Talk:Pop Warner

Misc
he graduated college and was hired to coach at the age of 14? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.178.238 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-12 17:27:40 (UTC).
 * He was 24 when he took his first job (1895-1871), not 14.--Tlmclain | Talk 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the field at springville griffith institute is named for him —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.178.238 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-03 12:14:15 (UTC). this article does not mention the pop warner division of youth football. weird... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.204.251 (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Iowa State????
College Football Data Warehouse lists the 1895 coach at Iowa State to be Bert German and not Pop Warner...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Some sources claim that Art Kahler was the only person to coach at two different major colleges at the same time: Kansas Sports Hall of Fame, Arthur D. Kahler.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * John Heisman coached Akron and Oberlin in 1894. At the time Oberlin was considered one of the powers in the West (now mid-west) and Akron beat Ohio State that year.
 * Oberlin Media Guide
 * Akron Media Guide
 * If you want the whole story I suggest you read “When Oberlin was King of the Gridiron: The Heisman Years” by Nat Brandt. It is a great read.


 * As for Warner, in the early days of college football the head coach position was not what it is today. A lot of the time they weren’t hired until after the season started. The team needed the gate receipts from the first game to pay for him.  Records are spotty at best.  Below are some additional sources on Iowa State and Warner relationship.  There is little doubt that he coached for Iowa State.
 * Iowa State media guide says Pop went 3-3 in 1895
 * Cornell Chronicle
 * Iowa State Cyclones - History says Warner suited up for the second half in the first game of 1895.
 * Pop Warner Visits Dudley Field by Bill Traughber
 * The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives By Arnie Markoe p. 482
 * Also be careful in assuming that College Football Data Warehouse is always accurate. 1st it is an incomplete data base.  They still need to add several schools so some coaches I have found several mistakes.
 * See Stu Holcomb . CFDW does not have any info on Muskingum, Washington & Jefferson, or Findley 09er (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While some sources used by people for wikipedia can be called questionable, I find it hard to believe what I see here. Somebody is questioning a school's media guide because a piece of crap source like cfbdatawarehouse doesn't have Warner listed?  Please, cfbdatawarehouse has tons of errors and its easy to see why.  You just can't move that much information without making mistakes.  That someone would dispute a trusted source with a questionable source like that is pretty stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fthis (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, CFBDW is very good at correcting mistakes if you email them the corrections and provide links to confirm the correction. That said, I have seen my fair share of mistakes in media guides as well. Not saying this necessarily in regards to Warner, but I wouldn't hesitate to contact a school's athletics media relations department or CFBDW with corrections. I have done both successfully in the past. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Media guides are far from infallible sources, especially for such an early time period. CFBDW is incomplete, but remarkably accurate for the completed parts, considering its size and scope. Also, you have to consider that the Iowa State athletic department may have an agenda in making someone like Pop Warner's role at the school seem more substantial than it really was.
 * When I read this article, I found it really hard to believe Warner coached at both Georgia and Iowa State simultaneously, two schools separated by 1,000 miles... In 1895, before any type of interstate highway system, motorized transportation, and airplanes. The first combustion engined "car" was invented just a decade earlier, and travel would have been by horse and train.


 * Anyway, looking at the sources 09er provides::::"'[Warner] came to coach the team in the late summer before heading to Georgia where he had been named head coach. This arrangement was followed each year through the 1899 season. Before he left for his jobs in the east, Warner turned the 1895 reins over to Burt German, who was the team manager, one of the star backs and, during the regular season, a mentor. Warner's pre-season drilling soon paid big dividends.'"
 * The Vanderbilt source, reporting on his visit as head coach of Georgia in 1895, has a slightly different story. Then again, that isn't necessarily a primary source...
 * "'Warner was a coach at Iowa State during the first part of the 1895 season, but ended up in [Georgia] the latter portion. Warner was displeased with the facilities at the university, the small student body and only 13 students played football. The University of Georgia began playing football in 1892 with a two-game schedule.'"
 * I also think it's worth noting that the College Football Hall of Fame bears no mention of Iowa State at all. The only mention that Warner gets in the history section of the Iowa State media guide is under "their" CFB HOF inductees.
 * Here's what Georgia has to say about Warner:
 * "'After coming to Athens from Cornell in September 1895, Warner was signed to a $34-a-week salary for ten weeks in his first season, and then earned $40-a-week in his second season.'"
 * He may not have come directly from Cornell as the reference implies, but the important part of that is that it says that he arrived at UGA in September 1895. That is a fact about which their records are probably fairly authoritative.
 * So, I think it is misleading to say that he coached "Iowa State and Georgia simultaneously", which seems patently false. I'm skeptical that Warner actually even coached a game at Iowa State, but rather just coached them during their summer train-up. Strikehold (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)]


 * I agree with Strikehold on a couple of points.
 * 1.	First the record of the era is spotty at best.
 * 2.	The word “simultaneous” is more than likely wrong and this section needs to be re-written.


