Talk:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season

College football Start‑class Top‑importance

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27/5/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

I've tagged this as unencyclopedic as it was/is talking about future events (which have now occurred) (see WP:NOT). It needs, imo, to be updated or deleted. - Politepunk 13:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly fits in the #1 under Crystal Ball: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ... A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. Mecu 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the AfD consensus was "keep", I think there was sufficient consensus that the "Key Matchups" section needed to go. If someone really thinks I'm wrong here, by all means revert and give me a good reason why it complies with WP:NPOV. BryanG^(talk) 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it should be restored only when sourced: E.g. when we can link to "SI's top 10 games to Tivo this season" or the like - that way its their opinion being cited, not ours. Johntex\^talk 22:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to be fine - it was really the unsourced section from before that I was talking about anyway. BryanG^(talk) 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want a full games list of the season? It would be quite lengthy and just clutter up this page, so perhaps on another page? Or go week by week of games? Something like 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season week 1 and then 2006 NCAA Division I-A football season week 2 and so forth? Mecu 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a full season schedule is necesary or beneficial here. I'd rather see us list games that a national news source (such as ESPN or SI or Foxsports) has identified as the "key matchups" or "must-see games". Johntex\^talk 13:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Johntex on this. I think a list of all the games would make the article way too long, is not especially encyclopedic, and would probably hurt the project as a whole by having multiple articles come up for deletion. It would also be impossible for the project to decide which games should and should not be mentioned and maintain WP:NPOV, so let's wait for the news sources to make a decion about what is important and then highlight that for each week, replacing the section after each week's games have passed or at most keeping one week of back-logged information (i.e. This Week's Major Matchups and Last Week's Major Machups). In either case, those sections must be sourced or they violate all sorts of policies.

Okay, so we'll just list games that are noted as important by other sources. But I disagree that we delete them after the week is over. Does it become unencyclopedic after 2 weeks? Mecu 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we run the risk of the article becoming too long to be usefull if we keep more than two weeks worth of matchups, not necessarily un-encyclopedic. maybe keep two weeks of data for the top games and then have a separate section that is for notable games from that season...instant classics if you will. Z4ns4tsu 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion and want to hear from everybody else about its "encyclopedic" value. I would like to see a section of a page, or a dedicated page, that displayed the progression of rankings throughout the season. It would be interesting to see how much the rankings change through the course of a year. The page (something like 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings) would look something like this:

AP Poll

Coaches Poll

I like seeing the same poll be spread horizontally. So, good idea or bad idea?

This could be useful, but a well written article on how the ratings work (in theory) would be more important. But I'm fine with this idea, though listing all the ratings would be important for completeness (AP, BCS, Coaches, others?). --Mecu 02:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article would contain the following rankings: AP, Coaches, BCS, and the Harris Interactive. I wouldn't be against including others polls such as ESPN's or Sportsline's Power Rankings.--NMajdan•talk 19:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an early draft of the page on my userspace. The intro could use a little work but I made the tables so only data has to be inputed. I also think that maybe, as the season progresses, we could use different colors in the cells to indicate if the team increased in ranking or decreased. But, the page as it is now has the four major polls. Let me know what you think.--NMajdan•talk 16:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the look of it. I think that the article should only have the AP and Coaches polls on it, though, until the BCS and Harris polls are actually released. At that time, I'd really expect to see the BCS rankings at the top of the page since they become the most important, in general, then the AP, Coaches, and Harris in that order. I also like the idea of changing the colors to designate movement. Maybe #99FFCC for up and #FFCCCC for down? We'd have to rig up a table and look at them side by side though...may as well do it.

Z4ns4tsu 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind leaving the other poll off for now. I can keep them in my userspace so they don't have to be completely recreated. And yeah, BCS should probably go on top when its released. Those colors will work although I wouldn't mind them be a little lighter. I adjusted you're choices a little: #D8FFEB for up and #FFE6E6 for down.

--NMajdan•talk 18:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made another change to the table format. I made the changes to the AP Poll table. Basically, I created a new spanned row for Week with just the numbers in the individiual cells below it. Naturally, as teams are entered into the cells, the table will widen. What does everyone think?--NMajdan•talk 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your color choices better. I was going for something right arround those shades, but I see now that what I chose was a bit too dark. As for the changes, I'm not sure that saving they will be as useful once we fill in a few weeks with teams, though it does look better now. Do you plan on using abreviations or full school name on this table, btw? That could make a lot of difference. Z4ns4tsu 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably just use the most common abbreviations, probably won't differ too much from the way the list is published. Oklahoma, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU, UCLA, etc.--NMajdan•talk 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. Though why do the AP and Coaches poll differ in their Week listing? Also, I think we should link to the current year team pages, if they exist, otherwise the football page, if it exists, then the athletics page, if it exists, and then just the school. And what about preseason rankings? Do the AP and Coaches list them? Perhaps we should include the records of the teams behind their name (like: Notre Dame (1-1)) and if they're undefeated, list them in bold (like: Texas (2-0)), it may look slightly ugly early in the season when there are lots of 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, etc. What about listing the #1 team in their school color(s)? --MECU≈talk 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The AP and Coaches poll differ because I was trying out a different look on the AP poll and left the Coaches poll alone for comparison. Which do you like better, AP or Coaches? I don't mind your suggestion regarding links. So the order of preference for team links will be Team's Football Year Page > Team's Football Page > Team's Page > Team's School (2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team>Oklahoma Sooners football>Oklahoma Sooners>University of Oklahoma). I agree with the records. Sometimes its good to know that the #22 ranked team is undefeated. I say we leave undefeated teams unbolded, no need to set them out if we have the record right beside them. Same thing for the #1 team, just leave the colors alone.--NMajdan•talk 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either. I slighly prefer the coaches style. You've got my preference for linking right. Yah, no bolding and color magic, I'm fine with that too. --MECU≈talk 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably create the page later this month or early next. The Coaches preseason poll typically comes out the first or second week of August with the AP poll following a few weeks later. I'll create the page roughly one week prior to the release of the first poll. This will allow time for others who have not seem my userspace page to make modifications before population of the tables. I'd like to create it now just to get it out there but I don't know if it being so early for be a criterion for speedy deletion or deletion. Also, a question I think I missed earlier, the preseason poll will go in the Week 1 column. If you look at the ESPN page for the poll, you'll see that is how they did it as well (hence the teams are all 0-0). I would love for this page to be a Featured List after the season is over. That should be what we shoot for.--NMajdan•talk 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think I'm going to create the article on Friday. Last year, the Coaches poll was released the first Friday in August. This friday will be two weeks before the first friday in August and I'll assume the poll will be released around the same time it was last year. I'll put a justification for the early creation of the article in the talk page.--NMajdan•talk 02:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about deletion. I believe we could stave it off enough since it's an event that will probably happen. I went ahead and did the BCS Poll for 2005 and all the colors. I added another color (yellow) for new teams that entered the poll. I also added a row at the bottom that shows which teams dropped out of the poll (for completeness). For the BCS, I added all the weeks there were listed and it was short of all the weeks listed so I removed Week15&16 columns. Perhaps we should add the date with the Week # column? Looking back historically, seeing "Week 8" but seeing "Week 8/Oct 22" would have much more meaning. I didn't add the records because the BCS PDF I was using doesn't list them at all on the page. I also think we should maintain the current top25 list for all polls over at Wikinews:Portal:Football (American). I created the blank table, and the efforts will be duplicated, but perhaps we could link here as well and it might give us more exposure. --MECU≈talk 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the look of it Mecu. We should probably use a different color for the teams selected to the BCS championship game than the yellow for new teams. Maybe a blue? the colors of the championship bowl game that year? something like that. Z4ns4tsu 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking since yellow is so eye-catching, use a light-blue for the new-entry-to-the-poll teams? Also, I remember reading somewhere about how they developed a chess board template so you could easilly create a chess board with the images of the peices in place. I think something like this might help us, but I can't seem to find it anymore. --MECU≈talk 16:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 article created here. It has the AP poll and BCS. I like some of the additional changes that were added to the BCS so I'll add those to my AP poll as well.--NMajdan•talk 16:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]