![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Great work on the page, looks like a great start. Just thought I'd let you know of a new Infobox that was recently created for these types of pages. Please take a look at Template:NCAAFootballSchool ( talk links ), I hope you consider using it as we're hoping it becomes the standard for these pages in the WikiProject. I'd thought I'd let you know about it rather than just replacing it myself. Let me know if you have any questions.-- NMajdan• talk 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored the selectors for Alabama's 1925, 26, 30, 34 and 41 national championship teams. I understand that college football fans and journalists may disagree about these; however, they are listed in the NCAA Records Book and, as such, seem to be a reasonable addition to the quality of this page Akparker 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with listing the claimed championships in 25, 26, 30, 34, and 41. However, as creator of the table, I was using the term 'selector' to refer to AP / Coaches, as listing a myriad of non-wire sources ruins the aesthetics of the table (it horribly distorts the middle field). I'll try it with abbreviations to fix the problem, but I'll confine sources to those listed in the national championship article for internal consistency.- PassionoftheDamon 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Added narrative description of each national championship season. Suggest including additional encyclopedic content, such as PF and PA, regular season rankings, etc. Akparker 18:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does someone want to delete the "aubs eat boogs" picture? It exemplifies the rivalry doesn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.6.244 ( talk) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
I strongly recommend that external links conform to Wikipedia's standards: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."
The site in question (www.rolltidebama.com) is evidently a fan-based site, and I don't think it belongs here. Sites such as rolltide.com, which is the University's official site, do seem to conform to Wikipedia's standards. Akparker 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to create a section to discuss Alabama's football 'controversies', we need a similar section for EVERY college football entry. I noticed no such section on the Auburn football page, even though the War Tigers lead the SEC in number of major infractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.83.154 ( talk • contribs)
Controversies is fine as long as it's accurate, properly sourced and not over-weighted. Ditto for the sucesses. I strongly agree there is no place for controversies of other teams in this article. JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the weight of the sanction/scandal section relative to the rest of the article, I'd suggest significantly shortening the Mike Price scandal. Relative to the 112-year scope of Alabama football, it is a relatively minor incident. Akparker 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't truthfully believe that the LSU games could be classified as a "rivalry." Big games, sure - but not a rivalry. Crassic( talk) 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This section will no longer be needed with the recent addition of the "Alabama Crimson Tide Football Seasons" to this page. Akparker 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am just curious, but does the school actually claim the 1941 title when they had two losses to unranked teams? I cannot understand this as the final 1941 AP vote had Alabama ranked #20 (receiving zero 1st place votes). Not to mention the fact Alabama didn't even finish first in the SEC that year as 4 teams had better records. I just find it curious as I have never heard of the "Football Thesaurus" and no other schools on wikipedia list any Football Thesaurus national champion titles (google only turns up mentions on bamapride, etc just listing the championship with no mention on what it is). From what I have seen Minnesota was the consensus champion that year going undefeated and untied (along with two other schools) and garnering 85% of the 1st place AP votes as well as being awarded every other major/recognized title (Helms Athletic Foundation, College Football Researchers Association, National Championship Foundation, etc). BTW, I am not criticizing the school if they do, but find it odd to claim such a "championship" as a football thesaurus title. -- otduff t/ c 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Morte, as the article states some organizations rewarded the championships retroactively. So, I'm not real sure what your motivation is, but it is in the article.~~Irbster2~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbster2 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No mention of all the years before Bryant came along in the "history" section! Ouch! -- LS Shoals ( talk) 10:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is nothing that dictates the source of the number of national titles, simply that it be the number that is "generally accepted," not from a specific organization, and it seems to be beyond the scope of the college football wikiproject to dictate which number should be used.
Furthermore, the BCS champion is only guaranteed the USA Today/Coaches national title, not the AP title (see LSU in 2003, who won the Coaches/USA Today Poll, but USC won the AP), so, in that case, LSU did not win a "wire" title.
And please, threatening users with whom you disagree with a vandalism warning is childish, and does not assume good faith. I'd advise you to change your attitude. CH52584 ( talk) 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Crimson Tide football editors:
There's an 18 year old kid who has been reverting the number of NCs on the Alabama, Notre Dame and other pages. He claims to be a recruit of USC and other schools. I have responded on his Talk page thus:
Here's your recent edit summary on the ND football page:
..--You WILL get a vandalism warning if you change this. This is WIRE national titles = AP or UPI, please don't change this to "11"...if you disagree, bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football-->.
