Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notable games[edit]

There was a section last year and I think the top games like this week's OSU-USC should be there.--Levineps (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good section...I think the #3 PSU v. #9 OSU game should be added. It certainly was an important and notable game. 須藤 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team rankings at the time of the game should be added to all of these. Also, some of the "significances" are past tense (team A won) and some are present tense (team B wins). This should be consistent. Personally, I prefer present tense but you could go either way. oren0 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it.--Levineps (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, 75% of the games on here are not notable—well, they're notable, just not notable to be included on the 2008 season page. There needs to be some sort of criteria that is used to select the games. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, USC v Wash St. is a very good example. the only notable thing about it is the 69 point shutout, but I don't think that breaking a school record necessarily makes it worth of note to anyone but USC. Other than that, there was nothing notable about the game. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think winning 69-0 and then winning by a similar margin the following week are "notable." However, I would like to see more games in this section.--Levineps (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable, but is it really a "key matchup" or "upset"? Like X96lee15 said, sure it's notable, but not notable enough to be on the 2008 summary page. Otherwise should we include every school's blowout wins? I don't think anyone is going look back at the 2008 season and say that USC blowing out a 1-7 WSU was one of the marquee games. It isn't really memorable outside of the USC fanbase Ryan2845 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can determine which games are "notable" until after the season is over. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get any more comments on this topic? I'm tempted to remove the entire section as WP:OR. The more games that are added, the more it looks like none are notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a clean up. This section is ugly. Battle of the John Denver songs? You've got to be kidding me. Not to mention the tone many of the recaps are written in is completely inappropriate for an encylopedia. "Knocks off", "ambushes" ... this isn't how we do it here people. Grsz11 →Review! 04:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levinps, the discussion is already here. I see no reason why most of the games currently listed are notable. This entire section is WP:OR. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. There needs to be a source that says the game is notable, not just a source for the game in general. Grsz11 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, I don't think the entire section ought to go, it's just we need a source describing a game as notable or important. Grsz11 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't mean to insinuate that removing the entire section was the talk page consensus. I don't think it should be removed, but I do think somebody other than us (Wikipedia editors) need to determine what games are important. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say every game is a case by case basis but the games should be considered "notable" if they were notable when they were played. Example: LSU and Auburn looks like a dud now, but when they initially played Gameday went there. Any game that someone wants to delete from this list, just propose it here and will have lively discussion(maybe not so-lively), but you get the point.--Levineps (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "at the time" big games should be included here. OSU-USC comes to mind. That game proved to be nothing more than a really good team beating a really-overrated team. I think notable games should somewhat fit this criteria:
  • Games that have their own article (i.e. 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game) - This will cover any extraordinary games that may or may not have national-title or conference-title implications
  • Games that break some kind of NCAA record (that do not have their own articles). Games that break only or conference school records shouldn't be included here.
  • Games that result in the winner being a conference or division champion. Ball State vs. Western Michigan comes to mind. The winner of that game would have been crowned the MAC West Division champion. Any of the Big12 games between Texas, OU or Texas Tech would fit that. I don't think games where a team clinches a conference title should be included, Penn St/Michigan St, for example.
  • Games that matched two end-of-season Top 10 teams.
  • Games that had national-title/BCS implications (excluding conference championship games since they have their own section).
Those are just a few of the criteria that come to mind. But as I think of it more, establishing a criteria is important, but it's still Wikipedia editors coming up with that criteria, which is WP:OR. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date[edit]

I am not sure what the date is, but maybe someone can put an "as of" date next to the conference standings next time they are updated. Thanks NeuGye (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project[edit]

Currently double duty is being done for the conference standings of many conferences. In addition to the standings tables that are on this page, the following templates exist: Template:2008 ACC football standings
Template:2008 Big 12 football standings
Template:2008 Big Ten football standings
Template:2008 MAC football standings
Template:2008 SEC football standings

