Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

2020-21 seasons
Moving this here.

Was there a discussion on what to do for the COVID-19 season in terms of coaching record tables? There about a million and a half different ways it has been expressed and I am unsure as to which should be done. I feel as though there are multiple feasible ways but I am unsure of a consensus which will tie into another point.

This goes along with the next point on if a season was played, should there be a note in the record table explaining that the games were played in the spring or just leave it without.

Third point, should 2020 be grayed out on the coaches navboxes like I did for:

Albany State Golden Rams football coach navbox Adams State Grizzlies football coach navbox

If we do that, that would also go in hand with what was done for World War II, but again, just a few questions for you/seeing if there was a consensus already. Thanks! Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I, personally, believe option B is the best along with greying out the year in the navbox, although that will cause a small issue with Framingham State Rams football coach navbox's Aynsley Rosenbaum and Azusa Pacific Cougars football coach navbox's Rudy Carlton. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thetreesarespeakingtome, thanks for bringing this up. I don't believe there ever was a discussion about this. It's probably worth transferring this discussion to WT:CFB to get more input. Option B seems best to me as well for consistency with how we've treated the World Wars. As for Rosenbaum and Carlton, since they never logged a single decision as head coach on their ledger, I think they fall into the category of a Bo Rein at LSU. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of linking to COVID-19, which is the article about the virus, linking to COVID-19 pandemic or COVID-19 pandemic in the United States or Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports seems more appropriate. Or maybe there should be a new article for Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports in the United States? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gridiron football, perhaps? Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one looks like the best option. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

July 1 realignment moves
I have noticed that some editors have started to move certain pages to their new conference affiliation ex, UCLA Bruins football, DeShaun Foster. When should these pages actually be updated? If it is in-fact on July 1, when should it be 12:00 am EDT, 6/30 11 CDT,  6/30 9 PDT, or 12 EDT, 12 CDT etc? (Eastern-time or institution time specific)-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * More examples Template:Southeastern Conference football navbox updated for 2024, Template:Southeastern Conference football rivalry navbox not fully updated for 2024.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably okay to start making the changes now for the realignments that will occur on July 1. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur. glman (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * what do you think?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No opinion, but Foster's ibx has had Big Ten since Feb. —Bagumba (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"19xx college football season" articles
Regarding the above series of articles, I've started adding a section for annual statistical leaders. E.g., 1950 leaders, 1951 leaders, 1952 leaders, 1953 leaders, 1954 leaders, 1955 leaders, 1956 leaders.

Any suggestions on formatting? Is the top 10 a reasonable cutoff? Should we include other categories such as punting? Team passing offense? Team passing defense? Team rushing offense? Team rushing defense? I also welcome help building this out for other seasons (the data can be found in both annual NCAA guides and in post-season newspaper reports). Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Someone should make an article for the 1950 receiving leader (Gordon Cooper (American football)) ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 01:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done: Gordon Cooper (American football). BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now also added the small-college stat leaders at 1956 college football season. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1957 college football season done too. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, we need to figure out what's happening with the the NAIA seasons here and fix broken architecture at Template:Infobox college football season and Template:NCAA football season navbox and in the category tree. Did we reach a consensus on when the University/College division split happened for football? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was some disagreement as to the exact year, but it's somewhere between 1962 and 1964. I won't modify those years until there's consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So for now 1962 will be the first season with a divisional split? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will defer to User:Dmoore5556 on which year to start the University/College Division split. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe we should have unified (merged) articles up to and including 1961, and independent articles for 1963 and later. 1962 is less clear (lots of discussion elsewhere on this page) but at this point I'd say leave 1962 as-is (un-merged), primarily due to the Walter Byers quote, subject to a later change should something else come to light. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 1958 and 1959 college football season done too. Cbl62 (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1960 and 1961 now done as well. Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Cbl, thanks for all your work on this stuff. Some outstanding issues: 1) 1957 NAIA football season is still a stand-alone article. 2) How should we reflect the early NAIA seasons at Template:NAIA football navbox? 3) At 1960 college football season, for example, many standings templates, like Template:1960 Pennsylvania State College Conference football standings, are listed twice, under both "Minor conferences" and "NAIA conferences". 4) The category tree for both articles and standings templates needs to be updated according to these changes in the season naming scheme, see Category:1960 college football season, Category:1960 American football standings templates, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm open to suggestions on whether we should have a separate section for NAIA standings. The problem is that a substantial number (maybe a majority?) were members of both NAIA and NCAA during some of these years. Cbl62 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I moved 1957 NAIA football season. Cbl62 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to redirect that to 1957 college football season, rather than to 1961 college football season? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed it. Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

1956 college football season
, I see you moved 1956 NCAA University Division football season to 1956 college football season per the above discussion. I have no object with eliminating College and University Divisions for this season, but 1956 NCAA College Division football season need to be merged in there. And what do we do with 1956 NAIA football season? Also, Template:NCAA football season navbox need to be updated accordingly. 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Jweiss11 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion, I think both should be merged. Do you disagree? Cbl62 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not against merging the NAIA article. But when do we start the stand-alone NAIA season articles? Whenever the University/College Division split in the NCAA happened? Also, merging the 1956 NAIA article with the 1956 NCAA College Division article will induce a CFB link call crisis. We need to create more 1956 team articles to avert this. Same for 1957, etc. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion I merged all three (University Division, College Division, and NAIA) into 1956 college football season.Cbl62 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Team categories holding only 1 article on a season
I am closing Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 with consensus to merge a single-season category.

Looking around the hierarchy, I see that e.g. Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football holds only one article 1945 Air Transport Command Rockets football team via a "seasons" sub-cat. The team category is also parented by Category:United States Army Air Forces sports teams, Category:College football teams in Tennessee and Category:Defunct American football teams in Tennessee.

There are similar category pairs within Category:Defunct college football teams each holding a single season article. Do these really have navigational value?

Note that each article will always remain within the college football category hierarchy via the season e.g. Category:1945 college football season. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say, yes, there is navigational value to have Category:Air Transport Command Rockets football seasons listed under Category:College football seasons by team. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

2024–25 bowl schedule released
FYI at https://bowlseason.com/sports/bowl/schedule/

Of note:
 * Compared to recent playings, a couple games have been moved from January to December (Reliaquest Bowl, Citrus Bowl) while other games have been moved from December to January (First Responder Bowl, Duke's Mayo Bowl, Bahamas Bowl)
 * Quick Lane Bowl lost Ford as its sponsor and is listed as "Detroit Bowl" while they seek a new title sponsor.

Feels WP:TOOSOON to create the season's bowl games article; passing along for reference. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created 2024 bowl game navbox just to be ready; if there are any "(January)" or "(December)" instances missing that anyone finds please go ahead and add them. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, thanks. I added disambiguation to a couple articles yesterday: 2024 Citrus Bowl (January) and 2024 ReliaQuest Bowl (January), as we will later have (December) variants. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On another note, how do we want to handle the first-round CFP games? I assume they won't each get their own article but should we have a summary article just for them (i.e. 2024–25 College Football Playoff first round, or something like that), or just let the overall 2024–25 College Football Playoff article summarize them? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2024–25 College Football Playoff only, please. Dmoore5556 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should probably limit the first-round games to detail at 2024–25 College Football Playoff and the respective team season articles. Stand-alone articles should probably only be created if a particular game rises to high, lasting notability like the rare cases of such regular season games found at Template:Historic college football games. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fairmont State Fighting Falcons
There's a deletion discussion on the Fairmont State Fighting Falcons (an NCAA Division II program) that may be of interest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Archive plan for Pac-12 conference pages and navboxes
I noticed @KingSkyLord today made a number of edits adding/removing navboxes from the departing Pac-12 members' sports articles.

Templates such as Template:Pac-12_Conference_football_rivalry_navbox have also been edited to remove the departing members.

First, I think these changes are premature. The Huskies, at least, don't join the Big Ten until August 2nd.

Second, I would perhaps like to see some kind of "Historic" information about the Pac-12 preserved in these articles and navboxes. Does this kind of information exist for any of the other disbanded conferences? What should be kept as-is for the Pac-12 and archived or marked as "historic"? What should be updated, in the short term, to only include WSU and OSU?

Some reference points:


 * Southwest Conference
 * Big East Conference
 * Big East Conference (1979–2013)
 * Template:Big_East_Conference_football_navbox

Seeking opinions on what should be done for the article on the historic Pac-12 Conference, the upcoming "Pac-2 Conference", their nav boxes, the team pages, etc.

PK-WIKI (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We typically haven't kept former team information in navboxes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 17 as precedent. And per my question above, some editors have contended that it isn't too early to move to new conferences.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * UCO2009bluejay, thanks for finding that relevant discussion from 2015. Template:Pac-12 Conference football navbox is still listing all 12 teams from its 2023 configuration, but the template is no longer transcluded on the articles for 10 members that left, e.g. Arizona Wildcats football. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Northwest Community College Conference football standings templates
I have nominated Category:Northwest Community College Conference football standings templates for renaming. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Kenyon Lords and Ladies
I have nominated Category:Kenyon Lords and Ladies and its subcats for renaming. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Southeastern Conference starting quarterbacks navbox
Template:Southeastern Conference starting quarterbacks navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 26
There is a discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 editors may be interested in participating in. It has the same functions of Template:CFB Yearly Record Subhead. -UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD: late 1800s team season articles
We have three AfDs open for late 1800s team season articles:


 * Articles for deletion/1884 DePauw football team
 * Articles for deletion/1884 Wabash football team
 * Articles for deletion/1895 Pacific Tigers football team

Jweiss11 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:2001 Northwestern Eagles football team
I created this draft some time ago but couldn't find the needed SIGCOV to move it to main space. Surprising for a team with a perfect season. It is now set to be deleted. If anyone wants to adopt and work on the article, feel free to do so. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Boston College–Syracuse football rivalry
Boston College–Syracuse football rivalry has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Bud Wilkinson question
I read a couple of articles that said that Bud Wilkinson was a golf coach and the hockey coach at Syracuse? I couldn't find anything that had any statistics or years. If anybody has access to any resources, can they see if he was a head coach of either of these teams? Shouldn't this information be in the infobox as well?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no varsity golf or men's ice hockey team at Syracuse anymore, so I'm not surprised that info is hard to come by. Which articles indicated that coached golf and hockey at Syracuse? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oklahoma HOF, (an Oklahoman newspaper article after his death), another Oklahoman, article Nixon Library, John P. Ward biography from Syracuse, that says Bud Wilkinson's gold (sic) teams from 1939-42.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD: List of NCAA Division III independents football records
List of NCAA Division III independents football records has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

TfD: Template:1966 Central Conference football standings
Template:1966 Central Conference football standings and two similar junior college standings templates have been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Preseason info in 2024 articles
I am looking at a few 2024 articles, and see a ton of information in the preason regarding watch lists and preseason polls. Do we really need the entire SEC preseason poll in a team article wouldn't it be better as prose?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire preseason poll is be suited to appear only on the conference season article, 2024 Southeastern Conference football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree but I wonder who keeps adding this stuff? It is only a matter of time before I will post here about the Nebraska article having external links in the schedule table take that to the bank.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of fly-by and IP editors that tend do a lot of work on current season articles and often just do a copy-paste of whatever is there (including any bad habits) from the season before. That's why it's important that when we reach an editorial decision here about season articles, we apply it comprehensively to all the relevant articles. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

1961 college football season
Trying to help with the parserfunction (is that the right term, User:Jweiss11?) problem at 1961 college football season, I've recently started conference season articles as follows: (1) 1961 Central Intercollegiate Conference football season, (2) 1961 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season, (3) 1961 Mid-Ohio League football season, (4) 1961 Northwest Conference football season, (5) 1961 Ohio Athletic Conference football team, (6) 1961 Pennsylvania State College Conference football season, (7) 1961 Presidents' Athletic Conference football season, (8) 1961 Rocky Mountain Conference football season, (9) 1961 Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, and (10) 1961 Wisconsin State College Conference football season. Anyone want to help with sourcing, etc., on these articles? Or with creating additional conference season articles such as 1961 Carolinas Conference football season, 1961 College Conference of Illinois football season, 1961 Indiana Collegiate Conference football season, 1961 Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season? Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I call it the "cfb link call crisis". I would love to help with sourcing here, but Wikipedia Library access to Newspapers.com has been down for a couple days. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "The parsefuction" isn't bad. Amos Alonzo Stagg died for our sins? :) Jweiss11 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Conference season articles
Per the section above, we have an issue with these conference season articles that I've brought up before. We have a style fork. There are two types of conferences season articles. Type I is an older menform that is largely used for NCAA Division I conferences for which individual articles for each team season also exist, e.g. 2023 Big Ten Conference football season. But there are also some instances of this form in use for lower division conferences, e.g. 2012 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football season, 2012 Heart of America Athletic Conference football season. In the Type I form, the season is tackled week by week. In Type II, a form initiated by, the season is tackled team by team, e.g. 1946 Southern California Conference football season. This form is largely used in cases where the individual team seasons likely do not warrant a stand-alone article. However, we have another solution for those sort of seasons: articles that cover many seasons for a single program, bounded by a decade or some other sensible time period, e.g. Southern Oregon Normal football, 1927–1938, Maine Black Bears football, 1892–1899, Henry Kendall Orange and Black football, 1895–1899, etc. We need to resolve this style fork. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing? Also, can you link to the prior discussion? Cbl62 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I better way to present most of the content at 1955 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season, especially the schedule tables, (and address the cfb link call crisis for c. 1930 to 1961, would be to create articles like Kalamazoo Hornets football, 1950–1959, and have 1955 Kalamazoo Hornets football team redirect to that article. 1955 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season could be reworked to take on the Type I form explained above. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the prior discussion, I'm not sure where it occurred. Could be in the archives here or on one of our talk pages. I'll look. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this issue last year here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 26. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There's no need for the proposed homogeneity. Decade articles (or in some cases longer durations) have worked well for 19th century and very early 20th century small-school independents. E.g., the examples you gave above. The conference season articles work great for more modern teams that lack the coverage for individual team seasons. Conference season articles provide multiple benefits, including (i) allowing us to detail the history of smaller programs by collecting sufficient WP:SIGCOV to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement, (ii) telling the coherent story of a full conference in one centralized location, (iii) following the contemporaneous sources which often provide coverage to lower level programs on a conference-wide basis, and (iv) helping with the cfb link crisis. Conclusion: These articles are a win-win-win, let's make more of them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would think there's more reader interest in a team than a conference season, so composite pages like Kalamazoo Hornets football, 1950–1959 would make reading easier than having to hop from one conference season pages to another. However, if content is sparse and being developed, I agree we should just be happy that content is being created.  If a volunteer feels like wiping out a particular conference season randomly here and there, that's fine.  Once a decade is completed, content can then possibly be moved to a specific team decade page, if that makes sense. —Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cbl, much of the coverage for these smaller programs is made on a conference-wide basis, but much of it focuses only a particular game or team. Some of it will focus on a particular program from year to year. The team decade articles plus the Type I conference articles will give us all the benefits you enumerate above, while also resolving the style fork. That's the real win-win. You claim there is "no need for the proposed homogeneity", but you don't explain why. Why do we have consistent style and homogeneity between analogous articles at all? Well, because consistency between analogs helps the reader understand the subject and navigate through the scope of its coverage. Would love to get some input from other editors who have been involved with these sorts of season articles., , , , , , , , , , any thoughts here? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I, personally, think that the conference pages are the best option. BUT with that being said I do think the season groupings for individual teams are also adequate especially for a team that is/was an independent an extended number of time. I also believe that season groupings under a head coaching tenure could work too (ie Stony Brook Seawolves football under Sam Kornhauser/Chuck Priore and UMass Dartmouth Corsairs football under Mark Robichaud,) but it would get replaced once the season's conference page gets created. When you get into the very early seasons (before 1940) there were many independents and THEN it would be better for a year-by-year page grouping the decade together into one page. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jweiss and I disagree and that should be ok. Unless you are advocating that I be prohibited from creating conference season articles. Is that your proposal?