I'm willing to overlook this intrusion - and that's what it is - as a factor of perhaps age and inexperience. But the vandal here is you.
After I saw your illegitimate edit, I made two immediate visits to other pages WP:CFB and USC Trojans Football, a school from whom you have an offer.
Two immediate notes:
a) Nowhere does the WikiProject CFB establish or seek to establish a criterion for pre-BCS national championships. There is no expressed dependence on wire service polls as definitive - which is a good thing, because in case you didn't know there were no wire service polls prior to 1936 - but there were consensus national champions going back to Walter Camp in the early 1900s and even before. USC Trojans Football article claims 11 national championships. Why didn't you revert that? USC has won wire service championships only in 1962, 1972,one of two in 1974, one of two in 1978, one of two in 2003, and 2004. That makes a total of six, with only three undisputed.
So why didn't you go to the USC page and revert their claim of 11? And what will happen if I visit the Michigan page, which also claims a number of pre-wire service championships? Did you revert those and place a vandalism warning there?
This controversy also exists on the Talk page for USC football - here I quote on especially hardworking editor:
Ultimately, there's no way to demonstrably disprove the claim of 11 titles, as there's no determinant universally regarded as "official." It's clear that there were years when USC was selected but that the university itself doesn't recognize as legitimate claimants, and to some extent it's simply a question of what each university recognizes individually.
That is the rule around Wiki FB pages, and I'm perfectly willing to allow USC to claim as many as they can justify, 11 being entirely reasonable.
But so is it for Notre Dame - read the article for the justification.
b) And before you go reverting good faith edits and get a vandal ban - you might want to check
This is from the NCAA itself. You'll find a lot more than 11 national titles listed.
The only reason that I'm not having you banned for rudeness is, as I said, your youth and inexperience. But proceed cautiously if you wish to be taken seriously in adult company. Sensei48 ( talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Be on the lookout for further disruptions from him. Rather than report him to an admin, I'm simply going to alert the football pages at Alabama, Ohio State, and Minnesota about him as well. Cheers! Sensei48 ( talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen most sources say his record at Alabama was 53–28–7, but I've also seen a few that say 45-28-7, and a couple that say 54-28-7. This article mentions different records in separate places as well. Anyone know the correct total? -
LS Shoals (
talk)
07:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a short section in this article displaying UA's Academic All-Americans. Please post thoughts. - LS Shoals ( talk) 07:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
On the chart that shows the head coaches and their overall records, would it make sense to remove the third number (ties) from the records of Dubose and subsequent coaches since overtime was adopted in 1996? - LS Shoals ( talk) 07:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have created Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1980–1989. I did this by basically copying the 1970-1979 article and changing all the words. If I get around to it, which I might or might not, I'll do similar for all the other decades that don't have articles.
I wonder if such an approach might not be more suitable for more recent seasons? Do we really need individual articles for each season? Of well over 100? Maybe we would be better served by creating individual articles for each season where they won a conference or national title and organizing the others by decade. Unless we really feel we need a separate article documenting how terrible they were in 2000. Vidor ( talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Under History's "Notable Games", I listed the 1979 Sugar Bowl. Anyone remember the "Goal Line Stand"? The 1979 Sugar Bowl was even listed by Keith Jackson as his most memorable game, http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/bestbowls.html . Jabam ( talk) 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I also want to add that this game resulted in a National Championship, according to the AP Poll http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/ap_poll.php?year=1970 . Jabam ( talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just removed the list of bowls, as I feel it is adequately covered by this article. Don't know how any of you others see it, but it's kind of an unnecessary list. So, if you disagree ... please discuss. Roll Tide. – LATICS talk 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. What would really be the best way to show this chart? I've got a possible tweak on my sandbox of how User:LS Shoals and myself believe it would look better, as the keys/symbols in the chart look award as the years don't align properly. I know I've already replaced the chart last week, combining the conf. championships and nat'l. championships. How do we optimize the chart, I guess? Should we stick with the current one, use the one on my sandbox or possibly do something else—in terms of symbols, colours, etc.? All input appreciated. :) – LATICS talk 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It might just be my computer's settings, but on my screen the years with symbols next to them aren't aligned vertically with the other years on the chart. They're also partially obscured by the lines of the boxes they're within. To me, it's just a matter of - all the years are in alignmed vs. out of alignment but the chart is easier to read (symbols) -- LS Shoals ( talk) 09:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just started using Firefox instead of IE and now the chart looks perfectly fine! -- LS Shoals ( talk) 08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The Crimson Tide is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5] The program began in 1892 and is one of the most successful in the modern era (post World War II) with 513 total victories, a .701 percent winning average.[6]
Should we remove the reference to the team's success in the "modern era"? To me, it just clutters the opening. I realize things changed dramatically around that time; Harvard and Yale and the academies found themselves no longer on top of the college football world, and several teams that were around in college football's early days suddenly weren't around anymore. But pointing this out by mentioning the "modern era" at the expense of not recognizing the entire Alabama body of work doesn't seem worth it.
