Talk:2007 NCAA Division I FBS football season

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Early Pre-Season Top 25[edit]

Here's a more recent pre-season top 25 that takes into account recent comings-and-goings of players and coaches. It is probably more reliable that the awful top 25 that is listed in the article. Link: 2007 pre-preseason top 25 rankings

Why are we listing one writer's preseason poll on the main page? I think we should do like we did last year and just specify various writer's number one pick or top 5 picks. Either we should have several opinions on the front page, or none at all.↔NMajdan•talk 16:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just updated the poll that was on the front page. Schlereth had updated his top 25. But yea, there should be more than one poll, however, couldn't we just interpolate the preseason table from the 2007 NCAA Division I-BS football rankings#Preseason polls page? Seancp 16:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see like the 2006 season, where we just list the #1 votes and the details of the top 25 are in the rankings pages. --MECU≈talk 22:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Comparisons[edit]

I just noticed an edit that added an additional clause to one of the rules changes stating "also matching the NFL rule" which I think is completely unnecessary. College football articles do not need constant comparison to the NFL. To do so is to make a faulty assumption that the reader knows (and/or cares) what the NFL rules are. Generally, any article on wikipedia should be able to stand on its own for those coming to the article with little or no knowledge of the subject. Specificaly regarding college football, there is a significant portion of the fanbase that doesn't care about pro football and to treat college football as if it is a cheap imitation or somehow an afterthought of pro ball by constant comparison is inappropriate, especially considering the amateur game came first. </soapbox> Thanks, AUTiger » talk 02:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What might make this article better...[edit]

I think that this article would be better if each conference had a 2007 season page. Then the "see also" section wouldn't be such a huge list, it could point to each conference page, and the conference page could point to the team pages. Wrad 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan - Appalachian St.[edit]

I'm not too familiar with the rules here, but this game seems to obviously belong here. The first time a non Div I team defeats a top 10 team? That's a big deal. I think record breaking games like this deserve a spot. They're obviously notable. Wrad 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville-Rutgers[edit]

I removed this game from the notable games, because both teams have struggled so far this year, and they likely won't challenge for the Big East title. I'm doing this explanation, to avoid a vandalism warning. Also, on my fickle fans comment on the wisconsin-michigan fans, i will remove it. Tech43 06:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas - Nebraska[edit]

How about adding this one? I would but I'm not sure how. KU remains undefeated while scoring a record 76 points against the Huskers, more than the Huskers have ever had scored on them before. Sounds notable to me. Wrad 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give a source or two that aren't Kansas/Nebraska related and we'll talk. MECU≈talk 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones section[edit]

This article, and previous articles like it, need a Milestone section that lists all the NCAA records that were broken this year. Similar to this section for the NFL.↔NMajdan•talk 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added it. Lets keep it up-to-date. I added a few entries that I found on Google News. If there are any more, please add them.↔NMajdan•talk 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to REMOVE key games section[edit]

The key games section seems to get larger and larger every year. I think that sections could be completely removed. These season articles need to be streamlined. I think we should structure our articles more like the NFL (see 2006 NFL season). Of course, we wouldn't have the playoffs sections, so there will be some differences. But I think the key games section should go. We are pushing 60 key games.↔NMajdan•talk 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 4 unsourced ones. Perhaps require that "key games" have at least two references by national non-college specific sources (ie, a paper that cover Utah can't say it's a key game) to be included? That would reduce this season down to 12 with the current references. MECU≈talk 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is kept, there will be editors that want to add their team's games. It seems every year sees an increase in the number of key games. I still think it should be removed entirely. Any truly key games could be mentioned in prose in a key games section.↔NMajdan•talk 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the entire section. I've always had a problem with it in that if one person on the Internet said it was a "key game", then it was included here. It seems to me that if there are any "key games", they can only be determined at the conclusion of the season. Two overrated teams can be thought of as a key game in week 4, but, in reality, the game has nothing to do with the college football landscape. I'd say that App State-Michigan is the "most key" game of the season, and it's not on the list. X96lee15 (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say any good summary of a college football season would need to reflect on key games, just maybe not the way we're doing it. Fact is, it's the games that make the season, we just don't know exactly what is key until after it's all over. I don't think we should remove the section altogether, just drastically change it. Make it prose like NMajdan said. (And I agree about App St. :)) Maybe divide the prose into sections/paragraphs such as: "Early season" "Mid-season" "Late season" "Conference Championships" and "Bowl Games". I also think we need to be more picky about what a key-game is. Right now, we're wide open to any fansite that says a game was key. Key for what? For that team? For that conference? Wrad (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

App/Mich was on there, but wasn't cited so I removed it like the others that weren't cited. It doesn't matter what we think is important, someone has to claim it and then we can cite it. I don't think we have any 'fansites' other than possible Rivals, but all of them are really well known and respectable sites. I agree the list is getting long, but I like the format. Even just requiring two sources, we're down to 23 which would be about half and require more work that most won't want to do to find two references. MECU≈talk 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the fact that this one section completely dominates the whole article. You have to do a lot of scrolling to get past this section. If anything, we should delay creating this section until the end of the game. I see several on this list that I don't feel are key games given how the teams performed throughout the season. I mean, VT/ECU, sure, first game following the VT tragedy, but what does that have to do with CFB? Clemson/FSU? Tenn/Cal? BC/NC State? PSU/ND? OU/Miami (coming from an OU fan)? Texas/TCU? UK/UL? USC/NU? SF/WVU? FSU/Alabama? And thats just through early October. Maybe my definition of a key game differs from most. But I do not see the lasting importance of these games. They say the reason against a playoff is every regular season game is like a playoff game. So yes, these games shaped the outcome of the season, but that can be said of every game. Who cares if two top 20 teams played each other in September but them each went on to lose 3-4 games? I'm still for scrapping this whole section and converting to prose.↔NMajdan•talk 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the games that have been played that I think should be removed: UT/Cal (9/1), ECU/VT (9/1), NCSt/BC (9/8), ND/PSU (9/8), Miami/OU (9/8), TCU/Tex (9/8), UL/UK (9/15), USC/NU (9/15), PSU/UM (9/22), WVU/USF (9/28), UA/FSU (9/29), MSU/UW (9/29), UK/USC (10/4), Cinc/Rutg (10/6), OSU/Purdue (10/6), UN/Tex (10/27), OSU/PSU (10/27), FSU/VT (11/10), UM/VT (11/18) There are six Virginia Tech games in the list. You cannot convince me that nearly half of VT's games were among the most important for the entire season. Some of these games seemed important at the beginning of the season, but given the performance of the team throughout the season, its not as important as it once was. For instance, TCU/Texas. TCU was ranked early in the season when they played Texas, but now are 6–5. These shouldn't be key games that shaped the way the team's respective conference turned out, these should be games that shaped the way the entire season played out.↔NMajdan•talk 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd make sense to only create a key games section after the completion of the season. That way, we can look back with hindsight and say that yes, some of these were key games to understanding the season. JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents is that I don't think the section should be discarded, rather trimmed down to about 15 games for the season. There are so many gmaes on this list that are just not that important. Also, I believe that this whole using two sources thing is ridiculous for determining what games are important and which games aren't. ESPN and other media outlets have to sell their games as important, even when they aren't. I encourage the trimming of the list and would really do it myself if I wouldn't face the backlash for it.Rebajc3 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do here is to wait for the regular season to end and then turn it into prose. Things will become clearer as we put our ideas into practice. Wrad (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to REMOVE Hot Seat section[edit]

I'd like to remove the Hot Seat section as it provides little value to the season article. Each reference would be useful in the individual coach article, but on the season article it has little value. Plus, there is some commentary on 2 of the entries that makes it seem wishy-washy "He's on the hot seat but someone else says not" and "he'll resign but not be fired"... I just think it doesn't add any value to describing the season, just the individual teams/coaches. MECU≈talk 18:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God yes, I support this too. Obviously, I think a lot can be changed on these yearly articles (how in the heck do they not even contain the final standings? I've started adding these to the 2006 article). Official coaching changes are fine, but not this Hot Seat crap. We're not a blog or fansite. We are an encyclopedia. We will document it when it happens.↔NMajdan•talk 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. I deleted the section. I feel it is much more, as Mecu said, "wishy-washy" than the key games section. If anybody disagrees, revert. The section is nothing more than crystal ball-ish. Again, 10 years from now, who is going to care what coach was on the hot seat but didn't get fired?↔NMajdan•talk 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big East champion[edit]

"(If WVU loses to Pitt in the Backyard Brawl, WVU and UConn will be officially recognized as co-champions.)"

Um, wouldn't WVU still win seeing as they, you know, basically dismantled UConn? Jutm543 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Take it out. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring sources[edit]

When games were removed per the discussion above, one thing got left out... there are now four "cite errors" because the original references got removed when the games did. Think someone could manage it? — Dale Arnett 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I remembered seeing those before the delete. But since I did the delete, I'll see if I can fix.↔NMajdan•talk 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was my fault. I fixed them.↔NMajdan•talk 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEXAS A&m ?[edit]

I herd a WOAI-TV news report that Texas A&M going to be at the Alamobowl. Its legit okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.174.9 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teams got flip-flopped[edit]

The Big XII Champion is the home team in the Fiesta. And, the ACC champion is the home team in the Orange.