 * Over the last few years, I have spent many days of labor building out roughly 150 conference season articles. See User:Cbl62/Conference season articles. They are set up to easily navigate from year to year for each team so that team navigability is facilitated. I believe these articles are among my best contributions to Wikipedia.


 * I am not aware of anyone creating team decade articles for the post-World War II era. (By my count, there are zero such articles.)


 * A major benefit to the conference approach is that we don't leave the weaker schools behind. You might find someone interested in creating decade articles on or two schools from the Ohio Athletic Conference, but the odds of someone creating decade article for all 15 such team strikes me as quite low. The conference approach doesn't leave the weak teams behind.


 * If at a later date, we see momentum toward someone creating team decade articles, we can figure out how to integrate. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with this explanation more than I agree with my own. I think conference articles are the best way to go forward especially to the point of not leaving behind lesser teams. Alongside each team eventually getting their own page (which I had done a while back) to navigate between seasons and general information would greatly improve this underdeveloped set of pages. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * My hope here is that we can reach a consensus about the form of conference season articles and one that resolves the style fork. It's pretty much the same amount of work to create 1960s decade articles for each of the six MIAA members during the period as it is to create 10 MIAA Type II conference season articles for the decade. In both cases, it's 60 team seasons. The long-term vision is to have 10 MIAA Type I conference season articles for the 1960s, where things like full all-conference teams would reside. My aim is to figure this out now, so we reduce the amount of effort reworking articles in years to come. Your many days of labor building out those 150 conference season articles, particularly all the sourcing from Newspapers.com are much appreciated. Right now we may have 150 articles that have to be reworked. What I want to avoid is finding ourselves three years from now with 1,000 articles that need to be reworked. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The odds of someone creating any given article are entirely dependent on what we as editors decide to do. If we want to create decades articles for each OAC (and every other sub-DI team), we'll do that. We also have programs like Washington University Bears football, Washington & Jefferson Presidents football, Chicago Maroons football who were effectively major programs in their early days, but are now NCAA Division III. We already have a long array of stand-alone articles for each of these programs covering their years of major competition. But most if not all of their post-WW2 history would probably be better served with articles bundled by decade, which would mesh nicely with the existing stand-alone articles. And again, we need to address the style fork. It's confusing to have two different types of the same thing (conference season articles) out there. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I created both branches of what you refer to as a "style fork." It's really not a "fork" at all; it's two different formats for two very different purposes.
 * For major conferences (e.g., 1964 Big Ten Conference football season), there is no need to repeat the schedule charts as each team already has its own article. In these cases, the conference article is intended as a high-level overview. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For minor conferences (e.g., 1946 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season), there are no separate season articles for each team and so the conference season articles serves a different purpose -- it basically presents the contents of what would be a season articles for each team (including schedule chart) along with additional conference-wide information (e.g., all-conference selections).
 * So there it is. Not a "fork" at all -- more lack a fork and a spoon (different utensils to fulfill different needs). Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I started 1961 Rocky Mountain Conference football season this afternoon. Help or suggestions for improving it welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a fork, and Type II of the fork is indeed your creation, as you initiated it decade after Type I was established. We already have a stable form with dedicated templates like Template:CFB Conference Schedule Start, created in 2010. You came up with a local solution that has global problems, now you are denying that such global problem even exist. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You call it a "fork". I call it a "fork" and a "spoon". Different tools for different functions, as described above. And by the way, I was the one who created what you call "Type 1" as well (back in 2016 (here)) -- just modifying the tools a bit to achieve best functionality. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't create Type I. 2009 Big Ten Conference football season was created in 2009. There may be older examples. You didn't create Template:CFB Conference Schedule Start, Template:CFB Conference Schedule Entry, and Template:CFB Conference Schedule End, which were created in 2010 to standardize the tables for Type I--well the only type at the time, because you hadn't yet invented the Type II fork. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I may have mis-remembered, but that's beside the point. The key is that the "spoon" (Type 1) and the "fork" (Type 2) are both valid utensils that serve different purposes. Innovation is permitted (and should be encouraged). Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't just misremember. You're not in touch with the reality of this situation. Breaking standard forms is not innovation, and this is not the first time you've done that. You're still denying the forking you initiated here, and instead of examining that, you've gone ahead hastily to create two more Type II forks since this discussion started, increasing the work load will have to done in future years to resolve it. And even within the Type II fork itself, you make the same mistakes over and over again, like mis-titling the title field of the infobox, omitting proper category sort keys, omitting needed categories on the associated categories that you create, and leaving rafts of table entries un wiki-linked. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't just misremember. You're not in touch with reality Jw -- You are acting like an ****** (unpleasant fellow), and I respectfully ask that you adjust attitude . Cbl62 (talk)
 * Cbl, when it comes to broad project management, competence is required. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jeesh. So much for adusting the attitude. 00:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you seriously want to discuss the need for competence, don't forget that the reason I've had to spend hours creating all of these 1961 articles is because of your incompetence in creating true content "forks" for "NCAA College Division" football seasons for each year from 1956 1957 to 1961, when even a modicum of due diligence would have shown you that the "College Division" didn't even exist during those years. When we fixed your mistake and recombined the articles, it created tons of work in trying to resolve the cfb link crisis. It would be nice if you tried to help fixing the problem instead of making wacky charges of incompetence at others. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, those articles were created (not all by me) when there a wide consensus belief that the NCAA College Division went back that far. In fact, the College Football Data Warehouse, which you still hail as a reliable source, suggests that University and College Divisions go back to 1937; see and . I never made any any such mistakes that created a cfb link crisis. The cfb link crisis arose largely because I created tons of well-sourced standings templates like Template:1950 Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference football standings to make our coverage of minor conferences more complete. I've made repeated calls here for help regarding the link crisis, which also affects seasons prior to 1956 that were never split by division. I've created many season articles myself, particular for 1949, to help ameliorate the crisis. If 1961 college football season had never been split by division, we'd still in the same exact place with respect to the cfb link crisis. Once again, you're completely out touch with reality about the dynamics here, and defensively contorting history rather than examining your own shortcomings. You're out of your depth. Let someone who else who is competent enough to understand what's going on here take the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, your capacity for rewriting history is startling. You created the 1957-1961 "College Division" articles unilaterally and without any "wide consensus". See diffs:, ,  . After you unilaterally created them, I objected, noting there was zero evidence that the College Division existed in these years. As is your tendency, you resisted any challenge to your imagined authority. Now you attack the person cleaning up your mess. Come on, dude! You should be thanking me for cleaning up your mess.  Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here's the real version of what happened. 1956 NCAA College Division football season was created on April 28, 2017 by, not me. Here's a discussion from September 2018 in which I imply that NCAA divisions began in 1956 and no one objects. You participated in that conversation. Here's another discussion from February 2019, involving you and me and others, in which offers 1956 as the year when NCAA divisions were introduced. I repeat this. No one objects. Later in February 2019, in this discussion, I note that We already have an article for 1956 NCAA College Division football season, but we need to create ones for 1957 though 1972. to which you respond Nice work. Several days later, after I created 1957 NCAA College Division football season, and the same for 1958 thru 1972, you first raised the possibility on my talk page that "College Division" may not have been applied to football until sometime after 1956; see: User talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2019. This remained an unresolved issue until this year when User:Dmoore5556 opened a discussion, and you, he, and others ultimately came to the conclusion that NCAA divisions for football started in 1962; see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 27. Are you ready to admit you're FOS, or did you just "misremember" what happened? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Further reflection reveals that 1956 college football season and 1957 college football season opened with explicit subject statements in the lead that read "1956 NCAA University Division football season" and "1957 NCAA University Division football season" respectively, going back to 2013 edits made by . Jweiss11 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to your talk page discussion. It confirms that, indeed, I told you several years ago that the College Division didn't exist until 1962. I am pretty sure we had another discussion back then as well, but you ignored my warnings and left your mess intact. I chose not to challenge you more aggressively on the issue back then, because I know how unpleasant you can get when your authority is challenged. Cbl62 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In February 2019, did you didn't tell me College Division didn't exist until 1962. We, as a project, didn't arrive at 1962 as the cutoff until this year, 2024. In 2019, you told me you suspected it didn't exist in 1956 and 1957. I never said you were wrong. And this wasn't my mess. For six years prior to 2019, 1956 college football season carried a lead that read "The 1956 NCAA University Division football season...". And the same for 1957, etc. As I explained above, this reflected a project-wide consensus belief that College and University Divisions were introduced in 1956. And when, in 2019, I suggested we break out College Division articles from the University Division for 1957 to 1972, you endorsed that move, prior to raising your doubts about 1956 and 1957. I never stopped you from re-combining 1956 or any other year. It's incredibly pathetic what you're still carrying on with this confabulatory charade, even when I've plainly laid out the evidence for you. You are either lying or you're not competent enough to assess the reality of the sequence of events here. Which one is it? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * My goodness, your effort to rewrite history is impressive. Here's the actual sequence of my efforts to advise you about your error in creating the separate University/College Division articles.
 * First warning. In February 2019 (diff here), I raised my concern about your creation of separate University Division/College Division articles. In particular, I informed you that I had done research into the matter and that 1962 was "the earliest item I have found so far showing that there was a formal division of football teams with 140 teams in the University Division and 370 in the College Division." You did not respond to my note about my research findings.
 * Second warning. Because you had not responded, I followed up with you on June 5, 2020 (here) advising you as follows: "We still need to resolve the WP:V and WP:OR concerns in connection with our University Division and College Division football season articles ... It is pretty clear from my research that there was no such thing as a 1956 NCAA University Division football season or a 1957 NCAA University Division football season. The extension of the concept to football came later. The 1956 and 1957 seasons should IMO be reverted to 1956 college football season and 1957 college football season. If you have sources to show that I am wrong, let me know. ... Given these uncertainties, our current University Division articles and templates raise 'red alert' level concerns with core Wikipedia policies, including WP:V and WP:OR." For the second time, you ignored my warnings and did not respond.
 * Third warning. Having no response to my June 5 note, I followed up for a third time on June 11 (diff here), pointing out: "[T]he issue remains with respect to my conclusion that there was no 1956 NCAA University Division football season or a 1957 NCAA University Division football season. Do you have any sources showing that the 'University Division' concept was recognized for purposes of football in those years? Do you have an objection on my proposal to revert these to '1956 college football season' and '1957 college football season'?" For the third time, you ignored my warnings and did not respond. Given your tendency to overreact (including personal attacks and name calling) when critized, I decided not to poke the bear further and left the issue alone.
 * Fourth warning. On May 5 of this year, Dmoore noted he could find no sources to support existence of a separate College Divison in the 1950s. I was pleased that someone else had revived the issue.  I immediately jumped in, noting that there was no "College Division" in the early years and that these articles should be deleted or merged. There was lengthy discussion with Dmoore, PK-WIKI and me all concluding there was no "College Division" in the 1950s.  It was only after this fourth discussion had pretty conclusively established the error (and five years after my first warning to you), that you finally responded and conceded the error.
 * So, yes, you created the mess. You looked the other way for five years, despite repeated warning. Ultimately, I fixed the mess by merging the applicable articles (1956-1961) with considerable effort. This then triggered a "cfb link crisis" which I have been trying to remedy by creating valid conference season articles. And your response is to question my competence, assert that I am out of touch with reality, accuse me of lying, and call me "pathetic".  Seriously?  Have you heard of projection? Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you mentioned your suspicions about 1956 and 1957 to me multiple times. I never told you were wrong. I wasn't sure about the extent of the issue and I was busy with other things. I'm not required to respond to and act upon everything on my talk page. I never stopped you from recombining those articles. If it was such a big deal to you, why didn't you something, like boldly edit or open a discussion here? No clear view of 1958 to 1961 was ever made until this year, and I supported those conclusions when they were made. Back in 2019, I took the initiative, with the project's endorsement including yours specifically, to clean up 1957 to 1972 based on what was then consensus belief, including yours. What will it take for you to cease with these lies and distortions? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And the other thing that you can't seem to understand is that the need to create 1961 West Penn Conference football season, etc to combat the link crisis at 1961 college football season, didn't arise because we erroneously divided up 1961 into NCAA divisions. That crisis would have arisen anyway, just like it did for many years between 1928 and 1955. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My very first comment on the matter, back in 2019, noted that that 1962 was the first year when evidence existed for separate divisions. When you ignored and diden't respond to my politely worded warnings in 2019 and again in 2020, I didn't open a discussion here, because I don't enjoy conflict, and when I had criticized or challenged you in the past, it had blown up into ugly incidents of personal attacks and name-calling. I assure you that I will not be deterred in the future by your bullying and name-calling -- which in this round has included saying I am "FOS" ("full of shit" I infer) and "out of your depth" and calling me "pathetic", incompetent, and out of touch with reality. Cbl62 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More to my point, Category:1956 NCAA University Division football season was created in 2008 and Category:1956 NCAA College Division football season was created in 2014. I created neither category. Two other editors did, which reflected consensus belief at the time. You need to stop with the repeated lies and alternate histories. It's almost Trump-like. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I was going to use a "Trumpian" reference (more accurately, "Trump-via-Roy Cohn") in describing your approach to conflict: Never admit a mistake. Just attack, bully, and call names.  Cbl62 (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The name-calling this round started with calling me an "asshole" with asterisks. Remember? Never admit a mistake? We all, yes, that includes me, made a minor understandable mistake about an abstruse and poorly covered subtlety regarding NCAA organization. This error had abounded here for over a decade and has been repeated elsewhere by many reliable sources. But because I criticized your approach on another issue, you've concocted an absurd confabulation about how this mistake was all my fault and imputed extra fake costs onto the mistake. You behavior here is menacing. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * menacing ("threatening or foreshadowing evil or tragic developments") -- I have to assume you used that word in jest. But at last, you've admitted a mistake in creating the 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961 College Division season articles. Thank you for your honesty in that regard. I have no problem with admitting mistakes when I make them, and I do see that you did not create the 1956 College Division article -- so I was wrong on that one. As for name calling, I didn't call you an "asshole" -- that word has seven letters -- my six asterisks were meant to self-censor a six-letter word that I chose not to use, even after being accused of being out of touch with reality. We've both admitted some fallibility, and hopefully we can now put this to rest. Cbl62 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for miscounting the asterisks. But you last comment contains yet another distortion, or an inability to follow what's going on. But at last, you've admitted a mistake in creating the 1957, 1958..." I never denied this. I clearly stated this several hours ago toward the outset of this branch of the discussion. What you still haven't acknowledged is that NCAA divisional verbiage and organization for all of the sensitive years (1956 to 1961), was introduced onto Wikipedia years ago, as far back as 2008, by several editors not named Jweiss11. And you still haven't acknowledged that these mistaken article splits were not my "unilateral" decision. If fact, you were one of the other editors that greenlit them. And you haven't acknowledged there was indeed some evidence to suggest that NCAA divisions existed in the sensitive time period because trusted sources like the College Football Data Warehouse said they existed. Back in 2019 and until the last couple years, the prime version of NCAA's own website even implied the existence of College and University Divisions for years prior to 1962. You can still view much of that now latent version of their database. Go to https://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch and search for Will Lotter as a coach. Then click on his football records. You will get a report that in turn links to individual season reports with URLs like https://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men's_College%20Division_1954_108_California%20Aggies.pdf. This file now resides at https://stats.ncaa.org/team/108/stats/13796 in a newer scheme. But "College Division" for 1954? That's weird, isn't it? And you still haven't made it clear that you understand that these article splits did not create the link crisis, bur rather that the link crisis would have been the same had they never been split in the first place. The link crisis is the product of minor conference standings template creation, largely done by me. Perhaps it is our personal rivalry that has rendered you unable to make sound and sensible moral judgements. But whatever the ultimate cause, your distorted and confabulatory tales of fake culpability ensue. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * unable to make sound and sensible moral jugments That one is so over the top it actually made me laugh. Cbl62 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Input from Thetreesarespeakingtome

