Talk:Michigan Wolverines football/Archive 1

Memorable games
Pretty disingenuous to record almost entirely victories only as "memorable games." That's called "cherry-picking." Buckboard 06:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about others, but I don't remember many of our losses. For me, the ones that stand out are the ones listed (sorry if we don't remember many of our losses to osu). Terryfoster 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it goes with saying that these are games that were memorable *to Michigan fans*. Of course you're going to try to forget the ones you lose.  Funnyhat 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Buckboard is correct. It's difficult for anyone to claim they are writing from a neutral point of view when they use phrases here like "our losses." Anyone writing from a neutral point of view should have no trouble coming up with some memorable games not on this list that were losses for Michigan. How about 1976 when Michigan went to Purdue 8-0 and ranked #1, only to lose a shocker, 16-14. How about the following season when the same thing happened, but at Minnesota this time? Michigan entered that game 6-0 and ranked #1, but Minnesota won 16-0. Minnesota did it again 9 years later, when Michigan entered the game 9-0 and ranked #2, only to lose 20-17. Anyway, the other problem with the list is that games from recent seasons are weighted far too heavily. Half the games on the list are from the past 10 years, and only 9 of the 30 games listed took place prior to the 1991 season. 198.77.51.249 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This section has been removed from a IP user. I actually agree with this move due to the WP:NPOV along with the many other problems it raises with it's inclusion.  I would suggest that it remains omitted from this article. Terryfoster 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota rivalry?
While I believe the Minnesota game will be a big game this season, I don't believe anything but recent history makes this a rivalry. Personally I think it is adequate to leave it as a trophy game. If we add Minnesota I feel we would need to add the strong B10 teams for this season which could include Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa. -Terryfoster 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Wolverines web site, the Minnesota game is a rivalry game. http://mgoblue.com/section_display.cfm?section_id=419&top=2&level=3 --RLent 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That page doesn't list Notre Dame so I wouldn't take it as being all that reliable. Also it lists the Minnesota game only to mention the trophy.  So, there is obviously a Michigan-Ohio State rivlary, the Michigan-Michigan State is the intrastate rivalry, and Michigan-Notre Dame is another obvious rival.  The only thing that sets the Minnesota game apart from the rest of the schedule is the trophy. Terryfoster 12:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whichever schools are listed as rivals, there should be a way to distinguish Ohio State and Notre Dame from any other schools. The Michigan-Ohio State game has been voted the nation's biggest rivalry, and Michigan and ND are the two winningest programs in college football history. Those are rivalries of historic and national significance. Michigan State is considered a rival presumably because of proximity -- and no other reason. The rivalry with Minnesota actually has a longer and more significant history than the rivalry with Michigan State. Regardless, neither of those teams belong on the same list of rivals as OSU and ND. Perhaps Ohio State and Notre Dame should be listed as primary rivals, and MSU and Minnesota should be listed as secondary rivals. 198.77.51.249 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would consider The Buckeyes and Notre Dame major rivalries for obvious reasons, and Michigan State a rivalry, because Michigan plays them every single season. I don't think Minnesota is, or should be considered a "major rivalry." Lets use television as an example, the Ohio State-Michigan, and Notre Dame-Michigan games are always on national television (ABC, NBC), but if I recall the Minnesota-Michigan game, although they play for a trophy was on the Big Ten Network this season. Do what is necessary for the article and leave Minnesota out of the rivals section, and rather just list them as a team Michigan plays. Jake (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

National Championships
http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/misc/natchamp.htm

Some person keeps editing the claim for 11 national championships down to a count of "7" [DMfromhell: and they just changed it to 2, which is completely incorrect], and the tag line that only that number are recognized. Here is an excerpt from The Bentley (sp?) historical library supporting the tabulation of and support for the 11 national championships claimed:

