Template talk:List of college football program head coaches key

Concerns about standardization
I like the idea of this template, but I do have some concerns about the state it's in now and how this could effect some existing lists, and future lists. I'll post these point-by-point so any replies should reply to these individually so they can be kept organized over multiple issues.
 * Differences in Division I-FBS, Division I-FCS, Division II, and Division III effect the postseason note. I-FCS, D-II, and D-III all finish the season with a playoff, not the bowl system. A separate note is needed for those four playoffs.
 * Many schools have played in the playoffs of multiple divisions plus a mix a bowls. Delaware, for example, has played in pre-playoff era bowls, the D-II playoffs, and the FCS playoffs. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So how should that note reflect when the team changed divisions/sub-divisions? Normally, I would just add a note on the postseason header with the program's dates in which division/sub-division. NThomas (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what this means is that we have to assume the postseason note can take an unlimited number of forms. Therefore, it can't be included in the template unless there's an text field like "postseason_history_note=" where the user could detail the history for that particular program with all its nuances. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In some cases, lists will have multiple extraneous fields:
 * "Int." - Interim head coaches (lists of teams without an interim head coach)
 * "CCs" - Conference championships (lists of teams abstaining from conference membership e.g. Notre Dame)
 * "DCs" - Division championships (lists of teams that have not competed in division play)
 * "NCs" - National championships (lists teams that have not won a recognized national championship)
 * "†" - CFHOF inductees (lists of teams without a CFHOF coach)
 * "CW" - Conference wins (lists of teams abstaining from conference membership e.g. Notre Dame)
 * "CL" - Conference losses (lists of teams abstaining from conference membership e.g. Notre Dame)
 * "CT" - Conference ties (lists of teams abstaining from conference membership e.g. Notre Dame)
 * "C%" - Conference winning percentage (lists of teams abstaining from conference membership e.g. Notre Dame)
 * For teams that were in the University Division and remained in Division I-A/FBS for the entire time a team has been fielded, postseason games (W-L-T) are easy to figure out just how many appearances a coach has been in, but for programs not in Division I-FBS, a "PA" - Postseason appearances parameter would be useful, but again, unnecessary for others.
 * I think the PA field actually would be useful for FBS teams. Would allow you to sort by total bowl games coached. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The dash vs. zero business for postseason records seems a little silly to me. How exactly does it work?  Guys who coached before 1916 get a dash and during or after 1916 get a zero?  There weren't too many bowls to go around in the early days and many teams were effectively ineligible for bowls for long periods of time, e.g. Harry G. Kipke coached at Michigan from 1929 to 1937 and won two nat'l titles, but coached in no bowls because the Big Ten didn't allow teams to participate in bowls until 1946, with the exception of Michigan in the 1902 Rose.  What about lower division schools?  There were small-time bowls like the Camellia Bowl before the NCAA or NAIA playoff systems came into existence.  How do we handle those?  We could simplify things a lot by just putting a zero for everyone who didn't coach in the postseason and forget the dash business. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The dash vs 0 issue would be simpler with just 0s, but for other fields like Division Championships and Ties, em dashes are needed to show that the coach didn't amass any statistics because that wasn't even an option, unlike others where that record matters. Sorting also becomes an issue since both would sort exactly the same. NThomas (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With conference records and division championships, either you played in a conference or a conference with divisions or you didn't. It's pretty cut and dry.  The postseason issue is a lot murkier.  The question of zero versus dash seems to be a question of whether there was a bowl or playoffs a team might have competed in.  If you were a small school in 1925, say, you weren't going to the Rose Bowl no matter what, presumably.  The real problem here is that dash business effectively makes us do a retroactive speculation about possible counter-histories, which, of course, is not the sort of thing we're after. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The conference header prevents the ability to note when the program has participated in conference play, leaving the em dash entries and "0" entries without an explanation why certain coaches have one or the other methods.


 * Presumably, when the template is updated annually, the "Statistics correct" note will inaccurately portray statistics up to date when the table itself may not be updated.
 * There is no "statistics correct" note in this template. The "Updated as of January 12, 2011" note on List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches is local to that list, as it should be.  I agree that if it was in the template, that would be a big problem.  That element needs to stay local. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad! I was looking at the Auburn list and thought the list header was included in this template. NThomas (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, most of these issues could be fixed if this template is streamlined with "on" and "off" parameters for certain fields similar to infoboxes like Template:Infobox NCAA football school and Template:Infobox NCAA team season. NThomas (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point about extraneous fields in the case of an independent, etc. Honestly, I could live with a fully blown-out table for everyone, but it would indeed be slicker to have on/off switches for the fields that may not apply everywhere.  I've never built that sort of coding before.  Have you done that kind of stuff? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've worked some on a few infoboxes, but nothing on a scale like this. Until something like that can be done, a complete table with all parameters is needed since NAIA, NCAA D-III, D-II, and D-I-FCS lists are currently using this template. NThomas (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've done a lot of work with templates, but really just in the area of design, content, organization. I have not done any conditional programming kind of stuff that the on/off switches would entail.  Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Elected to the College Football Hall of Fame
I have had this come up in my FLC nomination for the List of Arkansas Razorbacks head football coaches and want to have the discussion here where it is better suited. Since the list is specifically for college football head coaches, why do we highlight coaches that were elected as players too? Yes they are in the HOF, but since their inclusion was as a player only, not for their coaching tenure, I feel they not be highlighted as such in theses lists since they are specific to coaching. In the case of Arkansas list, it makes no sense to me to highlight George McLaren (American football) as listed in the HOF on the coaches' list since he was inducted as a player with nothing he accomplished as Arkansas coach included as part of his HOF profile. Ultimately, I am agreeable to consensus with this, but do strongly object to the noting of coaches on coaches' lists that are in the HOF as a player only and not as a coach. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Patriarca12, you have some good points here. Some others to consider: List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches makes note in its lead "Michigan had nine head coaches between 1900 and 1989, each of whom has been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame either as a coach or as a player".  What you say above brings into question the significance of this fact and how to best present it.  Also, consider Fielding H. Yost at List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches.  He's noted there as an HOF inductee, but his one season at Nebraska probably didn't contribute much to his candidacy.  Perhaps it's not as disconnected as McLaren's tenure at Arkansas from his HOF induction as a player at Pitt, but it leans in that direction.  May make sense to bring this up at the CFB talk page for more input. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear what you're saying, but I still believe that only those listed as coaches in the HOF should be indicated as such on a coaches' list. In the Yost example, there is no question that his induction was based predominately, on his Michigan tenure. However, in his HOF bio Nebraska along with Ohio Wesleyan, Kansas and Stanford are clearly defined as schools which he did coach, and although short is more than appropriate for inclusion as a HOF coach in their respective coaches' lists (Darrell Royal is another great example similar to that of Yost). I'll bring this up at the CFB talk page though as suggested. Thanks for the insight! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ideas from an FLC
A reviewer of the Clemson list FLC had a few ideas for this template: —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Make the text full size instead of 85%
 * My screen is wide enough for it all to still look nice, but I don't know if that's the case for everyone.
 * Add column and row scopes for WP:ACCESS
 * I went ahead and added the columns, but I don't know if the rows will play nicely, since this is a nested table.

Changing abbreviations / symbols
I came across this template when reviewing List of Memphis Tigers head football coaches for FL status, and I noticed this key has several problematic features. First, the overall wins, losses, and ties use "OW", "OL", and "OT", respectively. In my opinion, these do not align with common abbreviations (which would just be "W", "L", and "T"), and "OT" in particular is confusing because users who don't notice the key will likely assume it means "overtime". I would suggest changing these.

Second, footnote A1 notes that "—" indicates a year in which there were no postseason games. However, many other lists, including FLs for Alabama, Arkansas, and Auburn (the first three similar FLs I found) use dashes in other contexts, violating this footnote.

Thus, I am proposing the following changes: Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "OW", "OL", "OT" → "W", "L", "T"
 * Footnote A1: "Although the first Rose Bowl Game [...] as the oldest bowl game by the NCAA. '—' indicates any season prior to 1916 when postseason games were not played." → "Although the first Rose Bowl Game [...] as the oldest bowl game by the NCAA. '*' indicates any season prior to 1916 when postseason games were not played." (other symbols could also work)
 * the change on the abbreviations seems reasonable to me. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should clarify that my real concern is how the changes would affect other pages. If we simply replace the abbreviations, we would have to change every page that uses the template. Is that still worth it, or would it be better to create a new template entirely? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we'd have to change the headings of the tables to match. There are 123 transclusions of this template. Not too bad. There are a fair number of the college football head coach lists that do not use this template, e.g. List of Baylor Bears head football coaches. These list ought to all synced up on formatting. What would creating a new template entirely do for us? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A new template would remove the need to replace all of those old versions right away. I suppose 123 transclusions isn't too bad, though; it could pretty easily be done (if the consensus is to change the template). RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)