The team was very successful in the decades before, yet there is no mention of this in the article's first paragraphs. And using their winning percentage of .701 in the post-1945 timespan to explain the team's success doesn't make much sense to me considering that the team's overall winning percentage since the program's inception is higher at .709. And you can safely ascertain that in their 116-year history, the team would have had to do well for a 63 year chunk of that span to be considered one of the all-time greats.
I'd reword it to read along the lines of
The program began in 1892, and is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5]
Thoughts? -- LS Shoals ( talk) 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
With the NCAA handing down penalties today having Alabama vacate wins in 2005, 2006, and 2007, it looks like a number of things in the lead need to be modified. I think we need to wait until the actual games vacated are published before we make any changes to the article itself, but we probably need to keep up with what all needs to be changed once that happens:
That's what I saw off of the top of my head for changes we will need to make to the lead. It will probably be somewhat confusing trying to update all of the articles that will need to be updated to reflect these changes. -- Lissoy ( talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Others feel that the controversy section, moe notably NCAA sanctions does not need headers. I disagree as there is more than one instance of NCAA violations. Thoughts? 216.54.205.2 ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
HELLO, Can any one tell me why / AND HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE BIG AL elephant? and why we say roll tide what does it have to do with ALabama? got FRIEND ASKING ME ? I would like to know more myself as well.any one know please e-mail ...
mustangteddybear@yahoo.com
Thanks Vanessa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.115.137 ( talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the Duke game is at Duke's alternate site due to Wallace Wade Stadium being the smaller venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This kept getting changed. Here are the stats:
10-game win streaks = 22 21
10-win seasons = 29
LS Shoals ( talk) 06:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't you putting All-Time 10 win seasons on Alabama football page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamaboy929292 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alabama Crimson Tide football/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I update the the class to a B Class. It still needs some work, but is a pretty good articles. Main thing is it doesn't really have a history section, it's mostly just tables and list of people. It needs more actual information. Hatmatbbat10 ( talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Who coached Alabama in 1901? There seems to be several conflicting sources. Some say that it was an M.H. Harvey, who had previously played for Auburn the previous season. Others say it was G.H. Harvey, who had previously coached Auburn in 1893. When the Aflac Trivia Question aired during the CBS broadcast of the Iron Bowl last week (saying G.H. coached both Alabama and Auburn), my most knowledgeable friends all stood up in disbelief swearing that this was wrong. I know this isn't enough to use as verification so I went to rolltide.com
From the archives of the university's official athletics site, here is a scan of a document from 1901 about the team: [2]. I think this is about as reliable as it gets, and it should be changed back to "M.H." on the page. LS Shoals ( talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the 2009 Media Guide, both Eli Abbott and James O. Heyworth were head coach during the 1902 season. However, I'm not sure who is credited with which win(s). Does anyone have some clue to help me figure it out? – Latics ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the recent peer review edits are fine in my opinion. However removal of the championship table and listing of national championship seasons I disagree with. This info is of high importance to Alabama's football tradition and having a large, detail section on the national championships makes sense to me. This is also consistent with how other teams discuss their championships in their main articles.
If a seperate article on Alabama's national championship seasons were ever to be created, the detailed info could be placed there and the article referenced in a condensed section on the main page.
Until then I think the detailed info on the main article is fine. This section of the article will not undergo alot of yearly churn either. 24.126.172.165 ( talk) 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Crimson Tide Editors -
I'm stopping by here because I question whether Alabama has been fairly represented on the Wiki page Death Penalty (NCAA). As we all know, the only CFB program to suffer this penalty was SMU - but the Wiki article lists UA as a "near-death" situation, and I don't believe that either the facts of the case or the sources provided justify that assertion. In fact, one of the sources cited here [3] actually states that
... and that's from AthensOnline, as in Athens, GA - not your best locale for objective observations about UA. I'd go in and do something about the article myself, but my knowledge of the real facts is limited and I have my hands full with other projects here, including keeping vandalism off of the Notre Dame football page. That's my alma mater - but I hate to see any legendary CFB program unjustly maligned, which I believe that the current death penalty article does to Alabama. regards, Sensei48 ( talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been some ridiculous (although i must admit -- hilarious) changes made to the first paragraph. Someone fix all the changes!!! This is my team...has been for 28 years...we deserve to have this page displayed correctly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.57.170 ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A rigid standardization of football team nav box templates is being discussed at College football Wikiproject. Editors pursuing this standardization have already significantly altered the Alabama football navbox, and you may wish to review those changes and add your input. CrazyPaco ( talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:Alabama Football.png.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
My edit about the NCAA's statement was reverted by fnlayson for what he calls " seemingly incomplete/biased add". Just because something does not reflect well on a school does not mean it is biased. These are not my words but the words of the ruling body. The cited lines were:
When responding to Alabama's unsuccessful appeal, the NCAA Committee on Infractions stated that Alabama was "serial repeat violator" and has an "abysmal infractions track record" and an "extensive recent history of infractions cases unmatched by any other member institution in the NCAA,"
There is not a lot of difference between the cited source and what I added and this section is specifically about the NCAA. I believe their statements should be entered here.
Should this revision be reinstated?
El Heuro ( talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "controversies" section is overplayed in respect to other NCAA pages. For instance, the page for Oklahoma (which was on probation throughout much of its storied 47-game winning streak in the '50s) makes little mention of that controversy (and later NCAA probations for OU are WORKED INTO the GENERAL narrative). Perhaps a page on NCAA controversies and programs would be better.
In any event this page gives the appearance of harboring "attack edits" (a full section for Mike Price - who never coached a game at Alabama - in a history of a 117-year old program?).
The NCAA issue is certainly played far bigger than historical context should allow. For instance, the "controversies" segment deal with a 15 year period. The program has existed for 117 years. Is that worthy of a stand-alone section with a rambling piece about a coach who never coached a game? Remember, Mike Price is given more space in the Alabama article that coaches such as Wallace Wade and Frank Thomas - who are in the College Football Hall of Fame. Is Mike Price more important in Alabama footbal history than Frank Thomas or Wallace Wade? Only in a hopelessly slanted article - which this is at this point.
This is not balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.14.217 ( talk) 20:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The above user desires to delete three sections of text from the article. I reverted those deletions, assuming good faith, and asked him to bring his thoughts here for community discussion. His deletions and my reverts are noted in the history section. JodyB talk 12:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say it's more trimming the article than significantly reworking it, I think it's on the verge of suffering from bloat. The three sections in particular are all recent additions and don't really rise to enough notority to warrent their own sections. First the Clinton Dix improper benefits. As of present it's currently a run of the mill secondary violation/suspension story, which every school has in frequent amoutns every year. Unless something bigger comes from it, it's not really worthy of a subsection. Second, including a section on Florida as a rival. The rivals section should probably be limited to chief rivals, otherwise it would get quite large and include almost every conference opponent. Finally the recently introduced "top 10 rivals" table is pretty odd, as the records are not even the most 10 top frequently played opponents and it's reduntant with the series record article and the fact that the all time record against conference opponents are also included in elsewhere in the artilce. But I'll give people a chance to argue if they think they warrant inclusion before removing again. Zaqwert ( talk) 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Great work on the page, looks like a great start. Just thought I'd let you know of a new Infobox that was recently created for these types of pages. Please take a look at Template:NCAAFootballSchool ( talk links ), I hope you consider using it as we're hoping it becomes the standard for these pages in the WikiProject. I'd thought I'd let you know about it rather than just replacing it myself. Let me know if you have any questions.-- NMajdan• talk 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored the selectors for Alabama's 1925, 26, 30, 34 and 41 national championship teams. I understand that college football fans and journalists may disagree about these; however, they are listed in the NCAA Records Book and, as such, seem to be a reasonable addition to the quality of this page Akparker 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with listing the claimed championships in 25, 26, 30, 34, and 41. However, as creator of the table, I was using the term 'selector' to refer to AP / Coaches, as listing a myriad of non-wire sources ruins the aesthetics of the table (it horribly distorts the middle field). I'll try it with abbreviations to fix the problem, but I'll confine sources to those listed in the national championship article for internal consistency.- PassionoftheDamon 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Added narrative description of each national championship season. Suggest including additional encyclopedic content, such as PF and PA, regular season rankings, etc. Akparker 18:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does someone want to delete the "aubs eat boogs" picture? It exemplifies the rivalry doesn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.6.244 ( talk) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
I strongly recommend that external links conform to Wikipedia's standards: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."
The site in question (www.rolltidebama.com) is evidently a fan-based site, and I don't think it belongs here. Sites such as rolltide.com, which is the University's official site, do seem to conform to Wikipedia's standards. Akparker 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to create a section to discuss Alabama's football 'controversies', we need a similar section for EVERY college football entry. I noticed no such section on the Auburn football page, even though the War Tigers lead the SEC in number of major infractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.83.154 ( talk • contribs)
Controversies is fine as long as it's accurate, properly sourced and not over-weighted. Ditto for the sucesses. I strongly agree there is no place for controversies of other teams in this article. JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the weight of the sanction/scandal section relative to the rest of the article, I'd suggest significantly shortening the Mike Price scandal. Relative to the 112-year scope of Alabama football, it is a relatively minor incident. Akparker 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't truthfully believe that the LSU games could be classified as a "rivalry." Big games, sure - but not a rivalry. Crassic( talk) 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This section will no longer be needed with the recent addition of the "Alabama Crimson Tide Football Seasons" to this page. Akparker 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am just curious, but does the school actually claim the 1941 title when they had two losses to unranked teams? I cannot understand this as the final 1941 AP vote had Alabama ranked #20 (receiving zero 1st place votes). Not to mention the fact Alabama didn't even finish first in the SEC that year as 4 teams had better records. I just find it curious as I have never heard of the "Football Thesaurus" and no other schools on wikipedia list any Football Thesaurus national champion titles (google only turns up mentions on bamapride, etc just listing the championship with no mention on what it is). From what I have seen Minnesota was the consensus champion that year going undefeated and untied (along with two other schools) and garnering 85% of the 1st place AP votes as well as being awarded every other major/recognized title (Helms Athletic Foundation, College Football Researchers Association, National Championship Foundation, etc). BTW, I am not criticizing the school if they do, but find it odd to claim such a "championship" as a football thesaurus title. -- otduff t/ c 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Morte, as the article states some organizations rewarded the championships retroactively. So, I'm not real sure what your motivation is, but it is in the article.~~Irbster2~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbster2 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No mention of all the years before Bryant came along in the "history" section! Ouch! -- LS Shoals ( talk) 10:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is nothing that dictates the source of the number of national titles, simply that it be the number that is "generally accepted," not from a specific organization, and it seems to be beyond the scope of the college football wikiproject to dictate which number should be used.
Furthermore, the BCS champion is only guaranteed the USA Today/Coaches national title, not the AP title (see LSU in 2003, who won the Coaches/USA Today Poll, but USC won the AP), so, in that case, LSU did not win a "wire" title.
And please, threatening users with whom you disagree with a vandalism warning is childish, and does not assume good faith. I'd advise you to change your attitude. CH52584 ( talk) 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Crimson Tide football editors:
There's an 18 year old kid who has been reverting the number of NCs on the Alabama, Notre Dame and other pages. He claims to be a recruit of USC and other schools. I have responded on his Talk page thus:
Here's your recent edit summary on the ND football page:
..--You WILL get a vandalism warning if you change this. This is WIRE national titles = AP or UPI, please don't change this to "11"...if you disagree, bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football-->.
I'm willing to overlook this intrusion - and that's what it is - as a factor of perhaps age and inexperience. But the vandal here is you.
After I saw your illegitimate edit, I made two immediate visits to other pages WP:CFB and USC Trojans Football, a school from whom you have an offer.
Two immediate notes:
a) Nowhere does the WikiProject CFB establish or seek to establish a criterion for pre-BCS national championships. There is no expressed dependence on wire service polls as definitive - which is a good thing, because in case you didn't know there were no wire service polls prior to 1936 - but there were consensus national champions going back to Walter Camp in the early 1900s and even before. USC Trojans Football article claims 11 national championships. Why didn't you revert that? USC has won wire service championships only in 1962, 1972,one of two in 1974, one of two in 1978, one of two in 2003, and 2004. That makes a total of six, with only three undisputed.
So why didn't you go to the USC page and revert their claim of 11? And what will happen if I visit the Michigan page, which also claims a number of pre-wire service championships? Did you revert those and place a vandalism warning there?
This controversy also exists on the Talk page for USC football - here I quote on especially hardworking editor:
Ultimately, there's no way to demonstrably disprove the claim of 11 titles, as there's no determinant universally regarded as "official." It's clear that there were years when USC was selected but that the university itself doesn't recognize as legitimate claimants, and to some extent it's simply a question of what each university recognizes individually.
That is the rule around Wiki FB pages, and I'm perfectly willing to allow USC to claim as many as they can justify, 11 being entirely reasonable.
But so is it for Notre Dame - read the article for the justification.
b) And before you go reverting good faith edits and get a vandal ban - you might want to check
This is from the NCAA itself. You'll find a lot more than 11 national titles listed.
The only reason that I'm not having you banned for rudeness is, as I said, your youth and inexperience. But proceed cautiously if you wish to be taken seriously in adult company. Sensei48 ( talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Be on the lookout for further disruptions from him. Rather than report him to an admin, I'm simply going to alert the football pages at Alabama, Ohio State, and Minnesota about him as well. Cheers! Sensei48 ( talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've seen most sources say his record at Alabama was 53–28–7, but I've also seen a few that say 45-28-7, and a couple that say 54-28-7. This article mentions different records in separate places as well. Anyone know the correct total? -
LS Shoals (
talk)
07:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest a short section in this article displaying UA's Academic All-Americans. Please post thoughts. - LS Shoals ( talk) 07:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
On the chart that shows the head coaches and their overall records, would it make sense to remove the third number (ties) from the records of Dubose and subsequent coaches since overtime was adopted in 1996? - LS Shoals ( talk) 07:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have created Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1980–1989. I did this by basically copying the 1970-1979 article and changing all the words. If I get around to it, which I might or might not, I'll do similar for all the other decades that don't have articles.
I wonder if such an approach might not be more suitable for more recent seasons? Do we really need individual articles for each season? Of well over 100? Maybe we would be better served by creating individual articles for each season where they won a conference or national title and organizing the others by decade. Unless we really feel we need a separate article documenting how terrible they were in 2000. Vidor ( talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Under History's "Notable Games", I listed the 1979 Sugar Bowl. Anyone remember the "Goal Line Stand"? The 1979 Sugar Bowl was even listed by Keith Jackson as his most memorable game, http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/bestbowls.html . Jabam ( talk) 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I also want to add that this game resulted in a National Championship, according to the AP Poll http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/ap_poll.php?year=1970 . Jabam ( talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just removed the list of bowls, as I feel it is adequately covered by this article. Don't know how any of you others see it, but it's kind of an unnecessary list. So, if you disagree ... please discuss. Roll Tide. – LATICS talk 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay. What would really be the best way to show this chart? I've got a possible tweak on my sandbox of how User:LS Shoals and myself believe it would look better, as the keys/symbols in the chart look award as the years don't align properly. I know I've already replaced the chart last week, combining the conf. championships and nat'l. championships. How do we optimize the chart, I guess? Should we stick with the current one, use the one on my sandbox or possibly do something else—in terms of symbols, colours, etc.? All input appreciated. :) – LATICS talk 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It might just be my computer's settings, but on my screen the years with symbols next to them aren't aligned vertically with the other years on the chart. They're also partially obscured by the lines of the boxes they're within. To me, it's just a matter of - all the years are in alignmed vs. out of alignment but the chart is easier to read (symbols) -- LS Shoals ( talk) 09:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Just started using Firefox instead of IE and now the chart looks perfectly fine! -- LS Shoals ( talk) 08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The Crimson Tide is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5] The program began in 1892 and is one of the most successful in the modern era (post World War II) with 513 total victories, a .701 percent winning average.[6]
Should we remove the reference to the team's success in the "modern era"? To me, it just clutters the opening. I realize things changed dramatically around that time; Harvard and Yale and the academies found themselves no longer on top of the college football world, and several teams that were around in college football's early days suddenly weren't around anymore. But pointing this out by mentioning the "modern era" at the expense of not recognizing the entire Alabama body of work doesn't seem worth it.