It would make more sense to simply transclude these templates onto this page (and create templates for the remaining conferences), rather than do updates in both places. The problem is, all the templates have a different format (size, colors..) and different data included (win %, PF/PA, GB, rank). Does anyone have any input on standardization, as far as what what to include and how they should look? My personal opinion is that the plain grey and black tables look better, especially when used on the team page as well (see 2008 Texas Longhorn football team and 2008 North Carolina Tar Heels football team for contrasting examples). As far as data, i don't think we need win % and games back. Ryan2845 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I think they should include Conference W/L/PCT/GB and Overall W/L/PCT with Rank if applicable. I don't think PF and PA add much value. I also don't think they should use the "infobox" class, since if we use them on the main 2008 season page, they can be arranged anywhere. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried about the infobox thing as well, but found there is actually an easy way to do both if we use variables. Here is an example I set up where we just pass one variable to the template when we no longer want it to act as an "infobox".
Template as an infobox: User:Ryan2845/confstand
Transcluded as a normal table: User:Ryan2845/confstand2
Ryan2845 (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the win percentage and games back are unnecessary - I've never heard any serious discussion of either of these stats except for maybe the two teams running for the conference championship. Since football is not like basketball or baseball in the number and frequency of games played, they just add unnecessary size to the template. CB (ö) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, none of the major media outlets (ESPN, SI, etc) display win pct or games back. What about PA/PF? I think that is too much info for a standings table personally. I say we use ESPN as a model and only include W/L records Ryan2845 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dur! I would have not started Template:2008 SEC football standings had I known it was already here...I am relatively new, so this transcluded thing is lost on me. I do like the format of the info box better, but that is just aesthetics to me. DAWGinRoswell 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Breaking ties in conference standings?[edit]

Do we have specific rules on how ties are broken in conference standings? I've been editing some conferences and I just want to be sure we're consistent. ESPN's rules for this seem to be inconsistent. I propose that teams are ordered:

  1. By conference winning percentage
  2. If that is tied, order by overall win%
  3. If both are tied, order alphabetically

Maybe as the season gets closer to the end we start dealing with head-to-head matchups or conference tiebreaker procedures but we might drive ourselves nuts trying to do that every week. Thoughts? oren0 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the general rules i've been using as well, and I think most others do the same. I'm fine with those rules. Ryan2845 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should use overall winning percentage. Sure that's a valid option, but it isn't correct in all cases. I know for the MAC standings, I've ordered the teams by the MAC tiebreakers. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No conference that I'm aware of uses it to actually order teams. But sites that list conference standings do (have a look at ESPN's MAC standings, e.g.). It just makes the ordering seem less random and allows us to be consistent. I'd say that we should use the actual tiebreaking procedures for all conferences but people won't know them and it'll be more work. oren0 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since tiebreakers are essentially meaningless in terms of regular season standings. The only thing they are used for is to determine post season tournament berths or overall champion if there is no tournament. Ryan2845 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCS section totally inaccurate?[edit]

The BCS bowls do not have to pick anyone from any particular conference. It's true that the Rose Bowl likes to go Big 10-Pac10, but they don't have to (see 2005, when USC was in the national championship and the Rose Bowl was Big 12-Big 10). The same is also true of the Orange and Sugar Bowls. It's original research to already place teams in BCS bowls, except to note that Penn State is going to be in one of them. Also, things are certainly more complicated because some of these champions may appear in the national championship game. Penn State in the Rose Bowl is also WP:CRYSTAL because in theory they could end up in the National Championship game. This whole section needs a rewrite IMO. Oren0 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bowls do have established tie-ins with certain conferences so I think it is ok to list that here, but we should probably change it to match 2008-09 NCAA football bowl games where the wording establishes that it could still be an at large team "Big 12 Champions or BCS At-Large vs. BCS At-Large".
Also see the official BCS selection procedures which note:
2. Unless they qualify to play in the NCG, the champions of selected conferences are contractually committed to host selected games:
  Atlantic Coast Conference-Orange Bowl
  Big Ten Conference-Rose Bowl
  Big 12 Conference-Fiesta Bowl
  Pac-10 Conference-Rose Bowl
  Southeastern Conference-Sugar Bowl
[1]
Also, I think it is ok to go ahead and list Penn State in the rose bowl, since Penn State has no more games it is impossible for them to move up 6 spots in the BCS and get to the championship game. Also, all the major media outlets are reporting Penn State in the Rose Bowl. See this article for example: "after securing a trip to the Rose Bowl..." Ryan2845 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the language a little. These remaining slots aren't necessarily at-larges (both the Big East champ and Utah are going to be automatic berths and will take these slots). Oren0 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl selections not finalized[edit]

While some of the selections that cannot be made "official" until after their conferences hold their championship games are all but inevitable (e.g. Kansas in the Insight Bowl), I think we should hold off on putting Nebraska in the Gator Bowl on our page, as it seems to be contingent on Oklahoma beating Missouri in the Big 12 championship game. Cyberchao X (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok to list those two games as NU is already selling gator bowl tickets and KU is already selling Insight bowl tickets Ryan2845 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The home teams are NOW corrected. They were off before. eg Georgia was listed at the home team in the Capital One Bowl when Michigan State IS the home team. I used ESPN as my guide for most of these games. Casino31 16:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other award nominees[edit]