 * Anyway, my two cents are that for Division I (FBS and FCS) should have Fork I formatting due to each team mostly already having their own singular articles while Division II and lower (including NAIA perchance) should have Fork II that Cbl62 (and I) have been working on. I think that grouping seasons by decade works best in the early (1880s to 1940s). Although, a hybrid could be done as well by combining both for lower division seasons. From my understanding the big discussion is whether they should be grouped by conference or by team by decade and I have to favor by conference. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thetreesarespeakingtome, consider the experience of navigating the seasons for Washington University Bears football. The reader gets stand-alone articles from the 1800s until maybe 1961 and then 1962 redirects to 1962 College Athletic Conference football season. That holds though 1971, which redirects to 1971 College Athletic Conference football season. In 1972, Wash U went independent, so 1972 Washington University Bears football redirects to maybe Washington University Bears football, 1972–1979. Then you get Washington University Bears football, 1980–1987. And 1988 redirects to 1988 University Athletic Association football season. Do you think that's optimal? I'm not saying 1988 University Athletic Association football season shouldn't exist, but if it does exist, it should be formed like 2023 Big Ten Conference football season (Type I). And 1988 Washington University Bears football team should redirect to Washington University Bears football, 1980–1989. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess by my own explanation then every single season from 1898 to 1955 would have to be stripped away then redirected which is complete and utter caca. In my experience I have made all three different types for one singular program (2022 UMass Dartmouth Corsairs football team, 2022 Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference football season, 2021 Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference football season, and UMass Dartmouth Corsairs football under Mark Robichaud which are examples if a singular team, Type I, Type II, and a version of the decade-by-decade) and they all co-exist. I just don't think you could pick one over the other.
 * A follow-up question could they exist in the same page? Format one page with the elements of both? The biggest difference between Type I and Type II is just the week-by-week schedule as a whole compared to each team having it's whole season at once. Could, in theory, they be combined and have both? But even if they are the issue with the decade-by-decade page still doesn't fit into play but it most definitely makes sense as to why it should.
 * (Excuse me as I think as I typed this) Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So do I change my opinion once again. They should definitely be formatted like Type I. The format and information provided is most definitely best suited for a conference page instead of what Type II is.
 * A decade page which is the target of the redirects with the standings template heading and categories guiding readers to the separate, but dually important, conference page makes the most sense. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then the other thing is how do you format independent seasons or would they not get a 1978 NCAA Division III football independents season which would encompass every independent grouped together like they are in a conference? Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary to create something like 1978 NCAA Division III football independents season. We don't have anything like that for FBS independents, and there's not the same sort of coverage of independents as a group as there is for a given conference in a given season that binds it together into a coherent topic worthy of its own article. The various seasons listed at Template:1978 NCAA Division III independents football records should be covered by program-specific articles with anything very prominent rising to mention on 1978 NCAA Division III football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. Division I FBS should set the standard for what the lesser (for lack of a better word) divisions coverage and substance should strive to be like. That is at least my ideology at least. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Your work in creating 2021 Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference football season and 2022 Massachusetts State Collegiate Athletic Conference football season is quite good (though stronger WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing would help). Along with similar articles (e.g., 2022 Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Great Lakes Valley Conference football season, 2022 Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association football season, 2022 Great Midwest Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Gulf South Conference football season, 2022 Ohio Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference football season), we are building a useful system that allows us to overcome GNG challenges to the creation of individual season articles for lower level teams. Cbl62 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

1933 Southeastern Conference football season
, thanks for creating 1933 Southeastern Conference football season. I have a few thoughts. First, we should be using the and its siblings for the schedule charts, as in 2023 Southeastern Conference football season. Second, I don't think "Week Zero", "Week One", etc are proper nouns, so "Zero" and "One" should not be capitalized. In the head coach section, the use over 13 different schools colors in one table, looks pretty gaudy. This is president problem with conference season article for the most recent decade of seasons or so. I think we've be better off with no color there. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * BuT cOlOrS aRe PrEtTy.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I find the colors to be a net negative, making it a bit harder to read. Cbl62 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , needs to be updated to include a "source" field by someone who is much better than me at making this type of edit to a template, as sourcing is critical for all seasons, but especially these earlier ones. Some season articles like 2017 Big Ten Conference football season hyperlink to a box score instead of citing a formal source, which a source field would also be appropriate. For the other two comments, I am indifferent and frankly do not care either way. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I created a bunch of these a few years ago for the Big Ten and built in some enhancements, including team statistics and individual statistical leaders. Such stats may not be readily available for 1933 but are helpful for seasons where they are available. Cbl62 (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , can you help us add a source column to ? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jweiss11, is this column always appearing in the header, or only when someone says y or something like that? if it is just taking a , it could append that to the result, without creating a new column. Frietjes (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think the easiest thing to do is have the source column always appear. The dedicated source column makes things look cleaner. A reference number next to a numerical score isn't ideal. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jweiss11, okay, this works now, see here for example, but not sure what to do about 2009 Big Ten Conference football season. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Frietjes, thank you! As the 2009 Big Ten Conference article, all those external links embedded in the game scores need to be converted to in-line references. Perhaps, we can get a bot to do that? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Jweiss11, I added source to all the transclusions and moved refs from attendance to source. I have created tracking for urls in the score parameter.  I can fix them once I see which articles to change.  Frietjes (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Colors on Little All-America team articles
User:Sergio Skol has recently added coloring to our series of articles on the Little All-America teams. E.g., 1971 Little All-America college football team. As in the above discussion, I find the addition of coloring to be distracting and more difficult to read. What do others think? Any objections to de-colorizing? Cbl62 (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I support the removal of the rainbows from the tables! Jweiss11 (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean this isn't the best thing you have ever seen? Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Distracting, much like conference season pages that have too many colors. —Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * With this edit, I fixed 1979 Little All-America college football team to eliminate the coloring and bolding of the team column. I also eliminated the positional abbreviations, as abbreviatinons are not needed (no shortage of space): casual readers will not know what "T", "G", "C", "MG", "DT", "LB", etc. means, and we should use actual words ("middle guard", "linebacker") in these situations. Before I roll these changes out to the other years, any comments? Cbl62 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely looks better and is a great improvement. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

More multi-color removal
Can we get a consensus to also remove colors from pages such as the Big 12 Championship Game, List of Southeastern Conference champions, NCAA Division II football championship etc.? Full disclosure I have added them in the past.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I support removing colors from all those as well. More than two team colors, as in the rivalry articles, is excessive. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support removing the colors. Cbl62 (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since one of you decided to give it a heading. Since this is a more broad proposal, I went ahead and made it, its own section, and moved it down to fit chronologically. Hope y'all don't mind.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Would You all prefer it to look like: A) or B) So the winners might be more identifiable. or C) Maybe these need to be completely overhauled so the winners are on the left, the runner-up on the right and a Division/Seed identifier to differentiate the two. Then again the Rose Bowl Game doesn't have this issue... yet.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is a link to what the Big 12 Championship page looks like without colors.
 * I have noticed column headings on a few of the NY6 bowls have had some color issues. I have fixed a few if anybody would like to help out, that would be helpful. I noticed a few more college color boxes on the College Football Playoff page. I think it might be a good idea to take inventory on all of the pages that seem to have this issue. Then we can systematically eradicate the issue.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD: Nick Floyd
Not directly related to this project, per se, but of tangential interest to some members here as a former NCAA Division I athletic director. Please see: here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)