NCAA Football franchise Archives

NCAA Football franchise Archives

NCAA Football franchise Archives

NCAA Football franchise Archives

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2014–15 College Football Playoff

2014–15 College Football Playoff was created a few days ago. Do we really need this article given that we have 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games, 2015 College Football Championship Game, 2015 Rose Bowl, 2015 Sugar Bowl to cover this in more and less detail? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just redirect it to 2014–15_NCAA_football_bowl_games#Playoff_bracket, or 2014_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_season#Bowl_games_and_the_College_Football_Playoff. Somewhere should summarize the playoff process at a high level without needing to go to each individual game article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Bagumba's suggestion. We don't need to cover the same information in mutliple articles: there are already separate articles for the two semifinal bowls and the championship game, as well as coverage in the 2014-15 NCAA football bowl games article. The newly created article is completely redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Redirected to 2014–15 NCAA football bowl games. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick question re All American template

How is information in this template updated? Someone at Ohio State Buckeyes keeps removing the (outdated-by-one) automatic figure from the info box and substituting the (correct) figure by hand - I see the point, but have been reverting it because it strikes me as more sensible to have all references to the figure point to a single source. Also, the correct figure isn't (as far as I know) yet reflected in any official NCAA material, which the template asks that editors adhere to - do we wait until February or March when the NCAA publishes the last year's stats? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

John, I have updated the NCAA link in the template. FYI, for the last several years, the NCAA has simply placed the current year's records book in a different subcategory of the same web address. Note the "2012" year in the web address for the template; by substituting "2014" into the web address, it takes you directly to the 2014 PDF edition of the NCAA records book. As the editor who found the record book online in the first instance, I can tell you that it beats trying to find it with a Google search. Also, no one is compelled to use the templated reference form; I, for one, do not use it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd already found the 2014 link (thank goodness for consistent naming conventions), but I counted and determined that reflects the (I gather, out of date) figure of 78. I think OSU added one this year, which won't show up "officially" until some time in 2015 after the bowl season is over and the NCAA can start their presses. If the template usage is not important, then I guess we can just fix it by hand - but I still do wonder how one would go about updating it. Where does the template get "78"? JohnInDC (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
John, here's a couple of suggestions. Once a player in question has received a majority of first-team selections from the NCAA-recognized All-American selectors, he is a de facto consensus All-American and the sports media will start to mention him as a "consensus All-American." Given that the NCAA will not update its records book until some time in 2015, this leaves editors in quandry regarding verifying consensus All-American status with reliable sources. Until the NCAA releases the 2015 edition of its records book, however, there is nothing wrong with using ESPN or another reliable mainstream media outlet as your source for consensus status. For the template numbers, I suggest you use hidden text to note the source for any interim update, so those numbers can be reconciled when the 2015 records book is available. Hidden text can be a very useful tool for leaving a popcorn trail for other editors (and yourself) to follow and to correct any mistakes later.
Thank you for taking responsibility for this -- your initiative is appreciated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, hidden text is a good idea. I'll do that. Um, once I find a source that confirms what this new user has been arguing the correct figure is - Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
When in doubt, get the new user to tell you what his source is -- presumably, he's not making it up out of thin air. I know, I know . . . sometimes easier said than done. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ingle Martin total offense stats

Can someone who is either a Furman Paladins football fan or a CFB editor who is knowledgeable regarding Division I FCS records take a look at the Ingle Martin article? In particular, can you examine and attempt to verify the following statement:

"He also holds the top two season performances in College Football History with 7,084 yards in total offense in 2004 and 8,193 yards in 2005."

Can anyone reconcile these outlandish total offense numbers? They are so far off the charts as to be disbelieved, and they are, of course, unsourced. Even assuming high-end passing stats of 3,000 to 4,000 yards per season, no one runs for another 3,000 to 4,000 yards on top of that, even in FCS competition. (By comparison, Tim Tebow received the Heisman for throwing for 3,300 yards and running for another 900.) Is there some form of total offense statistic with which I am not familiar that could render these types of numbers? Anyone? Bueller? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Those numbers have to be wrong. Certainly if they were right they'd have warranted at least passing mention on the page that Furman maintains about Martin, here. Indeed the page claims healthy, but still far more modest accomplishments for him: "despite playing only two seasons, set new school records for passing yards (5,761),passing touchdowns (42),and total offense (6,277)". I removed these figures - and suggest that other assertions in the article be reviewed for potential inflation. Good eye, DL - JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
NCAA FCS records (as of 2007) beginning p 189 here. Not on the top of any of those lists either. JohnInDC (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The page was heavily vandalized by a (since blocked) IP a year ago. Not all of it got cleaned up. The above is one; I just fixed another. JohnInDC (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Todd Hoffner

I just created an article for Todd Hoffner, head coach of this year's Division II runners-up, Minnesota State–Mankato. He was involved in quite the scandal over the past couple years. I hadn't heard about this until doing the research now. I think we want to keep an eye on this article and make sure that everything's covered fairly. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bio articles of questionable notablity