Someone should add an additional column to the other awards containing the names of the nominees (non-winners) of the awards. That information is very useful.↔NMajdan•talk 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was for most if not all, there are several finalists, and we don't have the space to list 10 or so names. Grsz11 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah originally there was a column for nominees, but I removed it because some of the awards have like 20 finalists and thats more information than is really useful for the purpose of this page. In my opinion, a full list of nominees for a particular award could be shown on the individual page for that award, but is too much info for this page. Ryan2845 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What awards have 20 finalists? Just curious. I know some awards could have as many as five finalists which is narrowed down from like 10-20 people on a watch list. Are we confusing an award's watch list with its finalists?↔NMajdan•talk 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of hyperbole on my part, but some do have >=10 finalists, like the Butkus Award with 12, Manning Award with 10. Ryan2845 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

120 or 119 teams?[edit]

Is Western Kentucky considered a Division I FBS team for 2008 or not? I would say they are. They have been in transitional status to the FBS from the FCS since 2007, though they won't become bowl-eligible-eligible until 2009 after they join the Sun Belt conference. ESPN groups them in with the other independent teams [2] and the Cosgrove Rankings have them included in their list of rated FBS teams (which totals 120) [3]. The NCAA itself has WKU listed under FBS Independents [4]. I would say that they are actually to be considered an FBS team, and thus the total should be 120. Other thoughts? Strikehold (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, as long as there is a reference to clarify it. They weren't "officially" FBS until 2009, but like you said, they were in a transitional phase for 2 years and were essentially a defacto FBS team. It just depends on how they are classified. (as you point out, some ratings list 120, while others list 119.) I personally do not have a problem with either figure as long as a clarification reference is added. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a reference to the ESPN page since I don't see one on the NCAA site with all of the teams listed out, only by conference affiliation. Strikehold (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, beat me to it. Strikehold (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conference standings templates[edit]

Okay, an IP has been editing the appearance of all of the conference standings templates. I just wanted to come here to build some consensus. Right now, they have green shading which represents bowl payout amounts.

Firstly, I don't think it is really appropriate to place that information there. This could be illustrated in a graph or graphic in the "Bowl games" section on this article or elsewhere. It is really not relevant at all to the conference standings, as you can see it doesn't really reflect directly how much teams were paid and where they placed in their conferences (NIU for example). Also, the payout amounts used to illustrate are fairly arbitrary: $17 million, $1 to 17 million, and less than $1 million.

Secondly, the templates are simply transcribed here, they are primarily used at many other pages: all the individual team articles and also the conference article, if it has one, such as the ACC. Since there is no key included on the templates themselves, there is no indication of what the colors mean on over a hundred pages where these templates are used.

Another issue: I don't even think the templates should be used here for the conference standings section. It looks disorderly, because they are all different sizes and, on at least my monitor, it forces the width of the article to exceed the screen. Also, it is somewhat nonsensical to have a standings table for Independents. Are there any objections to removing the templates and replacing it with a table?

Strikehold (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the bowl payout info should not be part of the conference standings templates. As far as using the templates on this page, the reason why we started sharing templates this year was to avoid having to update tables twice. If you look at the 2007 season article, it had it's own set of smaller tables, the problem was that a lot of the tables were constantly out of date because it took twice as much work to update them all on this page and then update again on the team pages template. It is however, entirely possible to edit the same template to have different formatting when used on this page, by doing if/else's on the "normal" variable. So maybe we could just format them differently on this page, while still sharing the same template to avoid double updating. As far as the different sizes issue goes, I don't think there is much you can do there since the conferences all have different numbers of teams, even the major sites like ESPN look that way. Finally, the idependents table exists simply to inform people of the records of the independent teams, ESPN also has an independents table on their standings page. I think it should be included. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the logic in using them here during the season. However, since the season is complete there is no need to ever update those standings. At least not the actual information in them, barring something extraordinary (e.g. some NCAA violations are discovered and a team's records are vacated).
As for the different sizes of the templates, what I meant was that if standings were placed in a table on this page instead, it would (potentially) look a lot sharper. The templates are all different sizes and shapes, and necessarily so, I wasn't suggesting changing the templates, but rather using a table on this article instead of transcribing the templates. I'm not advocating the removal of any information, just reorganizing it here.
Strikehold (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notable games[edit]

shouldn't Georgia vs Alabama and Georgia vs Florida be listed on key games? --NReTSa (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season&oldid=1196520652"