National Championships Determining a college football cational champion has never been an exact science. A variety of organizations and individuals have named national champions over the years, each with its own system for determining who is champion. In many years this has resulted in rival claimants to the title. By the University of Michigan Athletic Department's reckoning, the Wolverines have won or shared eleven national titles based on the awards of the following major selectors: UM recognized by: Billingsley, Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation Harvard recognized by; College Football Research Association Yale recognized by: Parke Davis UM recognized by: Billingsley, Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation, Parke Davis (tie with Yale) UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Princeton) Princeton recognized by: Helms, Houlgate, Parke Davis, National Championship Foundation ] UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Penn) Penn recognized by: Helms, Houlgate, Parke Davis, National Championship Foundation (tie) UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Pittsburgh) Pittsburgh recognized by: Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation (tie) UM recognized by: Billingsley, National Championship Foundation (tie with Illinois) California recognized by: Houlgate Illinois recognized by: Boand, Football Research, Helms, Parke Davis, National Championship Foundation (tie) UM recognized by: Dickinson, Parke Davis (tie with Colgate and Southern California) Colgate recognized by Parke Davis (tie) Southern California recognized by: Billingsley, Boand, Dunkel, Football Research, Helms, Houlgate, National Championship Foundation, Parke Davis, (tie), Poling, Williamson UM recognized by: Billingsley, Boand, College Football Research Association, Dickinson, Helms, Houlgate, Football Research, National Championship Foundation, Parke Davis (tie with Princeton), Poling Ohio State recognized by: Dunkel Princeton recognized by: Parke Davis (tie) Southern California recognized by: Williamson Notre Dame recognized by: Associated Press Helms (tie), Williamson Notre Dame was No. 1 in the final AP poll, but Michigan jumped to No. 1 after an unprecedented post-bowl poll Michigan and Notre Dame recognized as National Champions UM recognized by: Associated Press, Berryman, Billingsley, Boand, DeVold, Dunkel, Football Research, Helms, Houlgate, Litkenhous, National Championship Foundation, Poling, Williamson UM recognized by: Associated Press, National Football Foundation, Football Writer's Association Nebraska recognized by: ESPN/USA Today Coaches' Poll 66.65.76.15
 * 1901: Michigan and Harvard recognized as National Champions
 * 1902: Michigan recognized as National Champion
 * 1903: Michigan and Princeton recognized as National Champions
 * 1904: Michigan and Penn recognized as National Champions
 * 1918: Michigan and Pittsburgh recognized as National Champions
 * 1923: Michigan and Illinois recognized as National Champions
 * 1932: Michigan and Southern California recognized as National Champions
 * 1933: Michigan recognized as National Champion
 * 1947: Michigan recognized as National Champion
 * 1948: Michigan recognized as National Champion
 * 1997: Michigan and Nebraska recognized as National Champion