I dug up a few bio articles with subjects of questionable notability: Aaron King (American football), Chris Koepplin, Mike Parker (American football). Please take a looks and see if these are worthy of expansion or should be taken to AfD. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Took a look at King. Seems to have gotten coverage for at least two events. 1) Leading up to 2007 draft as long snapper prospectYahooCBS Sports. 2) Arrest [1]. Unless there was more non-routine coverage of his career, I'd argue this is more two isolated events with no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here are 21 more weak articles that should be considered for AfD: Milton Colbert, Robbie Nallenweg, Robert Johnson (wide receiver), Jeremy Kimbrough, Javier Zuluaga, Harry Barlow, Jacob Maxwell, Avery Patterson, Robert Connors, Tom Greenlee, Willie Hill, Quron Pratt, Kevin Graf, Jake Dombrowski, Frank Pattee, Bob Bill, James Ferentz and Steven Dean Memorial Trophy; BCS statistics (merge to Bowl Championship Series), List of LSU Tigers football poll history (merge to LSU season articles), and List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history (merge to LSU season articles). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Another: Robert Paulele (recreated following PROD). JohnInDC (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Another: Dallas Walker. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

IP just made literally hundreds of questionable edits

Special:Contributions/24.249.251.212 -- just has made a ton of edits, mostly changing ULL to UL when we abbreviate for Louisiana-Lafayette. The IP address geolocates to Lafayette, Louisiana, and may be official representation of the university, which based on my article writing for the 2014 New Orleans Bowl does appear to want to be known as simply the University of Louisiana. I considered rolling back all the contribs, but wanted to seek some consensus here first. Will ping a few active users: @Jweiss11:@Dirtlawyer1:@Cbl62:@Bob305:@Mudwater:@Bagumba:@JohnInDC:. Thanks in advance for all your input. GoPhightins! 20:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Interesting. We've been through this "branding" issue with Lousiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Western Kentucky and several others. At this point, I don't really give a flip what the WP:COMMONNAME is -- because it's subject to change. Has anyone thought about visiting the athletic department website or calling the sports information director and asking what they want to be called in third-party publications and media? COMMONNAME is eventually going to track whatever the official brand name is. That having been said, I did just visit the university and athletic department websites, and I see no major rebranding effort underway. The university continues to brand itself as "University of Louisiana at Lafayette," or "UL Lafayette" for short. The athletic department brands its teams "Louisiana's Ragin' Cajuns." I see no official reference to either "UL" or "ULL." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Likewise the U-L system, and the school itself, use "University of Louisiana-Lafayette" pretty consistently. If the convention in WP articles is to refer to the school as ULL, then changing it arbitrarily to UL - without any consensus or even discussion - seems entirely rollbackable to me - JohnInDC (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, the problem in this case is that, unlike similar cases that are more or less a matter of inter-Wiki politicking by fanboys for their preferred name, this one is a real-life mess that has spilled over into Wiki-land. First, some background info: in 1998, the nine-member University of Louisiana System agreed to let their two largest campuses remove the directional designations from their names. As part of the compromise, it was expressly agreed that no school would be the official flagship of the University of Louisiana, and both schools would be bound to use the city designations in their names (see here). And so, the University of Southwestern Louisiana became the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and Northeast Louisiana University became the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Over the last several years, Louisiana–Lafayette has basically just been ignoring said compromise and pasting "Louisiana" (without the "Lafayette" city designation) on jerseys, logos, ect. Never mind the fact that their sister school which is a member of the same conference believes that it has every much right (or not!) to claim de facto flagship status as they do. A quick look at the talk page reveals that numerous move requests have been put forward here, all ending with a decision to remain at Louisiana–Lafayette. As you can see, this situation is a total mess, and it's unlikely to get any better any time soon, unless someone higher up in Louisiana state government intervenes here. So, what do we do? At the very least, I think we can all agree that the "UL" designation should not be used here, as it is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the University of Louisville or the University of Louisiana - never mind which branch campus. And, while it probably doesn't fulfill the perfect desires for either school, the "Louisiana–Lafayette" and "Louisiana–Monroe" naming conventions are really probably the only way to present the information fairly while adhering to a NPOV here. As far as the practical aspects of this, IMHO, the edits in question identified by Go Phightins are bordering on the edge of flat-out vandalism and/or POV-pushing. As a matter of fact, I would have no problem permanently auto-protecting the entire Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns family of articles, as the abuse there has been both steadily-recurring and of long standing. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Weighing all of the factors, including the nice summary of the history by EJ, I think WP:CFB should lose the three-letter initialisms (ULL and ULM), and adopt the unambiguous Louisiana-Lafayette and Louisiana-Monroe for our short-form names to be used in article titles, infoboxes, navboxes and record tables. While I have encountered the "ULM" usage from time to time, I have never seen "ULL" anywhere other than Wikipedia. Moreover, beyond these two special cases, I also think we should also consider whether to continue using the three-letter Associated Press convention of referring to certain universities and their sports teams by their ambiguous initialisms (e.g., BYU, FSU, SMU, USC, WKU). We are already inconsistent in our Wikipedia usage, using USC for Southern California, but Florida State instead of FSU, for example. In many if not most instances, it is also unclear whether the initialism is, in fact, the WP:COMMONNAME. Given the choice of FSU Seminoles, or Florida State Seminoles, I would choose the latter for article titles, infoboxes, navboxes and record tables. Once the fuller, unambiguous name is stated, then the shortest form initialism can be introduced and used within article text as appropriate. We should not assume that our readers are (a) college sports fans who are familiar with these initialisms, or (b) know the AP conventions for sports writers. With regard to this particular controversy, however, "UL" properly only refers to the University of Louisiana System, and not any particular university within the system, and our Wikipedia usage should reflect that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Generally, I agree, but think we need some extreme short form for game summaries, as even writing Louisiana-Lafayette a bunch of times is cumbersome ... GoPhightins! 18:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hm. How about U-La-La? JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice, John. Now, can you say that with a Justin Wilson Cajun accent? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Generally, WP should consistently use WP:COMMONNAME, even if the use of abbreviations across different schools in common sources is inconsistent. Readers being unfamiliar with sports naming conventions are addressed through redirects from alternative names to their common names. The actual name of the article does not need to be dumbed down. Proper context for non-sports fans unfamiliar with the common name, e.g. stating the name of the academic institution, should be provided in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bagumba, I usually agree with WP:COMMONNAME outcomes. In the case of "ULL", however, there is a serious question whether that abbreviation actually represents majority usage -- now or ever. I don't think it does, but the university and athletic department have changed their branding so much over the last 15 years that any determination of the common name is, at best, a guess. As for "USC", is "USC" really more common than "Southern Cal"? Is Florida State more common than FSU? BYU more common than Brigham Young? Frankly, a lot of these three-letter abbreviations are the invention of the Associated Press for the convenience of their sports writers. I also think the recent ULL and WKU COMMONNAME controversies should provide cautionary guidance on point. I know, for instance, that WP:Universities does not strictly follow WP:COMMONNAME, and often uses something closer to official names for article titles. Bottom line: we are under no obligation to follow any guideline blindly, especially when it yields an outcome that is confusing for our readers. Here, neither UL or ULL are arguably proper abbreviations for the university or its sports programs. In fact, I can't figure out why WP:CFB started using "ULL" in the first place. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on Louisiana-Lafayette specifically. It was a response to what I interpreted as your proposal to generally not use abbreviations for school names. If your point was that a few instances need to be revisited, I can accept that there may be some discrepancies in individual cases. Otherwise, I still think we should generally use COMMONNAME. AP alone doesn't dictate COMMONAME, unless it's conventions are followed by the majority of sources. Regarding WP:Universities, names used in sports and academics can be totally different and acceptable in real life, let alone WP. University of California, Berkeley is more commonly called Berkeley or UC Berkeley in academics, but they only go by California or simply Cal in sports, even though there are 10 campuses in the University of California system. I'd hate to have readers looking to brush up on their college sports on Wikipedia to leave erroneously thinking their football team is the University of California, Berkeley Golden Bears, or Nebraska's is the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Cornhuskers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Bags, I think we agree more than we don't: California Golden Bears and Nebraska Cornhuskers are the accepted common names for the university sports programs and also correspond to the universities' official branding. No conflict there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment backlog