 * On the main question on weather Pop could coach at both Iowa State and Georgia in the same year.  I believe it is possible he did.   I do not have the same view on the transportation system that Strikehold  has with rail service being widely available in the 1890’s.  It would take around 24 hours between Iowa and Georgia.  But this point is mute because Georgia first game in 1895 was October 19 (according to CFD) by that time ISU had played 5 of their 7 games (according to CFD).  The same thing happened in 1896 with ISU playing 4 games before Georgia first game.   It is not just ISU that makes the claim he coached at Iowa State.  References such as the Cornell Chronicle states he coached at ISU.  The article I referenced above from Vandy about Pop actually playing in the first game of 1895 the season also make clear he was at Iowa State and coached.   Was he there the entire season?  Probably not.  Could he be ISU at the beginning of the week and Georgia at the end of the week?  Yes, but more than likely no.


 * I think what needs to be done is instead of relying on media guides, the internet and Sport information directors, someone need to find a some good biographies of Pop that focus on his entire life and has actual historic research.  For someone like Pop it should not be a problem to find several.


 * Lastly, I do want to point out when dealing with articles from this era that the game of college football has changed. Among the changes is the head coach position of this era is not the same as it is today and the football team then was closer to a club sport than the varsity athletics that we know and love.   In the 1890’s the captain and manager were more important and powerful than the head coach.  It was very common for the coach to play in the game.   Head coaches sometimes did not even attend the game.  Substitution rules of the era limited the play calling from the sidelines.  Sometimes head coaches from this time period did not get hired until the second or third game because the teams needed the gate receipts from the first couple of games to pay the coach.  The vast majority of head coach did not have long term contacts.  Charles E. Courtney, Cornell’s rowing coach, became the first head coach at any college to have a multi year contract in 1895 and he was the exception not the rule. 09er (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Media guides are certainly not infailable, but more time has been per team on those than any mass site has spent on each team. CFBDW does an excellent job for the amount of data moved there, however there are still tons of errors there, particularly in coaching records.  That's just a lot of time to spend on individual games and coaches (I should know, I've done it).  When consulting sources for accuarate information it is NOT a place to go for several reason.  It's one of the reasons that football information on wiki is a joke.  People aren't careful with their sources.    I too have sent corrections to that site and several others.  But it's not just a matter of factual information, it can be a matter of how records are handled.  Some instances in college football just can't be wedged into a cookie cutter database.  There are special cases that have to be handled if you want it accurate.  And let's not even go into national championships.  The site gives an opinion on which it recognizes and do you know how often that shows up on wiki as some sort of factual information?   It's his opinion, for heavens sake (bad opinion too, IMO).  What business does that have on a site the views itself as factual?  Bottom line, use real sources.
 * As an aside to the Warner discussion regarding national championships, every single one of them are just opinions from the dozens of individual "selectors" every year. There never has been, and is not currently one official awarding body,  although the BCS is the closest thing that college football has ever had to an official championship. CFBDW specializes in national championships and it is the most thoroughly researched source of information on the subject I've ever found on the net or elsewhere, although it is not perfect and I have found a few omissions, although minor ones. It is in my opinion by far the best and most comprehensive collection of information on the topic ever assembled.  Certainly, CFBDW it is more thorough than the NCAA Records Book, which actually credits one of CFBDW's main contributors, Tex Noel, who is a noted and respected college football historian.  CFBDW's "recognition" on which national championship selections are most legitimate for each season is the best researched opinion of the legitimacy of each year's dozens of selections that I've ever seen, and I've spent a lot of time looking into this topic myself. I don't agree with all of their choices per say, but I find them all understandable and logically derived.  Their recognition of the best selections is, like anything else on the topic, just an opinion, but it is carefully considered. I've found no others third party sources tackling this topic that are as comprehensive in their consideration of the information, and seemingly as neutral, and none that are as widely recognized and available. CFBDW doesn't claim to be something it is not. It lists almost all known selections and then gives its own opinion on which it considers the most legitimate (or "CFBDW recognized" for each season). It doesn't hide other selections and one is free to come away with an alternative opinion.  If you know of a better third party resource, I'd sure like to know what it is. CrazyPaco (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While yes, championships reflect opinions of people/organizations, there are definately some that matter and some that fit in the "who cares?" column. The site does little to nothing to distinquish between the two which make people who get their info from that site exclusively actually more ignorant than those who don't get it from anywhere.  