 * I see that someone keeps trying to edit down the NCs to "2" from "11". We're working on a new list over at the NCAA Div I-A Championship page that will have a pretty complete listing that can be used to show different numbers to address this problem. Gvharrier 16:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I now see why they changed "11" to "2": The title is "Wire National Titles" NOT "National Titles".  Michigan has only 2 "Wire" Titles in 1948 and 1997.  This heading might be changed, but I can't figure out how to change the table title for which seems to be fixed somewhere else.  (Note that I'm a big enough Wolverine fan that I'm flying in from California for the Ohio State game this Sat., so I'm not someone from the outside contending this.) Gvharrier 19:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
OK, this has gone back and forth long enough. I do understand that the athletic department claims 11 titles, but from what I understand is 4 of those are before there was any kind of consensus national title system. I think we need to come up with our own consensus here so we don't keep switching the "claims", "has claimed", etc back and forth. Personally I think it is correctly stated as "Michigan claims 11 national championships, 7 of which are recognized:" but I would like to see 11 listed in the info box. I would like some thoughtful discussion here and then when/if the wording/numbers get changed we can refer back to this discussion as to why we revert the change. Terryfoster 14:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reference: http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/misc/natchamp.htm 66.65.76.15 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I find it interesting that you would claim, on the one hand, that there is no consensus, and on the other, argue that you personally (with people who agree with you) can form that consensus. Before the NCAA, there were several groups that formed the consensus current at that time. Actually, even using the word "consensus" is misleading: census would be closer. At that time, rightly or wrongly, those organizations formed the book of record for that time. Today you get variations of the truth from the Washington Post, or the New York Times. Those papers may not agree, but no one is egomanical enough to declare by fiat what the truth is, or was. It is your job to report what people of the day believed in an NPOV fashion. Likewise, the fact that you and I disagree doesn't make the claims to the titles "disputed". What is disputed -- by me -- is that either of us -- or Passion dude -- can arbitrarily decree the truth. Thinking that you are in a position to do so strikes me as a huge epistemological (sp?) error. As a final thought, would you seriously argue that there is consensus today on this issue? Do you believe that the BCS is, in the minds of most fans, determinative? Face, only a playoff will solve the issue. You should also face that fact that the open-ended nature of the argument is grist for many mills, and employs a lot of pundits...people don't want a solution, they want the controversy. 66.65.76.15 02:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a good argument, but do you really want to see the number and text change at the whim of each user? I personally think that activity lowers the quality of the article which is why we need some kind of consensus (meaning general agreement[]).  Please don't assume I won't give up until my viewpoint is agreed upon, my goal is to improve the quality of the article regardless of the outcome.
 * I'm cool with the idea of going with the Bentley view of how things are and do think it makes sense to do so since this is an article for the University football program. On the other hand I don't feel the Bentley view is exactly neutral.  As I talk this out, it does make sense that since the championships are recognized by a number of independent outfits that we count them.
 * PassionoftheDamon below says our number should agree with the infobox on the NCAA Division I-A national football championships page. Maybe we should be correcting that number? Terryfoster 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as to activity level and whims; I agree stability is has a value; I appreciate the fact that you are striving for article quality. I leave it to your capable hands in those of Terry Foster below.
 * I agree that Bentley MIGHT not be neutral. If you agree that other independent sources help to confirm the Bentley view, then please have at it. If you have the patience, it might make sense to open a dialogue with Bentley, but that would seem to be over the top.
 * It is not clear to me that matching the data to any other page has a value. It may produce consistency, but consistency doesn't have much value if it is consitently wrong. It has a slight value at the editing change as it would make it easier to synchronize to the "correct" value, if the value can be found. In my opinion, truth -- on the web -- is a probability distribution. The joke has been that history is written by the survivors. In this environment, "truth" may come down to weight/frequency, and not some ultimate string of data. 66.65.76.15 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * National championships are a sticky issue. I, too, think "Michigan claims 11 national championships, 7 of which are recognized" is the proper phraseology for the body of the article.  However, I disagree that 11 should be the number included in the infobox, as that is not a number generally recognized by anyone outside of Ann Arbor.  The infobox number should be in conformity with the number in the wiki article on NCAA Division I-A national football championships.  In this case, that's 7.-PassionoftheDamon 16:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your observation "not a number generally recognized by anyone outside of Ann Arbor" appears to be made up out of whole cloth...in the alternative, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: 1) you didn't have access to UM information via the net; 2) you didn't just make up the assertion, you really believed that laziness was a substitute for actually doing the research because being lazy served your preconceptions and whatever other axe you are grinding. I've added support above at the top of the discussion page. It is pretty clear that using an NCAA based cut-off is just as arbitrary as any other point of demarcation. The world didn't start with the NCAAA, and and it won't end with the NCAA. It is quite clear the people outside of Ann Arbor recognize the 11 count. In many cases, the recognition is not just from one organization. 66.65.76.15 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personal attacks as they don't contribute to the discussion. While the College Football Data Warehouse is just one viewpoint they do show that there are people outside of AA that don't recognize all 11 titles. See: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/michigan/national_champs.php Terryfoster 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although they say we have a total of 23 titles including one in 1985: http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/michigan/all_national_champs.php Terryfoster 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I was way too aggressive. However, I still question your logic: you note that some people don't recognize all 11 titles. I agree. I still argue -- more politely I hope -- as follows: 1) not all sources will synchronize; 2) on the web, there will always be differences; 3) you haven't really established a standard of "proof"...must all sources agree...must sources also definitively disagree...what about sources that are silent on some issue (not just championships...but in the general case); 4) to say that there are 11 by some sources, and that 7 are recognized opens up several questions: a) 11 recognized by whom? What is their standing; b) 7 recognized. By whom, and what is there standing? Without answering those questions, you have created a dangling elliptical construction. The inference is that the university and some completely authoratative source disagree. In fact, the university existed before the presumptively authoratative source, and the 7 recognized would serve to undercut the university's stature as a founder of the game, and falsely reinforce the primacy of the NCAA as the determinative body for an era wherein the NCAA didn't exist, and neither can nor will opine. Thus, why instantiate NCAA authority by negation. Many of my points are overblown...after all, it is only football, however, these principles should hold true in any contention about the veracity of data sources relative to a point at issue. Do you agree with any of the above (now that I've reverted to form and am asking politely, rather than browbeating you)? 66.65.76.15 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If any of you haven't already you may want to check out the article NCAA Division I-A national football championship (which I had not really read completely until now). They outline their criteria for national championship recognition.  It seems pretty clearly defined as choosing certain sources for defined periods of time. They also list multiple winners if there are multiple sources they decided to use in a period of time and they don't agree.


 * I've looked at the table, and it appears that there are 4 years that are included by Bentley, but not included in the table that your reference. For your ease of reference, I've bolded the years. I've also bolded the foundation name (NCF) as it is abbreviated in the table under the link that you have provided. It appears that the Bentley used the same source, but your cited page does not include ties, nor does it use the (NCF) for those years. It also appears that the cited page does not recognize Billingsly (sp?)...I won't pretend to know who that is, but they provide corroboration for Michigan for the 4 years noted.66.65.76.15 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we're all on the same team here at Wikipedia it makes all the sense in the world to me to conform to their standards or to challenge their standards in their court, not in this discussion. So I propose conforming to their standards since we're on the same team and they have probably already been down this path of discussion and it doesn't make sense (at least to me) to reinvent the wheel.  So when reverting data changes I suggest referencing that article and not reverting without reason.
 * Then I believe the next step would be to challenge the criteria used in the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article in their discussion page.
 * Does this make sense? Terryfoster 14:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Terry: thanks for your hard work and neutrality on this issue. I am somewhat at variance from you on a procedural level, given my comments above. I would argue: 1) the cited link appears to be incomplete; 2) Billingsly may or may not be a recognized source; 3) the table cited looks pretty good, but it is not clear to me that it is accurate; 4) if NCF is a recognized source, and if the Bentley is not incorrect, I would argue that the cited page needs to be corrected. Having said all of the foregoing, if the NCAA doesn't recognize Billingsly (sp?) but others do, who is to say that Wikipedia should follow the NCAA, rather than Billingsley? For that reason, I prefer to see the NCF corrections, if any, be made to the NCAA page cited before "resting my case". Is that fair/equitable to the process? 66.65.76.15 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ESPN claims 11 titles for Michigan and 7 for OSU: Tale of the Tape: Michigan-Ohio State Jweiss11 19:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That figure is based on what the athletic departments claim and adds nothing to this debate. If Michigan partisans are allowed to make all visitors to Wikipedia accept their national title figures, you should use this methodology for all universities and credit them with additional national titles based on your research (assuming this is not all about propping up a Michigan program that has won 2 titles in the last 60 years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.217.25.130 (talk • contribs)

"(assuming this is not all about propping up a Michigan program that has won 2 titles in the last 60 years)"...clearly Michigan partisans AND Michigan detractors should not be allowed to push their agendas here. JSDA (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're right back to where we were in the middle of November. I'm still not sure that this content dispute serves the greater good of Wikipedia. I still believe (as does PassionoftheDamon) that we should be conforming to the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article to maintain quality and integrity of Wikipedia. Again, I believe this is not the forum to discuss the merits of the selectors as that topic should/may have been discussed already for the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article and that would be the best place for those questions or discussions. I also would recommend referring to this discussion when making any changes or reverts so this discussion can include more parties. Let me know if I'm off base here, I'm still very much open to opinions. Terryfoster 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if sourcing the "official" NCAA document why not list all 15? Why the arbitrary number of 11? This is a very good example of why this kind of discussion should take place on the NCAA Division I-A national football championship while we conform. If you don't agree with that article then take it up with that article's discussion. Terryfoster 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also intervened on the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article. The table there is based on the opinion of two unknowns on the CFDW website. Why are they any more authoritative then the NCAA?  If the NCAA lists 15 championships, then that's the right number.  Of the 11 listed on this page, only the 1932 Dickinson championship really is in dispute, even given the other Wikipedia criteria on the other page.  I've deleted the reference to 7 "consensus" championships because (1) "consensus" in this context implies a single unanimous champ in the season, which is not the case at all and (2) there is NOT consensus about whether 7 is the agreed upon number.  Use either the university or the NCAA as the reference--there is no other authoritative source at the moment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We're working on revising the NCAA Division I-A national football championship article with updated tables that will more accurately reflect how the national titles have been awarded in the past. I'll update this table when that's done.  Gvharrier 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason why wire titles are used in the pages's caption is due to the very argument occuring on this page. There are numerous groups that claim to name the national title winner. Univeristy's will debate the national title winner, and make claims on national title winner. However, to keep the debate limited, wire national title (which tend to be clearer) were used. This was the format developed through consensus. Every school is supposed to follow it, though some want to try to "smudge" the numbers a bit. The article can still have a lengthy discussion of titles on its page (as this one does). I also note how the claim to "consensus" titles is absurd. Consensus by whom? What is the definition of consensus? It seems to be too subjective to argue. Hence why the more objective wire standard is used. Cliesthenes (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Largest attendance at a NCAA football game
So, it has come to my attention through the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry page that the largest attendance at a college football game was somewhere around 120,000 held by the 1927 ND v. USC game at Soldier Field. I'm not sure how accurate that count was/could be as the total paid attendance was 99,573. I guess we should be modifying this page to reflect the "new" information, unless there's something I'm missing about attendance records. What do you think about this? Terryfoster 15:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Through further digging I found the NCAA record book and found on page 416 they list the 120,000 as a pre-1948 record and is an estimated value. So I would think it's worth leaving the record as is due to the NCAA stating this attendance record was not audited.  Although the 1929 Notre Dame vs. USC game at Soldier field (which was audited) claims 112,912 attendees, but is recorded before the NCAA kept records on attendance. Terryfoster 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAA Official Page Below
This is the “official” NCAA page. I don’t believe that the Wikipedia page is complete or accurately reflects the NCAA summary of prior selectors’ selections of national champion for football.

http://www.ncaa.org/champadmin/ia_football_past_champs.html The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolvve85 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


 * This topic is already being discussed on this page. I would recommend discussing above along with deleting the copied text that is impossible to read without proper formatting. Terryfoster 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

History of the program ?
There needs to be a section on the History of U of M football

I go to Michigan State University and was working on are page thought you my like this photo to use in your page so place, enjoy hope it helps, it is the 1913 Michigan Agricultural College (MSU) vs Michigan University Max 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)



Fair use rationale for Image:Michigan BlockM.jpg
Image:Michigan BlockM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputing "The Victors" as being in College Football Hall of Fame
I am a season ticket holder, and a Michigan Man, but in the interest of accuracy, I have a dispute with the claim that "The Victors" is the only college fight song in the College Football Hall of Fame. Below is an email exchange between myself and an official with the CFB HOF refuting the claim;

My original email;

From:  [name hidden] Sent:  Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:58 AM To:     Kent.Stephens@collegefootball.org Subject:The Victors

Mr Stephens

I have often heard the Michigan's "The Victors" is the only fight song to be inducted into the CFB HOF. Is this true? I have never been able to confirm this after doing extensive internet searching. Is there any documentation on your website or elsewhere?

Thanks

[Name hidden]

Official response;

[Name hidden]:

No, that is not correct.

Oddly, our property in South Bend was formerly the site of Elbel's Music Store. Louis Elbel was the composer of the Victors.

We do have a plaque that commemorates this fact.

Kent Stephens College Football Hall of Fame 111 S. St. Joseph St. South Bend, IN 46601 574 235-5711

DanMacMan 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This Article Sucks
This article is little more than an endless list of facts and awards. I know Michigan likes to think of itself as a quality academic institution, so I guess my question is are there any English majors at the school? Is a paragraph or two of history about the team really too much to ask? I don't mean this the wrong way but look at the Ohio State football article and maybe take a page or two out of their book. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Note about distinctive helmet design statement
I noted that there is an unsourced statement that UM is noted for its distinctive helmet design in the first paragraph. I seem to recall that the University of Delaware has football helmets which are virtually indistinguishable from Michigan's, which would render Michigan's somewhat less than distinctive. As it turns out, Delaware's helmets are copied from Michigan's... see David_M._Nelson.

Since the article mentions the helmet design, perhaps some of the information in the Nelson article could be incorporated.

--Mm35173 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (proud Alumnus of Appalachian State University, by the way... wanna play us again?)


 * BTW, the lore is that Yost painted the helmets so that it was easier to see Michigan players downfield for passing. I don't have a source for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvharrier (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is breaking news
Im a hot stud and everybody knnows it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.21.21 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conference Championships
I'm going to remove that "record" because it is false. I know that at least Nebraska has more with 46, haven't checked other schools. 76.84.140.55 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bentley NPOV issue
If the topic comes up again, I think it would be important to cite the specific source of the information. The Bentley is an archive, which makes it merely a repository of information and records pertaining to Southeast Michigan. What is more important is what piece of information is making a claim. MMetro (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MichiganWolverines.png
The image Image:MichiganWolverines.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

All-time winning percentage
Some say the Wolverines have lost the title of all-time winningest program after the Northwestern game. I saw that someone has changed the percentage from .741 to .721, and I find this quite shocking and start to wonder if this is in error. I believe that the "official" way of calculating the percentage is: (# of games won + 0.5 * # of tied games) / (# of games played). On last week's weekly release (vs. Northwestern) on mgoblue.com, UM's all-time record is 872-293-36. If you try to calculate the winning percentage using the above formula, you would get 0.741049. Now you add back the latest loss to the record: 872-294-36, plug in the numbers again, you should get .740433.

If UM did lose the title of the winningest program, wouldn't it be more worthy for the headlines than "most losses in a season"? At least, whichever school climbed ahead of us would make a big fuss about it, right? And looking at how the media kept reminding people that "Michigan will be out of the bowl season if it loses the Purdue game" beforehand, wouldn't we be bombarded all week if Michigan were to be out of another set of record books? Since I don't see any fuss/riots, I guess we are still holding the highest winning percentage.

I am going to revert the all-time record and winning percentage. If there is any disagreement or discussion, please put them on this page.

P.S. I am not too sure whether the Wolverines still hold all those records, but I think we should at least first get our own numbers right.

MoGeulB (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct, the winning percentage is 74.043%. Furthermore, this is still the highest all-time winning percentage in college football. This has been the case since 10/2/2004, when Michigan beat Indiana and Notre Dame lost to Purdue. Notre Dame still has the second highest win percentage at 73.744%. Phizzy (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jim Brandstatter
FYI. Ikip (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Template help
We could use some help filling in MichiganWolverineQuarterbacks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Intercollegiate competition
The article places the first year as 1879. From the University of Toronto article: "The Blues played their first intercollegiate football match in 1877 against the University of Michigan, in a game that ended with a scorless draw." Can the consistency of the start date be verified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.126.54 (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Michigan logo
Please comment at Talk:Michigan_Wolverines.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

University of Michigan Project
University of Michigan is not represented with a project at Category:WikiProject Universities. Please comment at Talk:University_of_Michigan.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Donovan Warren signed?
Donovan Warren is tweeting about signing. I can't find a WP:RS that confirms. Any help??--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many headers
I think there might be too many sections. This is something I didn't actually do, but I think the article would look nicer if we somehow merged the "Bowl games" section into "Program records and achievements" (going to a bowl is an achievement). I also think it would be better to move rivalry games up behind Home stadium in order to put the lists and numerical information towards the end of the article. Also, on the topic of rivalries, it might be nice to create a "Traditions" section like in Maryland Terrapins football and make rivalries a sub-section of that. That way we could add further content like colors, the mascot, "Michigan Men," "The Victors," and stadium traditions such as "Temptation," "Hawaiian War Chant," and playing the Blues Bros song between the 3rd and 4th quarter all in that area. Lonewolf371 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Added history sections
I added some content to the history sections on Yost, Crisler, Schembechler, etc. I tried to portray a fairly balanced picture of the events, but I'm new to Wikipedia so it may not be top quality. Do you guys think some areas deserve more/less attention or a different point of view? Also, I noticed some other wiki football articles (like Ohio State's) have their own separate history article, but their history article content is about the same as the main football article so I don't know if we would need that here. Also, what about linking to articles on other teams? I generally linked to the overall football program rather than the year referenced, since the sections weren't a table or a list. Finally, I think we could use some in-uniform pictures of Desmond Howard and Charles Woodson and sideline pictures of Lloyd Carr and Brady Hoke, but with evil media storehouses controlling all of those they may be hard to get. Lonewolf371 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * More content also needs to be added from the list of significant games. There's a lot of stuff in that article; it shouldn't be too difficult to fit it around what's already in the main article. Lonewolf371 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

More Wikipedia obstructionism
As often happens on Wikipedia, a few editors obstruct the many from improving the article. They get their way because most people don't have time for long debates, and complex policies and procedures. Consider these silly obstructions:
 * Players on NFL teams, whom you can see every Sunday, are deleted because an editor wants to enforce citation requirements.
 * The description of the uniform is in error -- anyone turning on the TV on Saturday can see it's wrong -- but an editor insists on following one wrong (non-RS) source in a citation.
 * Another insists that, out of over 1,000 games in over a century of football, involving 10+ national titles, 40+ conference titles, the most wins of any team, and one of the greatest rivalries in sports, mentioning only three recent losses (none of which affected even one season's conference or national title) is not undo weight or POV.

I don't have time to address it further. Maybe someone else will or maybe the article will never be fixed. guanxi (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "non-RS" source for the uniform information is the official University of Michigan athletic website, mgoblue.com. If it is wrong then surely you can find another source that describes it correctly.  If not - well, then just delete the incorrect information.  Don't change the text to contradict the ref, and then complain about "obstructionism".   My goodness.  Assume good faith, eh?  JohnInDC (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Guanxi, to address your items above: 1) I recently culled the list of the "Alumni currently in the NFL" section down to just those on an active roster. It was bloated with lots of "free agents," some of whom hadn't actually played a regular season NFL game in a few seasons.  If someone on an active roster is missing please feel free to add them.  It should be pretty easy to find a citation if questioned.  2) The patch description should be fixed.  Citing a picture of Hemingway with the patch on his right side should be good enough.  There is one here: http://www.mgoblue.com/view.gal?id=103160 (photo #12).  As for the lead, as it stands now that's mostly my edit.  The lead mentions all those things you reference (most wins, nat'l and conference titles, the Ohio State rivalry), as well as Michigan's first two Rose Bowl wins (1902 and 1948).  The three games mentioned in the third paragraph of the lead all have dedicated articles, which means that they've been deemed to be among the most notable games in college football history.  In fact, it arguable that the Colorado and Appalachian State games are the most notable of the whole post-Bo era, even more so than Michigan's crowning win at the 1998 Rose Bowl.  The only other individual non-bowl games with their own article in Michigan history are the 1950, 1969, 1973, and 2006 Ohio State games.  But those are at least obliquely referenced with mention of the OSU rivalry, especially the '69 and '73 games per the mention of the "Ten-Year War".  Again nothing is set in stone here, and this article is far from complete, but it's silly just to delete mention of those very notable games, and I think the way I framed them in juxtaposition to the overall success of the program and the '97 title does justice to the overall tenor of the Moeller-Carr era.  Even so, you may want to bring this item about the lead up at WikiProject College football to get some more input.  What is silliest is to whine about obstructionism when at least some of these issues can be resolved easily with a little bit of effort. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say I disagree a little bit on the Colorado and Michigan State games. Appalachian State definitely deserves mentioning, but Colorado and Michigan State, while both having great and interesting finishes, are not important enough to be mentioned in the header, particularly when you combine it with the absence of the 1945 Army game, and the 1969 and 2006 Ohio State-Michigan games, the '69 game in particular because Woody admitted that was his best team and the Wolverines cost the Buckeyes what would have surely been a national title since the Buckeyes were locked out of the Rose Bowl. If Colorado and Michigan State are worth mentioning, then so is 2010 Illinois and 2011 Notre Dame. Interesting, great games, but probably not worthy of being put in the header. Speaking of which, those games should be incorporated into the history section. That may be done by the time you read this. Lonewolf371 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lonewolf. The Appalachian State game probably does deserve mention in the lead, but the Colorado and Michigan State games don't. The lead mentions five games (out of more than 1200 played). I think that's an appropriate number of games to mention in the lead, but I don't really think the Colorado or Michigan State games are anywhere near the five most important games in program history, which comes out to about one game per 25 years played. cmadler (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tai Streets
Am I the only person watching Tai Streets? His page was blanked for over 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Facebook and Twitter links
Just noticed the recent back and forth regarding Facebook and Twitter links. The fact that we have templates to standardize external links suggests that these websites are definitive resources. In the case of Michigan Wolverines football, these links are also official sites as well. Doesn't that make the case for their inclusion? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. ElKevbo (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This provides more context as to why we generally avoid these kinds of links. ElKevbo (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a handy link. Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No-shutout streak
I agree that the NCAA record book re the streak (said by NCAA to be 362 at the end of 2012) cannot immediately be squared with the number of games apparently played by Michigan since the 1984 shutout loss to Iowa. But I'm loathe to substitute a hand-counted NCAA record for what the NCAA says the record is. My solution for the moment is to stick literally to the source ("362 games through 2012") rather than mess around with our own counts, or perhaps worse, adding the 13 games of the 2013 season to the (apparently incorrect) NCAA source to produce a figure, 375, that is not only questionable, but also OR. Ideally someone would call this to the NCAA's attention and get them to fix it - or explain where they got the extra games. Meanwhile I'm not comfortable abandoning what would seem to be the single best source on the matter. Any other thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Guaranteed: if we keep talking about it they will be shutout this season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the figure back to the "official" 362 from the 375 through 2013, that had been in the article for a while before this. It is pretty clear that the NCAA record book is wrong - all one has to do is to tally up the Michigan games played after the Iowa game in 1984 through today to see that.  Here's the official Michigan athletic site and all the games for anyone who wants to do it themselves:  http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/042109aab.html .  As I said, I am uncomfortable substituting a hand-counted OR figure for the official NCAA record, but I'm just about as uncomfortable adding 13 games to a number that is demonstrably wrong, whether we describe the problem as "OR" or just mistaken.  I am not tickled by leaving it at 362 through 2012 and citing to the NCAA without comment, but that approach at least has the advantages of 1) being perfectly consistent with the source and 2) at least in the ballpark of correct.  If folks think differently, please let's discuss it here.  A third option might be to footnote it and note the issue.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the NCAA record book was in error. So we believe that the actual streak is 364 to date, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think. Though for that I'm relying on the IP / new editor who appears to have counted it himself.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I counted and got 364 as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think makes sense to do? JohnInDC (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I asked User:Paulmcdonald, who recently wrote this essay: Counting and sorting are not original research, to comment. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with JohnInDC, I say go with the hand-counted number, but footnote it to say what the NCAA record book says. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's interesting! Imagine the NCAA being wrong about something... In this case, I would be sure to note in the article the discrepancy and provide a reference to the counted version.  But there's nothing wrong with counting if its reasonable that a person can count -- WP:COUNTSORT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe the correct number, annotated, is the way to go. Good to leave a link to the NCAA page in any event, as that is what establishes the BYU (prior) record -  JohnInDC (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the 364 figure, which cited to a personal website for support. I don't oppose using that number but we need to make it clear what we're doing, and drop a note to the effect that the NCAA is wrong. We also need to make the same point on the "longest scoring streak" page, the name of which escapes me now. Who among us knows how to drop an explanatory footnote? I can't figure it out but if someone will help me out with that, I'll make the edit myself. JohnInDC (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This page: List of most consecutive games scoring in NCAA football.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed them both. JohnInDC (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 NCAA record book incremented the record by last year's contests and remains out of whack. This sets a modern record for "Consecutive errors in an NCAA record book", which now stands at 10 - I looked back, and the error exists all the way back to 2005, when (as best I can tell) they began to include this statistic. When I have a moment I'll update the refs and the footnote. Meanwhile, just for kicks, here's my own calculation of the streak, for the benefit of others who may be coming to this issue more recently:


 * 1984 – 5  00 – 12 - 200
 * 85 – 12 - 17  01 – 12 - 212
 * 86 – 13 - 30  02 – 13 - 225
 * 87 – 12 - 42  03 – 13 - 238
 * 88 – 12 - 54  04 – 12 - 250
 * 89 – 12 - 66  05 – 12 - 262
 * 90 – 12 - 78  06 – 13 - 275
 * 91 – 12 - 90  07 – 13 - 288
 * 92 – 12 - 102  08 – 12 - 300
 * 93 – 12 - 114  09 – 12 - 312
 * 94 – 12 - 126  10 – 13 - 325
 * 95 – 13 - 139  11 – 13 - 338
 * 96 – 12 - 151 12 – 13 - 351
 * 97 – 12 - 163 13 – 13 - 364
 * 98 – 13 - 176
 * 99 – 12 - 188

JohnInDC (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I refuse to take the fall for it if ND winds up shutting out Michigan today. JohnInDC (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No blame on Gardner. All on you! Cbl62 (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Henceforth, JinxInDC. Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

May as well finish the chart, then:
 * 14 –1 - 365

Actually I dropped a note yesterday to the NCAA about this and they agreed with the math. The kicker they tell me came afterwards when Michigan confirmed, sigh, that the streak had ended at 365 games. I guess we can only wonder how long it would have continued if I'd kept my mouth shut. JohnInDC (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: Thanks to my call (!), the NCAA has fixed its record book and it now shows the correct figure. I've updated the ref and removed the footnote. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke sections
We should trim these two sections down. Compare how long their sections are with that of Gary Moeller, who coached five years to their three and four, respectively. I don't think it's really that necessary to mention that Michigan opened a new indoor practice facility in 2009, or that certain players transferred before the 2008 season, in this umbrella article about the Michigan football program. Those details might be more appropriate for specific articles on those teams. Funnyhat (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree re the practice facility and the transfer of particular players. I do think that the Rodriguez and Hoke stories must be assessed by more than just the number of years coached by the two of them - Rodriguez representing as he did the program's very deliberate departure from the Schembechler school, and Hoke the (in retrospect naive) return to it.  If what we have to say about those two seems disproportionate to Moeller, then maybe think about adding to him - JohnInDC (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the Moeller paragraph is fine as it is. But there is simply too much attention given to two coaches (RR and Hoke) who ultimately served for only a tiny fraction of the program's 137-year history.  This is a prime example of recentism.  We can of course go into greater detail about them on their own pages. Funnyhat (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)