I keep an eye on Category:College football articles by quality and aim keep the number of unassessed articles as close to zero as possible. This number recently skyrocketed over 300 after some furious project banner tagging by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao of theretofore untagged college football articles. I've gotten this number down to the 230s, but I could use some help assessing the remainder. We also have another 300 or so articles covering the 2014 season that are rated Current or Future class. Some of these (largely team seasons that have ended) already need to be rated on a quality scale and all of them will need to be in a few weeks. Can we get some people to pitch in here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got some time off coming up over the holidays, so Ill try to throw sometime into hacking away some of the back log.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Dcheagle, awesome Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we referring to the ??? category, JW? If so, I will take a whack at them, too. I assume that most are Stubs and Starts, with a handful of Class C's and above. Have we done any sort of rough notability assessment on them yet? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the "???" or Category:Unassessed college football articles. Yes, they are likely Stubs and Starts mostly. Not sure that anyone has done a notability assessment of these. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The unassessed backlog is down to 137. Nice work. Let's keep going. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
We're down to 97. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Okina for Hawaii and accent for San Jose State

@Bsuorangecrush: and I have little edit war brewing about okinas for Hawaii and accents for San Jose State; see Template:2014 Mountain West Conference football standings. As you can see, the relevant articles (Hawaii Rainbow Warriors football, Hawaii Bowl, San Jose State Spartans football, and the like) are titled without these characters, and that's the way those entities are generally represented in third-party sources. These accents and okinas are unneeded ornamentation and do not need to be used when linking to these articles or referencing their subjects in other articles and templates. Bsuorangecrush has argued that we need to keep them because they've been there for a while. That they have been there for some time only attests to the fact that we have lived with this small mistake, not that we shouldn't fix it now where it persists. What do others think? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

San Jose State I don't care about. Hawaii though has been listed in schedule and standing tables for years as Hawaiʻi. If you look at both of the articles Jweiss11 lists, both don't have the okina, but both have it listed with the okina in the opening line of the article. As far as I'm concerned, the okina should be there because that is how it is officially spelled. I believe the article titles don't have them so they are easier for people to find when they search for them. So to me they should be there and the only reason I reverted Jweiss11 removal of them was that I did not want it to have it on some pages and not on others. If they were to be removed that would involve edits to every college football and college basketball teams page whom they have played for probably the last 5 years at least. That's a ton of editing. I don't see any need for it. Hawaiʻi, not Hawaii, seems to be the official spelling and I believe should stay listed as is. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
We generally use WP:COMMONNAME. The proper forum to settle this would be at the general school sports articles, e.g. San Jose State Spartans, where an WP:RM could be initiated if there is to be a change in consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime, can't we assume the current article titles carry the preexisting consensus? As for Hawaii and the okina, there's no okina used on the structural listings on ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/_/id/62/hawaii-warriors) and I doubt you'll find them anywhere else. Also, per Bsuorangecrush's comment above, the use of the okina is not dominant in the instances of the references to Hawaii across Wikipedia. I don't believe they appear on any of the bio articles for the Hawaii head football coaches. They are not there on many of the team season articles, such as 1998 Michigan Wolverines football team or 1994 Oregon Ducks football team. There's going to be some editing involved either way to make it consistent. I'd venture it will be far less work (if that really matters) to remove the existing okinas than to add them in all instances of "Hawaii". Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why we would want to list anything incorrectly. Isn't this suppose to be an encyclopedia? Shouldn't an encyclopedia have correct information? As far as I know Hawaiʻi is spelled with the okina. So to me that should be official. If you guys want to take the time to change them all then I guess I don't care but I feel it will be removing official correct info to change it to something spelled wrong. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, everybody usually thinks they are correct. When there is disagreement, WP operates on consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, we don't need to be anymore "correct" than reliable third-party sources (like ESPN) are. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, ESPN has never done anything wrong....only all the time. I've never thought the "ESPN does it" argument has ever really meant anything. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
How about just about every other reliable third-party source, e.g. College Football Data Warehouse, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Yahoo, sports-reference. com, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post... Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
How about the teams own uniforms? Okina is there. Shouldn't that matter? I'd think the school themselves would know how it should be written. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Third party trumps first party every time. Do you want to go around putting a "The" before every mention of "Ohio State University"? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, even the lead of Hawaii here on Wikipedia makes it clear that the use of the okina is a Hawaiian language variant, i.e. it's not English. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed 100% with Jweiss here. The English-language names for these two teams are "Hawaii" and "San Jose State" Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why there is any reason to change it. However, since most of my edits are creations of season articles and updates, I just need to know how to list it in the future. For the last few seasons I have always put the okina, on hawaii's pages and their opponents. If that should not be there in the future then I won't put it. But I am not going to take the time to go back and remove all of them. Way to many other things to do before that. So just tell me how to do it in the future and I'll do it that way. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thatʻs fine. Everyone can pitch in cleaning it up. Just simply write "Hawaii" where you would have otherwise written it with the okina. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Dirtlawyer, quit joking around with my talk page comments, ok(ina)? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bill Swancutt - Oregon State

Hello,

I found the Bill Swancutt article via the Random Article button. Unfortunately, due to my lack of knowledge of NFL, I am unable to expand any further. If anyone can have a look over it to check my terminology/ phrasing is correct, and make any improvements, it will be very much appreciated.

Thanks very much, ツStacey (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Harbaugh

Am I being too pedantic in insisting that we await an actual announcement from the school, presumably tomorrow, rather than relying on media reports from "persons not authorized to speak to the press" - as ubiquitous as they may be? JohnInDC (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This is what the Detroit Free Press is reporting this evening, and as likely as it seems to me, to my mind this is not sufficient for the articles to reflect this as fait accompli:
After weeks of speculation that he was the top target, that the Wolverines would have to fight off NFL teams and that U-M offered $8 million a season, Harbaugh has signed an agreement and will be introduced at a news conference at noon Tuesday as U-M's next football coach, two people within the university with knowledge of the negotiations told the Free Press this evening. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because U-M officials weren't authorized to speak publicly about the coaching search.
JohnInDC (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I was reverting at first, but then I figured it was better to format the Harbaugh stuff the right way rather than to let the IPs/newbies keep junking things up. The issue should be moot tomorrow. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
In short, no, not too pedantic but perhaps not the most practical! Okay - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:SPORTSTRANS describes how this could be handled.—Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
While this is an essay and not a Wikipedia guideline, it does seem to embody the core wisdom of past discussions on this topic. We should also have relatively standard explanatory language that can be used in edit summaries and that can be slapped on IP/newbie user talk pages so that they are receiving explanations of how and why these transactions are handled. That would help reduce reverts and frustration -- and Bagumba needs to be available to semi-protect sports bios when needed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Bagumba for that. Something along those lines appears to have worked its way into the Harbaugh article. While the position isn't official yet, all the noise surrounding it is certainly worth reporting - JohnInDC (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
While we're all here, what's the general practice for describing a coach who's hired in calendar year 2014 for the 2015 season? "(2014 -)" or "(2015 -)"? JohnInDC (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should be (2015– ) because he doesn't officially coach until the 2015 season. Although he is hired in 2014, I highly doubt he'll actually do anything until after the New Year. Corkythehornetfan(Talk) 17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: Template:uw-sportstrans (linked in the "See also" of the essay) can be placed on user talk pages for convenience. Probably not much help for drive-by editors, who I don't expect are too familiar with WP guidelines, but hopeful can enlighten a registered user or two every now and then.—Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Perfect, Bags. I have flagged it for use next time I need it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Rose Bowl move request

