Articles to facilitate the creation of team articles and to coordinate acquiring photos. I went on and put basketball and football on here just as a matter of convenience (so much of the information is duplicated) although once the table is complete, I can easily run a macro to split off the basketball data into its own page.

There are two things I would like to accomplish with it:

1. This page gives us a master list of articles where we are missing athletics, mascot, football, or basketball articles.
2. It shows us areas where we need to work on finding free photos. The football season is coming up. Please, if you attend games, bring your camera. If you don't attend games, check out message boards after games. Lots of people will upload their own photos and, if asked, would be willing to release them under the GFDL. Heck, some of them may even become regular contributors. It's important to remember, though, to make sure that the photos they are posting are their own (not media, not something they found on someone else's message board) and that they agree to release the image under the GFDL (or another free license), not just give permission for it to be "used on Wikipedia".

Please feel free to help fill out the table. I think we ought to have redlinked articles where none exists - just make sure that it doesn't exist under another name. (For example, there might be a "Virginia Tech Hokies" article or a "Virginia Tech athletics" article.) BigDT 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on worklist

I finally got a new feature working on the WikiProject template: {{WikiProject College football}}. As many of you have noticed, on the Wikiproject sidebar there are two new links: Worklist and Log. The Log shows changes to the class and importance rankings as defined in the template above. The worklist shows all articles with that template and what the class and importance ranking are. Now, we have a way of including comments in that worklist so we can better track what needs to be done to get that article to the next classification whether it be B, Good Article or Featured Article. I've added a snippet of code to the WikiProject template that takes you to the /Comments subpage of an article's talk page. Whatever is included in that subpage will be shown in the worklist, so please keep this list short. The more general comments should be included here with more specific instructions on the talk page (such as a {{to-do}} list). For instance, there are comments on the sub page of the Vince Young article (as soon here: Talk:Vince Young/Comments) and those comments can be seen on the worklist.--NMajdanotalk 18:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1998 Vols

Any chance on an article for them? They were national champions after all. I feel that if the Sooners get an article for their 2006 season (which hasn't even started!) the Vols National Championship team certainly deserve one. Dlong 01:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical Pages needing work

College Football All-America Team and Bowl game are rated stubs and Top priority. In the absense of a collaboration of the month, I'm saying these two articles need to be improved and upgraded to B-class by the start of the season. So if you have some time, stop in and help update the articles. Thank you. MECU?talk 20:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Add college football news to your user page:

{{Portal:College football/College football news/Template}} transcludes the news from Portal:College football into a friendly template that you can add to your user page. See my page for an example. If you would like to place it in a sidebar over on the right of your userpage, use the following code:

  {| align="right" width="250" bgcolor="white"  |-  |{{Portal:College football/College football news/Template}}  |}  

BigDT 05:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rec.sport.football.college

How could the newsgroup that has piles of information about the sport (as well as a ton of other stuff) be deleted as an article? it helped me learn the sport as an Undergrad (egads) 12 years ago or so.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drjudsjr (talk o contribs) 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to take and upload photos at games

Is anyone else going to a game this weekend? Please take photos and upload anything worth using to Commons. Also, please add any photos you take to an appropriate Commons article/gallery. See Commons:Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Commons:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Commons:Duke University, and Commons:College football for some examples. (If no gallery exists that is appropriate, create one!)

If you don't have a camera or can't make it to games, there's another way you can contribute. After any game, most of the active message boards will have people who went to the game that post photos on the message board. REMEMBER: you can't just use their photo without asking and even if they say, "you can use it on Wikipedia", that's not enough. If someone posts a photo or photos that you feel would be useful, email them, tell them about Wikipedia, ask them if they are actually the author of the photo (remember, it's possible that they are just posting something they found on another message board), and ask them if they would either release the photo into the public domain or release it under the GFDL.

Let's make the most of this football season and get some quality, free, media for our articles. BigDT 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the infoboxes on the team-year pages

I believe this needs to be made into an actual template along with some minor changes. For one, the grid lines need to go. Keep horizontal lines, but delete the vertical lines. I'm going to look more into this later, but if it is going to be used on all the team-year pages, a standard needs to be set.--NMajdanotalk 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at a template. See User:Mecu/SeasonTemplate. Comments? Suggestions? Improvements? Please make them here. MECU?talk 16:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this thing ready to go live yet, Mecu?--NMajdanotalk 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I might curse myself for suggesting this since I think it will be hard to implement, but should we add a field for BCS ranking? I don't think Harris poll ranking should be added though, but I could do that as well. --MECU?talk 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mascots & Nickname Articles

I am attempting to fill in the mascots on the Team Articles chart, and I am looking for some thoughts on a part of this. For many teams (for example, Baylor) have a seperate costumed mascot and a live mascot (in Baylor's case, Bruiser & Judge). Should we have seperate pages for each in these cases, or a combined page, as many of them (with the possible exception of Auburn's War Eagle) come from the same origins? Looking for thoughts on this matter.... ToddC4176 21:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2004 NCAA Division I-A football rankings

I've created the bare bones for the 2004 NCAA Division I-A football rankings page, if anyone wants to help fill in the tables that would be great. VegaDark 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be harder to create since it'll be harder finder sources with a week-by-week account of all major polls. Here are some preseason polls.--NMajdanotalk 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Script for rankings tables

Okay, so we have a really good start on the season rankings pages with 2005 already a featured list and 2006 coming along nicely. We also recently got started on 2004 and it's about 10% complete...maybe less. I've been thinking about other cool things that we could do with these tables, though, and I came up with an idea that I want to bounce off of this group before I start trying to implement it. I think it would be really neat if you could click on a cell in the table and then all other cells for that team would be highlighted so you could easily see how a team moved in the rankings. I'll start the brainstorming here and feel free to jump in and add your thoughts.

• Requirements
  • Should be built in javascript so that it matches the other scripts on WP
  • Should have as low as possible server load...javascript and vbscript both have none, so that's good
  • Should not have to click on team's name or have each instance a hyperlink (aesthetics mostly)

• Problems
  • Would have to redo all the tables and name each cell (probably)
  • Would have to figure out how to read contents of cell and match the correct team name no matter the record or number of votes (regular expression on the cell value almost definitely)
  • Would have to attach to the page somehow (no idea about WP policy on custom scripts)
  • Would take a ton of work to get it going and a lot of sandbox testing before putting it live
  • Have to make sure that adding the script wouldn't change 2005's featured list status

Anyway, add your thoughts and comments. I can write it, but if anyone is a javascript god, it would go faster 'cuz I'm not. I do PHP and vbscript, but javascript is a bit different and I haven't really worked with it much. z4ns4tsu\^talk 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

2006 AP -Week1 1-Ohio State 2-Texas 3- ... -Week2 1-Texas 2-Ohio State 3- ... So that each week, someone just has to type it out on the page. The bot then can put it in the right place, link it, color it rightly, and so forth. It could also check it daily to see if there's some vandalism that us humans didn't catch. Or what about a template for each 1-25? Just pass a few variables and it would make editing easier. I could put that together today. We wouldn't have to go back and redo the existing ones either. Course, tables go horizontal in data but we'd want it to go vertical. I'd have to think on that one. MECU?talk 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

College athletic programs infobox template

Hey, I've created Template:Infobox college athletics, based on an infobox at USC Athletics. It's not football-specific, but it seems sufficient for pages like Missouri Tigers, which for most teams includes all the information on their football programs. If anyone has any suggestions or alterations for it, I'd appreciate your input. I've added it to a few athletic program pages, and will add it to more over the next few days. -Elmer Clark 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month

I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Collaboration of the Month department. I don't care to run it if someone else wants that charge. Nonetheless, please participate and help out. --MECU?talk 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Rankings Standard

I'd like to propose that if a single ranking is used in an article, that the Coaches Poll be listed. If two are listed, then Coaches and AP Polls be listed, with the Coaches Poll first. Having a standard applied to all articles will make more sense. While there may be exceptions to just listing the AP Poll (ie, split championships), it should then be clearly listed that it is an AP Poll. Otherwise, it should be generally stated that the Coaches Poll is used (such as in the schedule table on the season pages) and if both are used, then it stated which is used where (ie: (Coaches/AP) ). Further, switching the rankings from coaches to AP should be avoided to make any team look better. --MECU?talk 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Participants list

It may be helpful somewhere to note the specialties of participants (teams, plays, NCAA rules...) Rkevins82 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All those specialties are just guesses, btw (except mine, I know that I'm bad at spelling). What do you think? z4ns4tsu\^talk 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ever heard the term "Directional Michigan"?

An article explaining the term, origin, etc. is being put through a deletion nomination (for the sake of full disclosure, I started the article). The main argument seems to be that no one in college football uses it. I (obviously) challenge that notion, however please share your opinion, for or against. Your opinions are your own, I won't take anything personally --I just people who actually (ostensibly) pay attention to CFB to have some input, then I'll be more comfortable with any result. My position is stated on the AfD page. --Bobak 14:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP! LSU pages being deleted

Someone has deemed the LSU season pages, including the National Championship 2003 season and the current 2006 season pages, delete worthy. I don't think they should be deleted. I would appreciate any help you guys could give me to help keep these pages on Wikipedia.

• Yes, they are hitting the Longhorn pages also. I hope this won't gain steam. Some of these articles contain a lot of content. 2005 Texas Longhorn football team has 80 sources, which is more than many Featured Articles. The link to read the discussion and/or voice an opinion on deleting these pages is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team. Johntex\^talk 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• OK, the AfD nomination has been withdrawn by the original nominator. The person who closed the AfD discussion is reluctant to take the time to remove all the AfD tags from all the effected articles and they have asked for help.[5] Can you please remove the AfD nomination tags from these articles if you encounter them? Please also place the following on the Talk page of the article:

• I removed all AFD tags and added the nomination withdrawn tags -Davis Lee 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

wow. I have contrubuted to alot of the LSU pages. Someone just trying to target this project. The community decided to keep alll the articles. --Zonerocks 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Major work to do

OK, the above AfD nomination is winding down, which is great, but let's see if we can turn that AfD into a positive for us. As Nmajdan has pointed out, our articles on 2005 USC Trojans football team and 2006 USC Trojans football team need major work. We can certainly have more dicsussion about what team seasons need their own articles and which do not, but I hope we can all agree that both of these articles are important to the project and should be kept. (2005 played for National Title, 2006 team is ranked second at close to the half-way point). Let's expand those articles! I have left a note at the USC Trojans page also.Johntex\^talk 16:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Firefox 2

Has anyone else checked out Firefox version 2? It has a built in spell-checker that highlights unrecognized and misspelled words. Pretty useful for editing here. z4ns4tsu\^talk 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back cable!

Today I finally get cable tv back in my home after being without for almost two months. I'll finally be able to actually watch football games again and maybe be more useful to the project. Anyway, not that it's really important to anyone other than me, but I felt like sharing. z4ns4tsu\^talk 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We Are Marshall

The upcoming movie, We Are Marshall, about the plane crash that killed the entire Marshall University football team and coaching staff in 1970 is getting a lot of mention on tonight's football game on ESPN2. I've added a stub for Jack Lengyel (the real life coach who is a key character in the movie). Given that Wikipedia is going to get lots of hits from people googling as it comes closer to the time of the release of the movie, it might be a good idea if we have articles for Rick Tolley and anything else that might be of interest on the topic. BigDT 01:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dorrell as MID, Ty as LOW

Why is Karl Dorrell's article mid-importance, and Tyrone Willingham's article low-inportance? Not only does Ty have the better record currently, but he means more to the sport, no? Thanks for your reply! --68.190.212.208 04:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Logo Database

I just discovered a logo database at: [6] There are quite a few logos, though there are some gaps. Even bowl games are included. There are even historical logos and it gives years of when the logo was used. Remember, if you use any of these it must be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) and used under Fair Use thus requiring a justification. If anyone has a good "stock" justification, could you please post it here? I uploaded the Navy logo Image:United State Naval Academy Logo-sports.gif so we'll see how that goes. (Yes, I know I typoed States) --MECU?talk 18:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think there's any question that those logos are allowed. Using A's logo to illustrate A is without question permitted. Using A's logo to illustrate B is not. BigDT 04:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Deletion because they classifiy them as "Replaceable"

I have had several images come up that people say are replaceable. But the key is that it's not reasonable for me to search the internet for a decent image of the head coach. One person had argued that 50000 fans attend each game. But the odds that they take a picture of the head coach (who does that?) and upload the image to the internet and are willing to release them are asinine. Using the university/athletic department official bio picture is perfectly acceptable. However, they don't seem to get it. Can someone help me fight this battle? You can see the images that are disputed on my talk page: User talk:Mecu. I noticed the user who deleted Johntex's image that was disputed also just deleted mine, so this might be a wider-spread problem. I also think consolidating all the discussion in one place would help so each image doesn't have to get fought over and over. --MECU?talk 13:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree --particularly on players and coaches (stadiums are different and easier to get). For the record, capturing the photo I got of Patrick Turner was far more difficult than I thought it was going to be (of any player). He was in the background of a high-res photo and I was able to crop it. It honestly looks like he was looking right at me, but that's highly doubtful. Thankfully we spanked Stanford so bad that the team felt like hanging around with the visitors afterwards. --Bobak 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Bowden

The Jeff Bowden article was a copy/paste of his FSU bio. It has now been deleted at my request and I have started on a stub. If you are looking for something to do, please consider helping with this article as he is in the news right now and is going to be a big search term for the next few weeks. BigDT 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Terms on {{NCAA DI-A Conferences}} template

X96lee15 has objected to the use of the term "Mid-major" to describe the non-BCS conferences on the template citing that it is derogatory. If you have an opinion on the matter, please drop by the talk page and voice it. z4ns4tsu\^talk 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bowl Games

What's our policy for linking to schools in bowl game articles? Should we link to:

1. The university article? Probably the highest quality of our options, but may be the least relevant.
2. The school's athletics article? May not be of high quality, but is getting more relevant
3. The football team's page, if they have one? For example, 2006 California Golden Bears football team. May not be of high quality, but the most relevant link. The above linked page is a great example of what a good page should look like.

Furthermore, I think we should have a Manual of Style for Bowl game articles, in regards to linking, what the layout of the page should be like, what section headers should read like, etc. I think this would be helpful for helping maintain bowl articles. Thoughts?

Recruiting

(I archived things to make this page smaller) How should we handing recruiting? Should there be a general page with only the most important players listed (top 10 in country)? We could have 2007 NCAA Football National Signing Day that links to the highest-profiles with then summaries for each school and rankings from each position and/or overall rankings of school recruiting classes. Should each team season page be allowed to list the recruiting? Should it go at the end since there is recruiting during the season, but signing day and most recruiting happens after the season. How much is okay? Do you list every recruit that is potential? Only list if the verbal (and stay listed if they de-commit since that still is notable?) Is it okay to create an article on a player like Mitch Mustain (who survived an AfD prior to committing by no consensus)? I think top 10 recruits would be okay to have articles (not all 5-stars, those that are top 10 in the nation overall -- not even top 10 in their position in the country), but articles on each recruit may be weak. It would be okay to have "sub" articles on the team season page perhaps under recruiting. Anyone else have some thoughts? --MECU?talk 14:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No input so I took a stab. Look here 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team#Recruits. I wish the stars didn't have empty stars, but free is free. --MECU?talk 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual team year pages

I was looking at the list at 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season of teams that have individual pages. Really, I think there neess to be some standard. Ohio State, for example, obviously is a good one to have. Conspicuous for their absence are West Virginia, Louisville, and Rutgers, one of whom is going to be the Big East champion. Also, Arkansas, WFU, BC, and Maryland who will be competing in the next two weeks for the the SEC and ACC titles, aren't there. On the other hand, Washington, Purdue, Miami of Ohio, and Colorado, none of which are in danger of sniffing the top 25, all have pages.

This was discussed above for past seasons, but we really need to decide something about this season, as it is coming to a close.

Obviously, this is a factor of who is willing to take the time to put something together. If someone has time to maintain a team page, then they have one. If nobody does, then they don't.

So I would propose that we come up with some sort of criteria. There are four meaningful possibilities:

• Possibility 1: Leave things alone - as long as the team page is maintained and has accurate and up-to-date information, that's fine.

1. NMajdan
2. MECU?talk - The Colorado season was notable, that they tied their school record of 10 straight losses this season. Maybe I'm biased, because I put all that effort into the page, but really, what does it hurt? I agree there should be pages on those other teams, especially if they're going to play in a BCS bowl, but the 2006 USC page was a short stub until I worked in it yesterday. They're #2. People are going to work on what they're interested in, not necessarily what's best for Wikipedia. It's why I work on college football pages and not military history pages. And the consensus above stated as long as it's well kept/written, it shouldn't be removed afterwards. Having more info on college football will only increase the exposure of the project. Removing valid info about Miami of Ohio just because they're a lower level and won't make a BCS bowl doesn't seem to be a good reason.
3. Nothing wrong with having pages for individual seasons no matter how dismal they are, information is useful and should therefore be on Wikipedia. {{}}VegaDark 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Nothing wrong with having pages for individual team seasons - no matter how the team fares, so long as the article itself is a decent article. There is absolutely no point to deleting a well-written article just because the team did not end up doing well. To do so would be to discourage creation of good articles for fear that the work would be in vain if the article is deleted. For an example, please see 2006 Texas Longhorn football team, which is a well-sourced, informative article that would have to be deleted under some of the other proposals here. Johntex\^talk 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
5. There is a lot of history and info... can be useful to people looking for recaps of rivalry, or to put famous games into context. For example, the 2005 Tennessee-LSU was a memorable game coming after Hurricane Katrina. It took on different meaning after Tennessee tanked the year and LSU rattled off 9 straight wins folowing that game. CJC47 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Possibility 2: Actively work to create season pages for all 119 division 1A schools that include at a minimum rosters and game capsules.

1. (Support Here)

• Possibility 3: Ensure that we have season pages for teams that (1) play in BCS bowls, (2) finish in the top 10, or (3) win their conference title or play in a conference title game. All other team season pages should be prodded or taken to AFD.

1. Support with modification - Change the requirement for prod/AFD to one where the article info is merged with the appropriate coach/team page z4ns4tsu\^talk 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
2. (Support Here)

• Possibility 4: After the season, delete all team pages, except for the two teams that play for the national title (or, in the case of a 2003-like season, the three teams that play for the national title).

1. (Support Here)

Any thoughts? BigDT 19:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistant coaches notable enough for articles?

I noticed that articles on the offensive and defensive coordinators for the Oregon State Beavers football team (Danny Langsdorf, Mark Banker) were created, and was wondering what our policy is on these is. These two are exceptions as they both coached in the NFL before and should probably be kept, but I was wondering what our position is on the average assistant coach who hasn't coached in the NFL. Are all Division I-A assistant coaches notable? Should they have to have coached in the NFL/AFL/CFL before an article is appropriate? VegaDark 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• 5 years at a "major" DI-A school? 10 years? X years?
• If they win the NC?
• If they play in a BCS game?
• If they coached a Heisman or other major award winner (must show direct lineage)?
• If they coached a player who then went on to success in the NFL/other?
• If they are part of a national news story (even if not football related)?
• If they are considered for a head coaching job?
• If they take over coaching for a fired coach in the interim, even if the fired head coach gets the result(s) of the game(s)?
• If they are designated an assistant coach by a DI-A team?
• If they are a graduate assistant of a DI-A team?
• If they are designated as the offense or defense head coach/coordinator (or related title)?

Some are ex-head-coaches, like Mike O'Cain. They definitely get articles. Some are famous (or infamous) and are household names among football fans, eg Norm Chow, Jeff Bowden, or Randy Shannon. They definitely should have articles as well. As for anyone else at the IA level, I think that's kindof in between. If there is enough out there to write a sourced article, then go for it. Someone like Bud Foster, for example, could probably have an article, but outside of the ACC, few people know who he is. BigDT 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia