Talk:2005–06 NCAA football bowl games

Please do not put any "gambling" information on these games. They are needless info and will be deleted. NoseNuggets 12:21 US EST Dec 29 2005.

I have, as one will have apprehended, been reverting NoseNuggets' deletions of the spread/over-under statistics that I have given in each game summary I have written. Inasmuch as such information provides one with a better picture of the expected result of a given game, and in view of its inclusion in sundry encyclopedias referencing college games, most notably the new Sports Illustrated Complete History of College Football, I believe such information is appropriate and relevant. Surely if a consensus develops to the contrary, I will gladly accede to the wishes of the majority, but I am disinclined to take NoseNuggets' contentions as dispositive, not least because the other susbtantive edits he has made to the page have been puerile (e.g., in his description of the Alamo Bowl) or non-standard (e.g., in his use of less-than-encyclopedic grammar and syntax). I will thank everyone in advance for his/her views on the subject. Cordially Joe 22:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rethinking my previous intransigence, I have edited the addition of the spread/over-under statistics such that the emphasis is perhaps less on the gambling aspect and more on an independent ex ante evaluation of the games, from which standpoint to view results ex post. I hope that NoseNuggets, inter al., will be satisfied with the balance struck, and I surely think that no longer could any objection relative to the distracting nature of the information could reasonably be entertained or sustained. Once more, I imagine that we would all welcome additional input, and I think in the absence of such, I am correct to err on the side of providing too much information than too little. Cordially Joe 17:50 US CST, 29 December 2005.

Maybe you can start a seperate page on the gambling stuff in these games instead. NoseNuggets 6:57 US EST Dec 29 2005

Once more, the point is that the information is not really gambling-related, so much as it is related to one's ability to evaluate a game result in the context of pre-game projections. I direct you once more to sundry sports encyclopedias, in which a game's final score is often presented in contradistinction to a projection. That said, we'll leave the information off for now unless someone else wants to revert. I think we have the page at a good place right now. Cordially Joe 17:59 US CST, 29 December 2005.

When NoseNuggets is done editing, I am once more going to change all Big XII to Big 12, as is being done elsewhere on Wikipedia, in keeping with http://www.big12sports.com/aboutbig12/big12-aboutbig12.html, which states, in pertinent part, "When referring to the Big 12 Conference, please remember the conference name (which is a registered trademark) should be listed as follows: Big 12 Conference. The following should not be used in text when referencing the Big 12: Big XII, Big Twelve" (parenthetical in original). I prefer the Big XII designation as much as the next guy, but the conference is now pretty clear on the proper usage.

For the record, apropos of our earlier gambling discussion, one may consult, inter al., the Wikipedia entry for Super Bowl XXXIX, where a section of the main article ("gambling") provides the spread, over-under, and money lines for the game. I'm not planning to reinsert the information, but I think it should be acknowledged that the information is typically included in reports of sports events. Joe 18:30 US CST, 01 Jan 2k6.

Joe, I doubt you were the one doing the editing on the Sugar Bowl story where the dates were listed in the International style (Day number-month) instead of the North American style (Month-day number) for which something as "Gridiron" or "American football" clearly uses. I was upset about it and had to re-edit the information about how the Georgia Dome played three football games in four days, listing the scores as well, which may also have been deleted by said poster. Whomever did this was careless not to have background information about something this important. NoseNuggets 5:55 PM US EST Jan 3 2004.

I indeed edited the dates in view of the fact that the rest of the article employs the international (although perhaps the appellative "learned" is better) system. I also deleted the redundant score of the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl and of the Panthers-Falcons game in the Sugar Bowl entry. I cannot see the relevance of giving the outcome of an NFL game in the Sugar Bowl entry. In any case, the edits are surely minor and ought not to engender anger. Joe 18:57 US CST, 04 Jan 2k6.

It's not redundant to tell a backstory, but I personaly prefer that this a sport that started in North America, and the fact the the Georgia Dome stadium hosted three games in four days, and the scores (and proper use of dates in the North American of sense) may (or may not) be relivant. Just my personal opinion. NoseNuggets 8:28 PM US EST Jan 4 2006.