There is an ongoing move request at Talk:Rose Bowl Game. -- Calidum 03:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The same editor who nominated this move also moved Rose Bowl (stadium) to Rose Bowl stadium. The stadium is known simply as the "Rose Bowl" so the parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The naming on the building itself even says "Rose Bowl" and it makes sense since it was modeled after the Yale Bowl. The bowl game is named after the stadium, not the other way around (heck, the term "bowl games" comes from the Rose Bowl name). In any case, the move of "Rose Bowl (stadium)" to "Rose Bowl stadium" should also be discussed first. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have just initiated a move request at Talk:Rose Bowl stadium#Requested move 31 December 2014 to reverse the recent move. Please comment there as well. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Assessment Drive

We have around 80 or so articles that are not assessed. It's good practice to keep articles classified properly for easy sorting. As a general rule, we should classify or assess articles with the criteria as described at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment. There is a table on that page with links to the different articles.

I'm pretty sure that once we finish up the bowl season, we'll want to tackle this quickly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: FYI, I've been through the entire original list of 234 unassessed CFB-related articles from 10 days ago, and the remaining 80 unassessed articles four or five times each. Of the 234, 150+ have been assessed and various WikiProject templates have been added, and 20+ of the remaining 80 or so have been identified as likely non-notable candidates for deletion at AfD (see thread started by Jweiss11 above). There are various issues with the remaining 60 or so; several of the subjects are not notable as football players, but may be notable for other aspects of their lives. Several may need to be merged; others need another set of eyeballs or two to evaluate them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
AWESOME! Naturally, if anyone is assessing an article and thinks it should be deleted then send it to AFD or just PROD it. Thanks for the work!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TfD: inappropriate team navbox

I have nominated a non-championship team navbox for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#Template:LVPosseRoster. I know that several other inappropriate team navboxes have been created recently. Now might be a good time to nominate them all for TfD and do some house-keeping. If anyone has a list, you might name them below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

DL, were have a slew of inaugural season roster navboxes out there, e.g. Category:National Football League inaugural season team roster navigational boxes. That's essentially what Template:LVPosseRoster is, since the franchise only existed for one season. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, the expansion/inaugural season navboxes often have a high percentage of non-notable and marginally notable players. They work better as lists, just like most of the draft navboxes. WP:NFL has way too many crufty navboxes and a half dozen editors who do nothing but generate more of them -- like the L.A. Rams Special Teams Rookie of the Year Award. But that's not really WP:CFB's problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Question: Do any other CFL teams have inaugural season roster navboxes? If this is the only one that exists, that may clue us in right away as to what to do about it. Plus, CFL players are covered by WP:NGRIDIRON, right? So, presuming that all of these players actually played for the team during the season, they'd all meet the appropriate notability guideline. The fact that some of the articles haven't been written yet doesn't necessarily mean that they're non-notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The BC Lions do, Template:1954 BC Lions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
There is really nothing to distinguish inaugural season navboxes. It is another example of navbox cruft that overwhelms the bottom of article pages for NFL players, and to a lesser degree, CFL players. Navboxes for Super Bowl, Grey Cup and consensus national college champions? Absolutely. For the inaugural season of the one-season Las Vegas posse? No, thank you. It's cruft, and the important navboxes get lost among the crap. Even more so for navboxes where more than two thirds of the linked players are red links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Bowl game articles w/out navboxes or cats

WP:CFB members, please note new editor User:Surrmon is starting to create historic bowl game article stubs without navboxes, categories, or references. Please keep an eye on this. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you've already talked to the user about the situation? GoPhightins! 20:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems that would be a logical first step; perhaps you could show him links to the appropriate templates ... GoPhightins! 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've modded a standard warning template to also thank him for his contributions, and added it to his usertalk. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Year, year, year

Jsharpminor (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just found out what the rest of the world does. They don't search for the 1991 Peach Bowl, they refer to the 1992 Peach Bowl without regard to the fact that there are two of them. That's horrifying. *sigh* Okay, I retract my ignorant comments. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Jsharpminor, I was just about to respond to you. Yes, I suppose it is a little confusing. In cases where there were two games of a particular bowl in the same calendar year, we may want to clearly state which one we are talking about, depending on context, in other articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Access to free books

There are some sports-related title that you may find helpful at Wikipedia:McFarland. Sign up required.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Division season titles

I have recently moved the 2012 and 2013 NAIA Championship pages to the conventional method of [division x or NAIA season] outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Style guide, and I thought that I should ask for input as to whether I should continue to move the other pages of this sort or cease and desist. I was also wondering about 73-77 Division I (currently branded as college football season) since when these articles were established, articles for Division II and III in these years have been created. I am also wondering about pre '73 article names (also as Year college football season) Note some categories are already named Year NCAA football season such as the Category for 1950 or the category titled 1906 Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States football season. I have established in my previous questions on this page that I am a sucker for conformity and consistency so I know as a reader what to expect in articles. Any advice on possible course of action would be greatly appreciated.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In other words what I am suggesting I wonder if I could move some or all...

  • I. Move the NAIA pages from Year NAIA Football National Championship to Year NAIA football season.
  • II. Move 1973-77 season pages to say 1973 NCAA Division I football season.
  • III. (Less concern to me) 1955 college football to 1955 NCAA University Division football season
  • IV. 1930 college football season to 1930 NCAA football season

UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, this all seems like a reasonable proposal, particularly points I and II above. A couple notes there...On point I, if the NAIA Championship articles are going to repurposed and expanded to cover entire NAIA seasons, then the leads need to be rewritten accordingly. Also, the infoboxes need to changed to something along the lines of Template:Infobox NCAA Division I FBS season. The existing infoboxes summarizing the championship games could be pushed further down the page to a section covering the playoff tournament. On point II, when articles like 1973 college football season were first written, the intent was for them to cover all college football for 1973 with a focus on NCAA Division I. We do see sections there titled "Other champions", which briefly summarize the lower divisions. If we move 1973 college football season to 1973 NCAA Division I football season, those section should be eliminated. Perhaps, a see also section could provide links to pages for the 1973 lower division seasons, although the NCAA links are already present via Template:NCAA football season navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to season articles. At one point we were creating season articles for each conference in the NAIA. If we have abandonded that then I could be persuaded to agee. But bear in mind that there are conference season articles in existence, so to me it makes sense to have the championship separate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you User:Jweiss11 for formatting my bullets. In regards to the season articles for NAIA, I would compare that to many of the D2 and D3 articles in existence. A brief summary of the season with a national POY winner. Outline of conference champions, Conference standings (when created for that year) and the playoffs. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to participate on point 2, I have requested a move on Talk:1977 college football season#Requested MoveUCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Dirtlawyer1, this is the "overall proposal".UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A new editor may need help

Hello, I have noticed that User:12345yhu is making questionable edits, such as [2] and [3]. I believe that although this editor is well intentioned , we may need to make certain they are helping and not hindering the flow of an article. I don't believe I am experienced enough to be a very helpful wikieducator, as I am also asking many basic questions myself. Needless to say some of his/her work needs to be watched.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to cities whose state is omitted from their article title

Doesn't this constitute unnecessary overlinking? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, as far as the article goes, it should be linked as [Cleveland|Cleveland, Ohio] not [Cleveland], [Ohio] The infobox I don't think is that much of a problem. Obama's infobox has Honolulu, Hawaii While W's has New Haven, ConnecticutUCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the MOS tell us only to link to most germane articles? Why do Cleveland and Hawaii, cities so prominent they are titled without their state, need a supporting, extra wikilink to the state, while more minor cities like New Haven, or cities with more ambiguous names, don't? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would usually just encode as [[Cleveland, Ohio]] per WP:NOPIPE. Why are people obsessed with avoiding redirects? I avoid individually linking to the state as it's the city most are interested in; the city article would have a link to the state for those wanting more info on the state. This seems akin to WP:SPECIFICLINK.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Bagumba makes since. I was only pointing out that it isn't clear cut, unlike that IP who called my revert of them adding Saturdays to the CFB schedule to 2014 Ohio State "vandalism."-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The example given at WP:NOPIPE is of a related subject X that redirects to article Y, and links are accepted to X in order to gauge if a separate article X is warranted. This is not the case with "Cleveland, Ohio" versus "Cleveland" - there will never be separate articles for Cleveland, Ohio and Cleveland. Therefore I agree with the principle of avoiding redirects and thus linking directly to Cleveland. (Furthermore, if the article is at Cleveland why do our links say Cleveland, Ohio?)--162.239.239.5 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
See WP:NOTBROKEN: "Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form." What is the rationale to making the text more complicated than it really needs to be?—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba. [[Cleveland]], [[Ohio]] isn't corrected (why the {{city-state}} template (or whatever it was called) was discontinued). I also think for clarity when editing, it should be [[Cleveland, Ohio]] (with a redirect) instead of [[Cleveland|Cleveland, Ohio]]. There is a greater chance of typo-ing the right hand side of the pipe and not noticing it because it won't be a redlink. If you typo Clevland, Ohio, then it will be noticed sooner because it will be red. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: I've invited Ryecatcher773, the editor of the diff Jweiss11 provided, to help form a consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I already weighed in on Jweiss's talk pages a couple of days ago, but just to confirm: [[Cleveland, Ohio]] is the preferred form of link for American cities for reasons of specificity and consistency. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Days of the week do or don't belong in schedules?

See the 2014 Ohio State Buckeyes football team in regards to my question.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, no, it's TMI, and these tables are wide enough already. Frankly, once you have the date, it's an easy enough thing to look up, anyways. If someone wants to include it in the article somewhere, I'd say the place to do it is in the "Game notes" section of the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The season record tables are already too damn wide and are prone to line-wrapping on smaller monitors and handhelds. We need to stop trying to add unnecessary details to the tables, further widening them and exacerbating the line-wrap problem. So, no, we do not want to include the days of the week on which the games were played; the date is sufficient. As EJ suggested, include the days of the week in the box score/game notes if you're feeling compelled. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

CFP ranking in season articles

Now that the season is over, should we leave the last College Football Playoff ranking in team articles' infoboxes, even though there is no new CFP ranking based on the bowl game results? 2014 UCLA Bruins football team has been reverted multiple times on this issue.—Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I have not been involved in this issue. It seems like it's inconsistent with AP and Coaches poll, which accounts for the whole season, which would be confusing to have in an infobox. As it is detailed at 2014_UCLA_Bruins_football_team#Rankings, and is available at 2014 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings, I would think it doesnt belong in infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Seems pretty clear that a de facto consensus exist on Wikipedia at the moment. The Poll seems to have been removed from most teams, including the 4 teams in the playoff itself. Since it's pretty clear how this should be handled (match the rest of Wikipedia unless someone can show a good reason to change all the articles... which is doubtful since the poll won't reflect the postseason...), it's also pretty clear that user Ucla90024 will do the opposite of that, as is usual. Embowaf (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]
, NCAA Football franchise Archives

latestnews

Best Life Brands Announced as Platform Company Name for ComForCare, At Your Side, CarePatrol, and Future Acquisitions

Alesia Visconti2019-01-23T18:12:59-05:00January 23rd, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, home care franchise, low cost franchise, own your own business, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

BrightStar Care Proves a Steady, Growing Presence in Entrepreneur’s 40th Annual Franchise 500®

Alesia Visconti2019-01-23T17:56:18-05:00January 23rd, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, home care franchise, low cost franchise, own your own business, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

CarePatrol Announces Care Collaboration with Kindred At Home

Alesia Visconti2019-01-22T18:31:26-05:00January 22nd, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, low cost franchise, own your own business, senior placement franchise, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

Leading In-Home Private Tutoring Franchise Announces Record Year of Growth, Achievements

Alesia Visconti2019-01-22T18:21:26-05:00January 22nd, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, low cost franchise, own your own business, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine, tutoring franchise|

Handyman Connection Announces New Vice President Of Operations

Alesia Visconti2019-01-22T18:02:45-05:00January 22nd, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, home care franchise, home repair franchise, low cost franchise, own your own business, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

FirstLight Home Care Named a Top Franchise Opportunity for 2019

Alesia Visconti2019-01-21T17:37:15-05:00January 21st, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, home care franchise, low cost franchise, own your own business, senior services franchise, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

Tint World® Opens First Tennessee Location

Alesia Visconti2019-01-18T22:27:13-05:00January 18th, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, automotive franchise, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, low cost franchise, own your own business, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

Assisted Living Locators Ranked A Top Franchise In Entrepreneur’s Highly Competitive 40th Annual Franchise 500®

Alesia Visconti2019-01-16T18:21:37-05:00January 16th, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, low cost franchise, own your own business, senior placement franchise, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

American Family Care Named to Franchise 500 List for Sixth Consecutive Year

Alesia Visconti2019-01-16T17:57:50-05:00January 16th, 2019|Tags: advertise your franchise business, business opportunities magazine, business opportunity, franchise advertising, franchise internet marketing, franchise magazine, franchise marketing, franchise opportunities, franchising, healthcare franchise, low cost franchise, own your own business, small business opportunities magazine, small business opportunity magazine|

Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]
NCAA Football franchise Archives

It’s time to liberate the archive of college football game tape

This post first showed up in our couple-times-a-week newsletter, The Read Option. We would love to have you as a subscriber for the low, low price of free. Here’s a button! And the post!

Sign up for the newsletter The Read Option

A daily-ish mini-column on the college football thing of the day, with some other stuff too.

NFL Game Pass costs $99.99 a year. For that price, I can go all the way back to 2012 and watch any game I want, commercial-free. The NFL understands that its product has a shelf life extending beyond five broadcast hours on a fall weekend, and that they might be able to sell it to people who want it. That’s maybe the kindest thing anyone’s said about the NFL, but it’s also accurate. If someone wants something, they will almost always try to sell it to them.

In contrast: A person hanging around their house during self-isolation suddenly remembers the 2015 Mississippi State/Arkansas game. This person thinks about what an underrated and overlooked barnburner of a game that was, a 51-50 freakshow featuring Dak Prescott throwing for five touchdowns and 501 yards, and Razorbacks QB Brandon Allen somehow besting him by throwing for seven touchdowns and 406 yards through the air. The whole thing ended not on a score, but when the Bulldogs’ Beniquez Brown blocked a 29-yard field goal attempt with 39 seconds left. The cameras caught Mississippi State fans getting so excited they fought each other in the stands.

It is a whale of a game. Not the friendly kind, but the species that headbutts passing freighters for fun and yearns to flip a diver into the air with the flick of its tail.

This hypothetical person might want to go watch that whole game just for fun. If that person – definitely not me, procrastinating on a spring Tuesday afternoon avoiding both the dishes and work – wanted to do so, then they’d have to go find a pirated copy of the game on YouTube. This would be hosted by someone named H@wGz1lla83720. His legal Armor of God is the caption beneath the video “I do not claim rights or ownership of this video.” If this person wanted to share this game with more than four people, it would be taken down forever by Google for copyright violation in a matter of hours anyway.

To recap: We live in a world where I can go all the way back to 2013 and on demand watch a 13-6 abomination between a 4-12 Jacksonville Jaguars team and a genuinely reprehensible 2-14 Houston Texans squad. However, I can’t hand someone a credit card to watch a classic late night football barfight between Arkansas and Mississippi State.

That is an unjust world, and we should not tolerate it. It’s time for someone to storm the college football archives and let the people have what they need. It’s time to open the archives and let the strategic reserve of football flow to the people. We can’t and wouldn’t steal it, no, never. Instead, go ahead and charge us a reasonable fee. Let prime-aged college football flow to consumers, and help everyone pass the hours between now and whatever resembles normal.

I can’t make this pitch any simpler, easier, or more desperately needed than this. Eyeballs here, spreadsheet bots. This is a new revenue stream in a moment when I know rights-holders need one badly. How do I know? Because I saw the grim reaper of advertising market death last week: Chris Berman, stuffed into a sports coat straining at the buttons, hawking extended auto warranties in prime time during a replay of the Cavs beating the Warriors in game seven of the 2016 NBA Finals. His kingdom is death, and its landscape is made of low-budget ads for tactical sun visors and home generators.

Side note: I didn’t know how un-tactical my life was until the commercial slate of the undead slid over from its native environment on the ACC Network and took over ESPN. There are tactical sunglasses so I can drive to Costco exactly like I did before, but now I do it for the troops. There is a tactical car visor to keep me from driving directly into the sun and vaporizing my entire family in the process, something that has somehow not happened yet to me, and will definitely happen eventually if I keep driving without one.

I owe the Tactical ad wave this, too. I got to meet the Most Boomer Alive, aka the man in the ad for the TACTICAL EARPIECES that are definitely not just troop-branded hearing aids. Look at how happy he is destroying the hearing of his sleeping grandchildren!

Dude is doing this in the name of watching Rutgers-Illinois at noon. The generational commitment to making everyone share the pain of your mistakes on display here – in this case, voluntary and lasting hearing damage – is simply incredible. This man will drag his whole family to hell with him, but not before stopping in Champaign for an 11-5 Illini win over the Scarlet Knights.

Watching that particular game at any volume is a desperate act in theory. Right now is a desperate time in reality. A lot of businesses got caught without reserves or the ability to adapt on the fly. That even includes previously bulletproof cable channels incapable of thriving off lucrative television carriage fees most people scarcely realized they were paying.

There is something left in the strategic reserve, rights-holders of the world. It’s not new live content, no. But I promise, people will watch it, and not just by appointment. Watching a replay of USC-Texas in the 2006 Rose Bowl in prime time is fun and fine. Watching any game ever at exactly the time I want to watch said game? That would not only be better, but also way closer to the current realities of how people consume pretty much everything.

Because that’s not even how any of this works anymore, not even with sports. Even before a pandemic forced a good chunk of life indoors and online, streaming had already eroded the idea of networks controlling schedules for almost anyone. The lone exception to that move: The sports fan, still attached in season to league game schedules, and in the offseason to the whims of programmers looking to fill dead air with the occasional replay.

Right now, there’s not even those broadcast conventions holding back places like ESPN, the Big Ten Network, and, if it still exists, the Pac-12 Network from just putting their archives out there. There isn’t much excuse from the tech side, either, especially for places like ESPN that already have streaming subscription platforms up and running well.

There isn’t even a way to argue that there isn’t demand for it, because right now there is demand for anything resembling sports at all. People rewatched a 15-year-old college football game. They watched Scott Storch and Mannie Fresh go on Instagram Live and play songs at each other. They watch marble races at this point — or like I did, reruns of the 1979 World’s Strongest Man Contest on the CBS Sports Network.

Two nights ago I watched archival footage of a 50-year-old man blowing up a rubber hot water bottle for two minutes until it exploded. Then, Brent Musburger interviewed a very strong and very winded fat man in a singlet after that man deadlifted Colombo’s car.

That part was good as hell, actually. But the rest is bad, all just a lot of very, very bad out there. Change that, people in charge. Open the floodgates on decades of watch time for intellectual property you already own – property that isn’t doing a thing right now for anyone, including you.

Put them all to use. Let anyone revisit the splendor of Ohio State absolutely getting housed by Purdue 49-20 in 2018 any time they like. Open the doors and let moments like Louisville’s 2002 monsoon upset of #4 Florida State roll wherever people want them to roll. Give me the entire Kick Six game, whenever I want it, and at whatever volume I choose. Let people get as freaky as they want to with it, even if they want to watch the 9-6 Georgia-Missouri 2015 game again. (This should not ever be allowed, actually.)

We will take it, because it’s not just the offseason for football. It’s the offseason for everything we know as normal right now, including for sports. It won’t weaken the brand. It won’t keep people from watching live games, at least if the NFL’s ratings are any indication. Old games on demand would be a canned good for the college football palate: Not fresh goods, but will still do the job all the same. All we need is someone sharp enough to open them.

Источник: [https://torrent-igruha.org/3551-portal.html]
.

What’s New in the NCAA Football franchise Archives?

Screen Shot

System Requirements for NCAA Football franchise Archives

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *