User talk:Bcspro

Welcome, thank you
Greetings Bcspro!

Thank you for your time in helping to improve Wikipedia articles. It is obvious that you already know your way around fairly well. Never-the-less, I see that no one gave you an official welcome, and so I would like to do so now. This welcome message has some shiny links and maybe some of them are new and helpful to you. If not, please feel free to archive or remove:

Template fixed
Thanks for fixing the template for the 2007 Holiday Bowl. Two thumbs up!!!! Rocketmaniac (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Michigan
My mistake, read the preview wrong, whoops. michfan2123 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Item for discussion
I do also want to let you know that I undid one change you made because I disagree. I wanted to spell out my reasoning so we can discuss further if you wish. The edit was this one to 2005 Texas Longhorn football team.

You are of course correct that the BCS does not issue a final poll after the BCS championship game. I would certainly agree with you that there is no "final BCS #3" or "final BCS #15". However, the BCS game does crown the BCS champion. I think it is clear that the BCS champion is the #1-ranked team in the BCS. "BCS #1-ranked" and "BCS champion" are really synonyms. Therefore, Texas did finish the 2005 season as the #1 team in the BCS system. It is appropriate to list them as such in the infobox. I restored the #1 BCS ranking.

Please let me know if you don't accept my reasoning.

Best regards, Johntex\talk 04:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CFB invite
Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! MECU ≈ talk 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of team in tables
I have reordered the teams in each table to put the most recent winners first (e.g., USCs NC is more recent than OUs). Newguy34 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorization for the bowl game templates
Great job on the templates. However, the category should be Category:American college football bowl games by team navigational boxes and not Category:American college football navigational boxes. Thanks. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second that. I've been watching my watchlist fill up with all the changes to the bowl game articles I'm working on, and I'd just like to say thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Information about BCS
BCSPro,

I am working on a project that requires as much information about the BCS as I can get my hands on. Please email BCS@dpiconsultingservice.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Big Ten Conference
No problem! - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Help requested
Hi there! I'm currently preparing 2005 Sugar Bowl to go through the FAC process and was wondering if you might have a moment to make a few comments or suggestions on the article. In particular, given your knowledge and familiarity with the BCS, I was wondering if you might take a close look at the "controversy" section in the "Pregame buildup" section, which deals mainly with the problems stemming from having three undefeated teams at the end of the 2004 season. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate a look over the remainder of the article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'll make the additions you suggested both to the controversy and Utah sections, and will post it to FAC tomorrow (Saturday) while watching football. Appreciate the help. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've submitted the FAC (Featured article candidates/2005 Sugar Bowl), and any additional comments/supports/opposes would be appreciated. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The latest BCS article I've been working on has been 2000 Sugar Bowl, which was the 2000 BCS National Championship game. If you could take a look at that, I'd really appreciate it. I think I've done an okay job explaining the BCS system as it was at the time, but feel free to make any changes you think are needed in the team selection section. The lede is a work in progress, and I know it's much too short at the present time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm preparing to submit 2000 Sugar Bowl to FAC, and was wondering if you could spare a moment to take a look at it before I begin the process. I'd appreciate any insights you might be able to offer. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

1955 Rose Bowl

 * Hey thanks for finding the quarter by quarter breakdown of the score for that box. I was looking online forever and couldn't find it. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMCtalk 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Big XII or Big 12?
You are correct, it is Big 12 per their official website (my bad). It is also Pac-10 per their official website, so rather than reverting my entire "Big XII" edit (as you did), I have edited it to "Pac-10" and left the rest alone. Newguy34 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rose Bowl

 * Don't worry about it. Can we be friends? The name "XXth Rose Bowl" is like "Super Bowl XXX", the official name. We print it on tickets, programs, brochures, etc. Unfortunately, not everybody honor our wishes, including our own people. We or us means the members of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses. Few of us are here too. Thought "Bcspro" means an expert, but now know it means supporting BCS system. Here, the Super Bowls are called by their proper name, but not so for the Rose Bowl games. BTW both the stadium and the game were called "Rose Bowl" until recent years that the "game" was added, mainly since UCLA moved to the stadium. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Can you be contacted? Ucla90024 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you like Ohio State Buckeyes, why not do the 1975, or other unfinished Rose Bowl articles? Ucla90024 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for keeping it correct. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote "Although the official selection..." in 2009 Rose Bowl should not have been deleted, I will rewrite and put the teams back in via a revert. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:59 PM US EDT Dec 6 2008.


 * "Penn State will serve as the home team, based on the alternating format between the champions of both leagues" doesn't appear to be correct. According to Tournament of Roses: "Penn State will wear its white jerseys and use the west bench on game day. USC will wear its dark jerseys and use the east bench on game day." Ucla90024 (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about looking odd with the logo for the 2006 Rose Bowl game. SC was the home team with dark jerseys. I think the home team was chosen by coin toss. I was glad to be at the south end zone to watch the end of the game when Texas won the game and didn't understand what SC was doing in the last few minutes. We always support the team playing against the Trojans :). The center part of that logo was the official logo, done a year in advance. The standard style sheet doesn't have that logo. Someone must have added the team logos at last month after the teams were selected. They are working on the Tournament's 2010 logos now, to be unveiled on the third week of January when the new president takes office and announce the theme. The whole process begins again. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Number of Rose Bowl games had the wrong visiting/home teams wrong. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You just love to change the visitor/home teams for the 2006 Rose Bowl game. :) Ucla90024 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Image File:2006 BCS championship game logo.jpg fixed for you. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the non-AQ rule is usually imposed once every four years. They will revert to the current rule next year. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:15 AM US EST Dec 11 2010

Ole Miss
Not knowing that there was already an Ole Miss bowl game template, the 1 created by you at Template:Ole Miss bowl games, I created one at Template:Ole Miss Bowls on November 30, 2008. Please have a look at it and let me know if you'd like me to clear it and CSD it or if you think layout and style wise it would be better to use it. Thanks. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rather than CSD yours, I cleared it and redirected it to the new one. Keeps the work down having to go to each article and replace it. Cheers! - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 03:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Buckeyes
I've reverted your reversion of Betacommand's edits. The problem is that logos are used to identify in the article itself, so it's used only in the article about the team. Having it in the season article violated multiple criteria of the non-free content criteria, namely both 3a and 3b, 8, and 10a, 10b and 10c to some extent, as there is no rationale for its use. Thank you for your understanding,  Maxim (talk)  02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Beta is under a restriction which forbids making a series of repetitive edits to 25+ pages, so that is why he was blocked.  Maxim (talk)  20:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

BCS 2010

 * We are told in a FAQ: "What is the official name of the NCG [National Championship Game]? The title of the game will be the Citi BCS National Championship Game." Because ... "However, the BCS National Championship Game, which is not a Rose Bowl Game, will have a title sponsor.", not a presenting sponsor. As of today, no changes to the contractural agreement Citi signed. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question
The user in question was canvassing. You are welcome to reinstate the content on your own page if you wish to do so, rollback of edits is generally used to clean up canvassing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Debate about fair-use logos on team pages
Just wanted to let you know that there is a debate about the use of logos on sports team pages. If you have any thoughts on the matter feel free to contribute your argument for or against.Tedmoseby (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New single-game infobox
You know, it'd be a heck of a lot easier for you to just change the original infobox than to come up with a whole new one and replace all the information. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a college football game...
...Hence, the full names (University of Utah Utes, The Ohio State University Buckeyes, etc.) in each bowl game. If you want to avoid an edit war, talk to a moderator about it. NoseNuggets (talk) 5:42 AM US EST Dec 26 2008

Question about Single Game Header conversion
Hey man, I was looking over the pages that the Single game header is still listed on attempting to figure out if I should make the adjustment to any others. I wanted to ask your opinion on it before I made any adjustments. For instance, games like this are played on a yearly basis, but there really aren't many articles for them, so I was contemplating whether they might be better left as single games. (although, conversely, it might incentivize the creation of more articles if they are listed as one in a line) Obviously, it should probably be decided on a case by case basis, but I wanted to get your opinion before proceeding since you have been so awesome about the edits you have made. Later. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On EN dashes...
Yeah...sorry about that, I didn't know. I'll go through articles I visisted and correct any hyphens I put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11achitturi (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohio Buckeyes template
When I said there were no complaints, I meant there were no complaints when I suggested the change to the template on the talk page a month ago. I figured that after a month, I was safe to attempt the change. The reasons for the change were described on the talk page, as I had wanted to mention in the edit summary. but I guess I was a bit too obscure in the way I put it in the ES. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

University of Connecticut
I'm okay with them being referred to like that on the 2009 International Bowl article, but Connecticut is spelled that way, not Conecticut. Please leave it that way on the article.MrShamrock (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

April 2008 Newsletter

May 2008 Newsletter June 2008 Newsletter July 2008 Newsletter August 2008 Newsletter September 2008 Newsletter October 2008 issue November 2008 issue December 2008 issue January 2009 issue

No problem
I was also at a loss for words when I saw the story. You sometimes hear about pro athletes who conduct locker room interviews in the buff, but this was the first time I'd read about a major coach. I actually thought it was a pretty brilliant tactic by someone who (excuse the pun) had the balls to pull it off. At the same time I thought it added a slightly humorous flavor to the article, since I'm certain someone like Hayes probably found the idea amusing as well. Here's a bit of well crafted humor on the subject from one of the major CFB blogs. All the best! --Bobak (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NCAA penalizes Florida State

 * NCAA penalizes Florida State -- what's that mean about those games in 2006 and 2007, including the January 3, 2006 Orange Bowl Loss (3 OT) to Penn State 23-26; December 27, 2006 Emerald Bowl Win over UCLA 44-27; December 31, 2007 Music City Bowl Loss to Kentucky 28-35? Ucla90024 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

BCS & the 2009 Season
The Rose Bowl staff has made their 2009 predictions in their colorful Rose Bowletin, Championship Edition publication, which was published this week. Prediction I: Ohio State vs. USC in the Rose Bowl Game. Prediction II: Florida vs. Texas in the 2010 Citi BCS National Championship Game. Last year the Rose Bowletin prdicted the Wisconsin Badgers to finish on top of the Big Ten Conference standings. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick fact check on Bowl Alliance
If you have a moment, could you check my work in regards to the team selection section of the 1995 Sugar Bowl (December) article? I've nominated it to be a good article, but I'd like to make sure the text about the Bowl Alliance is clear and correct. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:
Haha, no problem :) SpitfireTally-ho! 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

National championships
Bcspro,

Since you have been one of the major editors of the National Championships article, I wanted to get your opinion on the insertion of the table of claimed championships currently in my sandbox into the article, especially since it is such a large addition. I'm also thinking of cutting the table in the CFBDW section with "Current FBS schools" that essentially duplicates the table above it. I'd appreciate any input you might have before I make these edits. Thank you! CrazyPaco (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Carthage44
There's no use in threatening, I've had a report at ANI up for almost an hour waiting for admin attention. He knows what he's doing, you can see all the good faith messages and links I've sent him in the history of his talk page. Feel free to comment at the ANI report. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

College Football Project request
Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

College football rankings
Bcspro, I've been pulling those rankings from the 2005 ESPN College Football Encyclopedia (http://www.amazon.com/ESPN-College-Football-Encyclopedia-Complete/dp/1401337031). Let me know if you want me to look something up for you. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this encyclopedia only has the rankings, not the points. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Mich/OSU
I have given him a warning for 3rr. If the anon reverts again, he will be blocked.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes for NCAA bowl games
This notice needs to remain in the infobox: "<! -- Field should contain record before game -->" so that editors do not change the record after the game. See Template:NCAAFootballYearlyGameHeader/doc. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

College football team bowl template
Bcspro, I noticed that you moved "Template:Florida Gators bowl games" to its original name, "Template:Florida bowl games." In the past two months, all of the coach navboxes for WP:CFB and over half of those for WP:CBB have been moved to standardized names that follow the pattern "Florida Gators football coach navbox," etc., which includes the school name and mascot. This has been done pursuant to the talk page consensus established for both wikiprojects as part of an effort to upgrade the coach navboxes and remove succession boxes. Athletic director navboxes and navboxes for college coaches in other sports are likewise being moved to names following the pattern, and will likewise be enhanced with first names and terms of service in due course. Apart from the ambiguity inherent in the name "Florida bowl games," I would ask that you join the WP:CFB consensus in CFB navbox naming and usage. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Akron Zips bowl game navbox
Template:Akron Zips bowl game navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Buffalo Bulls bowl game navbox
Template:Buffalo Bulls bowl game navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Cactus Bowl(Tempe)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cactus Bowl(Tempe) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)