There are plenty of places on the web and on wiki where people treat these selectors as if they are something that a school should take seriously.  There's just one school that claims titles that are not a part of the NCAA's listing on the subject.  Schools pay no attention to some of those listed at the site, some of which are just message board guys who wrote their own forumla (and declare titles 100+ years after the fact).  I don't agree that the criteria to recognize titles is carefully considered.  The original criteria was contradictory and picked a selector that named it's titles 80 years after the fact, instead of using contemporary (and more respected by the schools) selectors.  I don't get how that's carefully considered.  I really doubt how much the site author really knows about the subject.  Most of the information is basically copied from sources, one being the NCAA Record Book, and the second from Tex Nole.  From my discussions with Tex, he doesn't agree with the "recognition" criteria either, so I have my doubts how much actual knowledge of the selectors there was.  The criteria also is notable in the odd selections favor Alabama, which just happens to be where the site author's allegiance lies.  Make of that what you will.  Regardless of the merit, it's still opinion (and bad opinion), and should not be copied to a site that fancies itself to be factual.ftHis (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although this is not really the proper discussion page for this subject, and there are multiple issues being raised, I'll continue on with this topic. One questions seems to be the legitimacy of CFBDW's recognized selections. The other is the content of the wikipedia article on national championships.  Starting with the later, one must remember a primary wikipedia policy: No original research. There is little real debate about national championship selections post-1950, they are all either AP and/or Coaches. However, national championships selections prior to the dual-poll era can be extremely controversial because of the inherent bias in their determination, recognition, or promotion by the schools that benefits from them  combined with the fact there is no one governing body that ultimately determines the legitimacy of any claim or selection.  The earlier you go, the murkier it gets because the less likely selectors were actually able to see the team play (more reliance on statistics or mathematical models) as well the fact intersectional play was less common. We, as historical investigators, are also less familiar with the environment and pervasive notions that existed during previous eras. The only way to avoid WP:OR is to be comprehensive in the information presented. Wikipedia cannot form opinions on which selections are more legitimate, it must rely on other sources and thus the article turns to three different opinions. The first section of the article lists the national championship selections by "major selectors" as listed in the NCAA records book and is simply a list compiled verbatim from the information in the official NCAA Records Book itself. That list itself is not completely comprehensive (e.g. no Esso Gas, not all computer polls), but the wikipedia article assumes the NCAA Records book is somewhat authoritative and is an expert neutral reliable source. The list is also relatively comprehensive in yearly selections, while still being somewhat selective. The second section of the article, which now contains the CFBDW list, previously was a list of consensus selections which retroactively applied the NCAA Records Book idea of dual-poll (post 1950) consensus champions retroactively. This was not only applied incorrectly, but was uncited and also violated WP:OR (see that article's discussion page). This was replaced with the CFBDW recognized selections in an attempt to provide an alternative and more selective opinion (compared to the NCAA records book) on legitimate selections from a neutral reliable expert source.  Of course, there is no perfect source to which everyone will agree with, and we can debate the inclusion of CFBDW selections later, but this is the reason for its inclusion.  Nowhere in the wikipedia article is there an attempt to bestow officiality to CFBDW selections and it is carefully worded to  present the CFBDW list simply as what it is, an outside opinion of legitimacy of  selections. Perhaps this wording could be improved, but there is no doubt CFBDW has become a widely utilized and cited source outside of wikipedia, but, it is not presented alone or as an ultimate authority in the wiki article. Of course, the third section of the article is just a list poll-era selections, and these are simply lists of champions from the major polls and are simply factual. So the National Championship article is of three parts 1) a mostly comprehensive list of "major selectors" as listed in the Official NCAA Records Book. 2) an outside opinion from a widely utilized resource on which of those selections are more legitimate. 3) A list of AP and Coaches poll sections. I would imagine only the second section is really controversial because only it constitutes an opinion that will likely result in some teams being recognized in a way that is unsatisfactory or at the expense of other teams. However, the lists of championships in three different ways as is done in the wikipedia article presents the reader with more variety, more comprehensive data, and more references than most other sites. One could easily argue that they are the three most utilized manners to calculate championship totals outside wikipedia.  As mentioned, to do anything else, such as arbitrarily decide which selections are more legitimate, violates WP:OR.  With any controversial subject, being comprehensive and providing more information for the reader rather than less allows for them to to better form their own opinions on which are legitimate. Wikipedia cannot form its own opinion on any topic.
 * Yeah well, here's my issue. Wiki is full of "historical investigators" who really don't know their subject and just talk out of their butt.  For instance, where did this perception that there is no debate post 1950 come from?  Certainly not from historical evidence.  Most people go to these bias sites like CFBDW, which have no explaination on what they have and just assume information.  My guess is since the UPI poll started in 1950, people just assume that the world was waiting for this poll and therefore none of others counted.  Certainly the NCAA didn't view it that was as they have a consensus section with includes Football Writers and National Football Foundation on the same level as the AP and the UPI.  We can consult schools like Ohio State, Mississippi and Arkansas who claim these as the legitimate titles they are.  Or we can look at period writings that will tell us that's not the case.  A good example is an article Sports Illustrated published in 1966   A couple quotes from the article are "With two possible exceptions, Iowa in 1958 and Ohio State in 1961, the Football Writers appear to be doing the best job." and "Of all the No. 1 awards currently in existence, the three that are most eagerly sought—and all about equally—are those of the Football Writers, the UPI and the AP. But no coach or school would turn down any of the others. As Bear Bryant has said, "We'll take what they'll give us, and our folks will act like we got 'em all."  Oh, yeah.  It sure sound like there was no question about non-AP/AFCA titles post 1950.  Give me a break.  It's guys like you who feel qualified to write these articles and judge who are "neutral reliable expert source".  That you speak of CFBDW's "site authors" in the plural tells me you've not even the background on the site.  The author of the "recognized" title list comes from a single person, THE site author.  He includes information from other authors, but there's no information that I see there that would indicate deep research from the author and there is indications I can note that the site author's Alabama bias played into the selections, or at least the original selections.  Why anybody would choose a guy who's bias to a school comes out in his selections as "neutral" is something I can't answer.  The patchwork he did on top of it was certainly better, but it includes these titles that were written by message board guys (I never suggested the NCAA list included rankings from message board guys.  The NCAA's official word comes in a book, I would never refer to the NCAA as a "site".  The "site" is CFBDW who uses titles from guys who are message board guys.  I know some of these guys, don't tell me they are not).  It is a fact that no school claims a title from a source that's not on the NCAA's list.  Why should titles from sources outside of that be included in any criteria used by a "factual" site.  And apparently, all you have to do is throw together an internet source to be quoted as a "neutral expert" on wiki.  Oh yes, nobody should expect "historical investigators" to actually do a little research on their own.  I've read dozens of period pieces on how titles were viewed in the past.  This is why I can go on wiki and see that most "historical" pieces are full of crap.  This encylopedia is a great source for many things, but for controvesial issues like this were everyone views himself as a "historical invesigator" because he looked at the site of a biased guy who copied other people information makes these sort of articles questionable at best.  No reason to leave these articles to people who have actually done research into it, is there?  I find it funny that people have as little knowledge on the subject or their sources feel they can lecture people on it.  I also find it funny is that there's no reason to report opinion in this matter at all.  Most information on this subject can be laid out as factual information.  How many titles schools claim is a matter of factual record and reliable polls and rankings are recorded.  Articles based on fact can be written, but you guys opt to use the opinion of a bias source because nobody bothered to research it.  ftHis (talk) 1:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, overall, and again, the National Championship article list three different opinions on national championships 1) an opinion on what are the "major selectors" and then a list of the opinions of those selectors (more comprehensive) 2) opinion of one of the most highly trafficked and well referenced web resources on college football as to which of those (and other) selections are best 3) Results of two polls of individual opinions. All contain human opinion and thus all are biased. I'm confused on whether your problem is with CFBDW's comprehensive list of titles, which includes "message board guys" because it attempts to be comprehensive as possible so who cares? It seems your issue is the "recognized" championships it lists, and I see no evidence that the picks were unduly influenced from the "message board guys" computer selections, so what is the point?   None of CFBDW recognized champions differ from those also listed in the NCAA record book from "major selectors", so it is just a narrowing of selections. Again, do you have an alternative addition or replacement resource to include that will not violate WP:OR?  Do you suggest the CFBDW "recognized" selections be removed because your opinion differs from that website? You realize that your accusations of a lack of research are just that, as if someone that does research couldn't possibly come to a different conclusion than you? I think you need to remember that no definitive list of national champions exists, or will ever exist, it is all just opinion. Honestly, any such suggestions for article improvements would be welcomed on the discussion page of the appropriate article.


 * BTW, I use "authors" because while I've communicated with David, Noel is heavily credited for supplying information on the site and is listed as a contact. So yes, I feel "authors" is appropriate and will continue to do so until Noel requests his name be removed as a contact. Also, off the top of my head, I can name two schools that claim titles not the NCAA records book: Boston College 1940 (no selectors listed as "major" by the NCAA picked BC) and Pitt 1934 (Parke Davis 1934 Alabama/Pitt co-picks are missing in the NCAA records book). It goes the other way too, there are plenty of titles in the NCAA records book not claimed by schools. There are probably more, just as there are in basketball. BTW, I would love to create that list of school claims, but it is nearly impossible to do in this format (try looking up Ivy League school claims, their media guides are a mess, if they even mention them, and some aren't available on line). Anyway, school claims are no less opinion than the CFBDW list, and they certainly are not less biased, making them no more factual than any other opinion, but in most cases, more obscure to the general public. However, I would love to try to add that section, but believe it would be a nightmare, as previously mentioned, because of the continuous unsourced editing to that article.


 * Lastly, to clarify my point, I shouldn't have stated AP/Coaches' post 1950, but should have said "consensus" as defined by the NCAA and polls post-1970. NCAA record book has a definition of "consensus" for post-1950 (dual-poll era) football which includes selections by the AP, Coaches, FWAA, and NFF (see page 85 of the 2007 NCAA Records Book). These, as they appear in the records book, are bolded in the wiki article. The point I was trying to make is that there are much fewer serious claims by schools post 1950 (compared to pre-1950) because as the selection system got more standardized and pervasive. Since 1950, there are only six seasons were the FWAA or NFF differed from the polls. Post 1970, no school stakes a serious claim to a non-AP/Coaches title because no FWAA or NFF title differed from either the AP and Coaches' selection since the 1970 NFF co-selection of Ohio State.  Therefore, at least by the end of the 70s, if not before, the two polls became the dominant popularized selectors, the ones pointed to and followed in the press, and the ones coaches campaign for votes in.  The two poll system, increasingly with time, became the popularly accepted system of selection. That was my point.  I certainly do not think the AP or Coaches' polls carried as much weight in the first years as they do today, that is retrofitting today's notion on yesterday.   Perhaps your unhappiness with the article is the exclusion of championships for one of these post 1950 FWAA or NFF titles, and that could certainly be corrected by breaking the bolded consensus championships off into a fourth section recreating that page of the NCAA records book. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, my problem is with "recognized" titles. I have absolutely no issue with putting as much information out there as possible.  I don't agree with making that part of the selection.  As such, site "author" is the appropriate way to refer to it, as Tex had nothing to do with the "recognized" titles, other than providing lists of titles.  Again, I state, typing into a computer a bunch of lists from other peoples work does not inform you much in listing credible titles.  I still laugh that such an opinion is view as "fact" by people here.  If it's being listed, it should be clearly denoted as opionion.
 * It was never meant to be served as anything other than opinion, and "recognized" is always proceeded by "CFBDW", but I've added additional comments on that page to clarify that point. The site still has two authors, regardless of the parts they are responsible for.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pitt claims Parke Davis in 1934, which is why I said "listed in the book", as Parke Davis is listed in the book, it would be deemed to be a credible source. Pitt makes their claim off an SI issue.  Tex provided the list to the NCAA and knows no such title (it was in search of that article that caused Tex to first contact me).  Since Boston College lists no selector, I tend to sluff off that claim, as I can't figure out why they claim it.  BTW, those ARE the only two exception to the rule, and that you were able to name them impresses me (particularly BC, as that flies under the radar), as I was unimpressed by your post-1950 comment.  Allow me to retract my smart alec comments.  The other notable exception to the rule of thumb is Auburn noting (but not claiming) the People's Championship in 2004.  No other school goes off the NCAA's list.
 * The 1934 Pitt championship is listed in the SI article you referenced earlier, but Pitt has cited a 1970 study by SI for that claim since at least their 1973 media guide. It may not have appeared in a regular issue of SI, and may have come from an SI almanac, but I don't really know for sure. Alabama also seems to have based their counts off the SI list, and up until recently, cited the 1934 Park Davis co-championship see page 248-249. According to that, the 1934 edition of Spalding's College Football Records Guide was Davis’ last season to include these compilations, as he passed away soon after he made the final edit of it. Through the 1937 edition, these compilations were included under Davis’ byline. It seems there may be a year of the Spalding guide's material (Davis' last?) missing from the compilation Tex had.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already done a list of titles schools claim (did this years ago). It's not as hard as you think.  Princeton actually lists how many titles they claim every single page of their media guide.  The only real trouble spot in the Ivy League is Penn and I couldn't tell you now they claim.  The only other question marks I have are Iowa and Detroit Mercy.  One of the problems with such a list is it keeps changing.  When I first did my list, Yale claimed 14 (or maybe 12), and later they upgrade to the full 28 listed in the NCAA's book.  Also, I appreciate your statements about keeping up with pages that anyone can edit.  This is both wiki's strength and weakness.  For controvisial stuff like this, it makes the information questionable at best.ftHis (talk) 1:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That list of claimed title you assembled would be a great addition to wikipedia, but would need a primary reference for each individual claim to avoid WP:OR (wouldn't have to be an on-line source, just well referenced to avoid all the potential issues and to be able to reverse unsourced edits). That compilation is a lot of work and media guides! The only issue is, however, what constitutes an official claim. I actually work at Penn right now, and they don't seem to officially claim anything. Likewise there seems to be some other schools with similar gray areas that don't say much about it, as opposed to schools like Alabama, Notre Dame and Pitt that state their claims up front.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there is the topic of the legitimacy of the CFBDW "recognized champions". Again, it is the opinion of the authors of that website, much like anyone else's opinion, but they are extremely thorough and forthright by listing of all of the selectors that they have uncovered  which is indicative of their and Noel's research into the topic and they also present their source material up front .  This comprehensive list and bibliography is what, in my opinion, makes that site legitimate than most others that you see, along with the fact that their site is unique in that their  "recognized" list is a selection of others' selections. It does not mean their selections are without controversy, but absolutely no such list would ever be without controversy.  Sure, there are plenty of "who cares" selectors on CFBDW under the "all selectors" category (e.g. Esso Gas), but none of those seem to be used for CFBDW's own "recognized selections". All of CFBDW's "recognized" selections are also found in the NCAA's list of  "major selectors". Therefore, none of the selections listed in the NCAA Records book for pre-poll era selections are from "internet message board guys" as you suggest.  As an aside, there are also more than one school that claims championships not listed in the NCAA Records Book, and such claims are neither more nor less legitimate since there is no official body recognizing these selections.  I also happen disagree with you assertion that CFBDW's selections are not well reasoned, but I would welcome an example of such a poorly reasoned selection.  Again, I don't agree with all of them, but I understand how they could arrive at their conclusions and they do not vary widely from other lists as you have also noted.  I would also dispute how "contemporary" selectors created by individuals born well past those seasons are automatically better than historic "major selectiors" comprised of individuals closer to those eras that watched some of those teams. Selections by math models 80 years after the fact (for something like 1869) surely are questionable, but that is the extreme case.  Most of the selections by NCAA listed "major selectors" are not 80 years after the fact. Contempory math models that have been constructed based on widely occurring intersectional play and different scoring structure in the modern game may not necessarily be more appropriate. For those earlier years, which contemporary selectors are more respected, as you suggest they are, and by whom and by which schools?  Schools are not neutral sources of information, each one will prefer those that shed themselves in a better light. Everyone is biased somehow, all you can do is try to provide as much information, in as much a manageable way as you possibly can, and hope the reader can come to their own conclusion.


 * Editors of that article have in fact tossed around the idea of adding a section of school recognized championships that would list the totals official recognized by each school. These of course, tend to vary wildly from the NCAA, CFBDW, and poll counts. However, such a section would be nearly impossible to monitor. The national championship article is constantly edited by those wishing to pump up their school's title counts and the only way the article can exist is if there are easily verifiable sources with which to check against the continuous edits to the article. Somewhat out of necessity, and to comply with WP:OR, the article has now been standardized using the NCAA record book and CFBDW, because of its previously unmanageability due to a lack of standardized online sources.  That is why maintaining such a section, while personally desirable, would be practically impossible with the rampant boosterism that pervades wikipedia. However, none of this would exclude the inclusion of other reliable expert third party opinions in that article.  CrazyPaco (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And while we're on this subject, the matter of whether Warner should be credited with games from Iowa State was taken up by the NCAA in 1993. It was then that they increased his win total to 319, which passed the Bear.  Ironically, though he coached before the Bear and finished with more wins, he never held the NCAA records for most wins.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fthis (talk • contribs) 13:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Spiral punt
Does one credit Warner or Alex Moffat? Cake (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I think it's safe to say Moffat invented the spiral punt and Warner became renowned for "teaching the spiral punt". I found several 1930s articles saying "Warner, who uses a tackling dummy but did not invent it," so I left that one out. A 'naked reverse' means a reverse run to the weak side. Cake (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Glenn Scobey Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/columbia/1899-schedule.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/carlisle/1902-roster.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://quod.lib.umich.edu/f/flu/5150flu.0005.515/1
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.popwarner.com/About_Us/history.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Glenn Scobey Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/pittsburgh/1919.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/yearly_results.php?year=1920

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved with consensus (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 23:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Scobey Warner → Pop Warner – Easily his common name. Only issue is confusion with the youth football league. Never even seen him called Glenn. Cake (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and common name. The football league name will not confuse, as the name should redirect here anyway. Randy Kryn 10:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This move is long overdue.  Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support move. There is no way "Pop Warner" is not his common name.  ONR  (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I'm British. I know absolutely nothing about American football. But even I've heard of Pop Warner! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose when you hear the word "pop warner" in the US, it is the generic trademark for children's baseball, and football, and cheerleading for women, and soccer programs, similar to genericized "little league" where some are licensed from Little League International. It isn't referring to the person, he died in 1954. Every summer you see signs at intersections for "Pop Warner" and "Little League". Some of the programs are licensed from Pop Warner Little Scholars and others are just genericized versions. See this search Pop Warner -Scoby 12M Ghits for the generic and officially licensed children's programs versus Pop Warner Scoby 6K GHits for the person.
 * Comment Glad to see all the comments. I agree with both ONR and whoever didn't sign the last post. There is "Pop Warner" and then there is "Pop Warner (abstract noun)" perhaps. If one says "I played for Pop Warner" nobody is confused, and this fellow must be very old indeed. If one says "I played Pop Warner", similarly nobody is confused, and this fellow is talking about playing football when he was 12 years old or so. Cake (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, Scobey is more commonly known as Pop Warner. However, I think "Pop Warner" is actually used more by people when referring to children's football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, that's like saying that we shouldn't give Babe Ruth primary because of the Babe Ruth League. It's a very close equivalent. As says above, "There is no way "Pop Warner" is not his common name," and I think the Babe Ruth/Babe Ruth League equivalence supports that statement. Randy Kryn 01:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? I have never seen a sign for "Babe Ruth" so his name has never been genericized for youth baseball, and I live 20 minutes from their corporate HQ. Knox gelatin and Jello both make dessert gelatins, only one is a generic trademark. There is still a sign for Pop Warner football up on the corner leading to my neighborhood. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. This is clearly his common name, to the point that it's likely readers are getting confused by having him at the natural disambiguation Glenn Scobey Warner. He also receives 73.9% of the page views of all topics of this name, so he's apparently the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as well.|Pop_Warner_Little_Scholars|Pop_Warner_Trophy|Ron_Warner_(baseball) The dab page should just go to Pop Warner (disambiguation).--Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes, when one says "Pop Warner" in modern times the average person would probably first think of the pee-wee league. But Warner is a major individual in football history, not to mention the league's namesake. Lizard  (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Book Citations
I altered the first citation for Powers to show the complete title of the book. This is because when you click on the first "Powers" link it brings you down to citations with an entry that only has Powers last name not the full description of the cited entry. The first reference should contain the full title. My solution is not good because later a reference citation can be put above it, thus the problem comes back. It seems like part of the solution is to make it so that the full name of the cite (powers book in this case) appears in every powers cite pop up. I think that is what the pop up is for.Rybkovich (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this means to say I'm afraid. This might help. Cake (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! thanks for the link. Rybkovich (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome re getting the DYK WP=DYK
In general what extra do all think should be done to take Pops to featured? Damn, just looked it up Stanford playing Notre Dame right now, that could have been a good reason. Rybkovich (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never even tried to get one to FA myself, so I would fear hazarding a guess. Great point about Stanford playing Notre Dame. Had not even thought of that. Check out the play diagrams on e. g. page 116 in the oourses for players and coaches. Cake (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can do it. This is a featured article Angel of Death (Slayer song) if that is a featured article then I think we have a good chance with Pops. PS I am obligated to raise the Pappy Waldorf article to Pops' level, so it would be great if you could also participate. PSS I am a real good luck charm for stanford - in the past 7 years every time I watched them play, they won. Rybkovich (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Albert Exendine was lightning-fast and had connections with both Warner and Waldorf. Cake (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also you may have saw I tried to help Andy Smith along. Hard to think of a better classic matching of styles than that '25 rose bowl. If I were to force expansion of Pop's article, there is probably extra room for more elaboration on the double wing. See. e. g. Pope for how much credit Warner seems to give it. Cake (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article
I nominated this article to be a featured article. You can find info at the very top of this page. Rybkovich (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Invention claims
The article currently attributes numerous inventions to Warner. Such claims are often overstated, with the same development claimed by many individuals. These claims should be viewed with skepticism and checked carefully. A couple of them pop out at me without even doing much checking:
 * Spiral pass - Sources I've seen generally credit Howard R. Reiter with developing the overhand spiral pass. See discussion here. Other sources have credited Eddie Cochems or Bradbury Robinson with developing the spiral pass.
 * Spiral punt - Alex Moffatt invented the spiral punt in 1883, when Warner was still a child. See David M. Nelson. The Anatomy of a Game: Football, the Rules, and the Men who Made the Game. p. 53. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, for example, that the Wikipedia article on Amos Alonzo Stagg credits him with inventing the reverse play in 1890 and the unbalanced line in 1900. These same innovations are also credited in this article to Warner. Cbl62 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bootleg play: I find no contemporaneous record of Warner having invented, developed or run the bootleg play. The earliest published references I find to the "bootleg play" date to its use by the 1922 Arizona Wildcats football team. E.g., here and here, and here. See also this one. Pop McKale, rather than Pop Warner, was the coach of the 1922 Arizona team. (Other sources credit Frankie Albert with inventing and/or perfecting the bootleg play. See here, here and "The Pro Football Historical Abstract" by Sean Lahman (saying of Albert: "His lasting legacy is the bootleg play, which he invented and perfected ...")). Cbl62 (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC) The earliest references I can find to Warner having purportedly invented the bootleg play are in 1954 obituaries for Warner. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that it says he early taught the spiral pass and spiral punt, not that he invented them. Will have to check further on the bootleg, as several sources mention it. No doubt invention is one of the tougher aspects. Stagg invented the end-around and the reverse; Warner invented the reverse run to the weak side. Cake (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The article as currently written says the spiral pass and spiral punt were his "innovations". This is inaccurate. Each of these "innovation" claims needs to be carefully vetted. Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it says he was one of the first to teach it, with which several sources agree, but it does need a finer comb. Cake (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * * What's the source on Pops coming up with the reverse run to the weak side? Rybkovich (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * * Is that arizona description of a "bootleg" consistent with the modern definition of the term? He runs through the center not to the side right? Is running to the side key in the modern definition? What about that Utah one? Rybkovich (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * * And just what is the description of the "bootleg" play purportedly developed by Warner? Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely required question re Warner's definition. But still, whats your take on the question re Arizona's? (and of the modern definition) Rybkovich (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re spiral punt - The subsection is named "inventions" and "innovations" is directly below it, so the meaning of innovation is presented as invention. So change the name of the subsection to something broader? And put more info re his contribution to spiral passes and punts? Rybkovich (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I respect that several of these can be disputed, but let's start at the beginning. His hall of fame profile states "He was the first to teach the spiral punt and one of the first to advocate the spiral pass; he was the first to use the football huddle; he invented the double-wing formation, with an unbalanced line for more blocking strength....What else did Warner come up with during his illustrious career? How about mousetrap plays, the screen pass, the rolling block, the naked reverse, hidden-ball plays, series plays, the unbalanced line and backfield."
 * The huddle seems to have a number of claimants, such as Paul D. Hubbard, so let's scratch that one. Not sure what it means by "rolling block" or "series plays". The hidden-ball play is addressed in the article, and indeed the obituary suggests it is what one means by a "bootleg" so it might need to be removed. Presumably due to the single and double wing, twice it mentions an unbalanced line. In the 30s it seems if you have a balanced line you're playing Rockne-ball and unbalanced one you're playing Warner-ball. However, I could see Stagg as the proper inventor of it, and one should look into it further. The article sources The Anatomy of a Game which states: "using an unbalanced line, a wingback, and the other backs behind the strength of the unbalanced line, Warner was saying, "Here we come and you had better overshift to meet strength with strength." When opponents met Warner's strength, he countered with reverses." I confess this doesn't state he invented it, but it addresses the most of what's been said previously. It seems Stagg was using it at Chicago around the turn of the century (and after I type this, I see his article says this exactly). Cake (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since Powers is used for the bootleg source, I hope rybkovich can supply us with what he has to say. Miller credits Warner with "the three-point stance for backfield men, the cross-body (or "Indian") block, the bootleg play, the screen pass, improvements to shoulder and thigh pads, improvements to tackling dummies and blocking sleds, and the use of deception over brute strength to gain the advantage over the opponent." Cake (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As soon as I get the library transfer book I will double check all of the Powers cites. Rybkovich (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, what is referred to as bootlegs played by arizona are those bootlegs as defined today? ,? Rybkovich (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Rybkovich (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The book Springville states he "was in nearly every case the originator and an early advocate of a few: single-wing formation, double-wing formation, three-point stance, numbered plays, jersey numbers, knee guards, fiber padding, early head gear, spiral punt, center snap to ball carrier, bootleg, reverse, screen, mouse trap (misdirection), rolling body block, hidden ball, free forward passing, and more." The Pop Warner Little Scholars book states he "is credited with introducing several major innovations to college football such as the spiral punt, the screen play, single and double-wing formations, the naked reverse, the three-point stance, the numbering on players' jerseys, and the use of shoulder and thigh pads." Cake (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re double pass. I reworded our previous long quote of what Jenkins wrote. Is this a correct rewrite? Jenkins wrote - " One piece of razzle-dazzle installed by Warner was the double pass: Quarterback Jimmie Johnson would toss the ball to a halfback sweeping laterally – who then tossed it back to him." Now we have " That year Warner began implementing the double pass. Carlisle's quarterback Jimmy Johnson would make a lateral pass to the halfback running towards the side, bringing the defense with him as he tossed the ball back to the fast running Johnson" Rybkovich (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You might try "towards the sideline" or "around the end", and perhaps add a hyphen to "fast running" if that must be there, but aside from those minor things it looks fine. It could just as well be called a double-lateral before 1906. Almost immediately after 1906 it slowly came to mean what you'd expect of it today; namely, a long lateral pass (to the other end of the field helps) followed by a forward pass. Cake (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. Cake - I thought about this and wanted to ask you to take out and re-write the Jenkins and Powers quotes we have. Right now, because they are several sentences long, they are too long not to be considered as copyright violations and this will come up when others will start reviewing the article for the Featured Article status. I am passing it on because I think that you are a better editor at dealing with the technics of the game issues. I originally put them all in because I thought, why not? I'm used to legal writing and quoting as much as you can is what its all about (legal decisions are not copyrightable). Rybkovich (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevers and the Four Horsemen
Also need to double-check whether it's just lore or if Nevers really outrushed the Horsemen. I know he did well. Cake (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no specific player stats but it seems right see LA Times |page 1, |page 9, and |page 12. Great source, I signed up for the 7 day free trial, I hope I don't forget to cancel. Rybkovich (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

1907 chicago
From the Chicago game against Stagg. Put it up? Maybe take out one of the team pics or not. https://www.loc.gov/item/2007663722/ great pic either way. Rybkovich (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mesmerizing picture, but not sure of the relevance for Warner's article. Since that's Chicago's field, I added it to the 1907 Maroons page. Cake (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree Rybkovich (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

intro paragraph
We should have the list of the inventions and things he emphasized at the very top, I'd say second sentence. That was the common suggestion from two different FAC editors, I think it makes sense, the usual passer by is only going to read two sentences at most, him reading that  "Included among his innovations are the single and double wing formations (precursors of the modern spread and shotgun formations), the three point stance as well as the body blocking technique.[" will make the reader go ha! and read more. Also you narrowed it way down, because some claims are arguable? You have them listed on innovations section so thats why i included them in the intro. We can put that "it is claimed" or something like that and keep them up them up there, since apparently he is associated with those things. Rybkovich (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well arguable on the huddle yes and numbering plays also seems to be claimed by Stagg, etc. I would leave those out without further qualification. Prefer the structure of the lead now I suppose, but you and the FAC editors know best. Cake (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pop Warner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222120939/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/cornell/1894-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/cornell/1894-schedule.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.askart.com/artist/Glenn_S_Warner/11008667/Glenn_S_Warner.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ethomashallstudio.com/art.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bashof.org/inducteebios/pwarner.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Carlisle School
The description of this “school” is wrong. It was a place of “re-education” where Native American children were forcibly detained. It was a place of horrors. Your description is a “White Wash” of what really happened. 71.135.73.84 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)