The team was very successful in the decades before, yet there is no mention of this in the article's first paragraphs. And using their winning percentage of .701 in the post-1945 timespan to explain the team's success doesn't make much sense to me considering that the team's overall winning percentage since the program's inception is higher at .709. And you can safely ascertain that in their 116-year history, the team would have had to do well for a 63 year chunk of that span to be considered one of the all-time greats.
I'd reword it to read along the lines of
The program began in 1892, and is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5]
Thoughts? -- LS Shoals ( talk) 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
With the NCAA handing down penalties today having Alabama vacate wins in 2005, 2006, and 2007, it looks like a number of things in the lead need to be modified. I think we need to wait until the actual games vacated are published before we make any changes to the article itself, but we probably need to keep up with what all needs to be changed once that happens:
That's what I saw off of the top of my head for changes we will need to make to the lead. It will probably be somewhat confusing trying to update all of the articles that will need to be updated to reflect these changes. -- Lissoy ( talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Others feel that the controversy section, moe notably NCAA sanctions does not need headers. I disagree as there is more than one instance of NCAA violations. Thoughts? 216.54.205.2 ( talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
HELLO, Can any one tell me why / AND HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE BIG AL elephant? and why we say roll tide what does it have to do with ALabama? got FRIEND ASKING ME ? I would like to know more myself as well.any one know please e-mail ...
mustangteddybear@yahoo.com
Thanks Vanessa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.115.137 ( talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the Duke game is at Duke's alternate site due to Wallace Wade Stadium being the smaller venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 ( talk) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This kept getting changed. Here are the stats:
10-game win streaks = 22 21
10-win seasons = 29
LS Shoals ( talk) 06:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't you putting All-Time 10 win seasons on Alabama football page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamaboy929292 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alabama Crimson Tide football/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I update the the class to a B Class. It still needs some work, but is a pretty good articles. Main thing is it doesn't really have a history section, it's mostly just tables and list of people. It needs more actual information. Hatmatbbat10 ( talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Who coached Alabama in 1901? There seems to be several conflicting sources. Some say that it was an M.H. Harvey, who had previously played for Auburn the previous season. Others say it was G.H. Harvey, who had previously coached Auburn in 1893. When the Aflac Trivia Question aired during the CBS broadcast of the Iron Bowl last week (saying G.H. coached both Alabama and Auburn), my most knowledgeable friends all stood up in disbelief swearing that this was wrong. I know this isn't enough to use as verification so I went to rolltide.com
From the archives of the university's official athletics site, here is a scan of a document from 1901 about the team: [2]. I think this is about as reliable as it gets, and it should be changed back to "M.H." on the page. LS Shoals ( talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the 2009 Media Guide, both Eli Abbott and James O. Heyworth were head coach during the 1902 season. However, I'm not sure who is credited with which win(s). Does anyone have some clue to help me figure it out? – Latics ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Most of the recent peer review edits are fine in my opinion. However removal of the championship table and listing of national championship seasons I disagree with. This info is of high importance to Alabama's football tradition and having a large, detail section on the national championships makes sense to me. This is also consistent with how other teams discuss their championships in their main articles.
If a seperate article on Alabama's national championship seasons were ever to be created, the detailed info could be placed there and the article referenced in a condensed section on the main page.
Until then I think the detailed info on the main article is fine. This section of the article will not undergo alot of yearly churn either. 24.126.172.165 ( talk) 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Crimson Tide Editors -
I'm stopping by here because I question whether Alabama has been fairly represented on the Wiki page Death Penalty (NCAA). As we all know, the only CFB program to suffer this penalty was SMU - but the Wiki article lists UA as a "near-death" situation, and I don't believe that either the facts of the case or the sources provided justify that assertion. In fact, one of the sources cited here [3] actually states that
... and that's from AthensOnline, as in Athens, GA - not your best locale for objective observations about UA. I'd go in and do something about the article myself, but my knowledge of the real facts is limited and I have my hands full with other projects here, including keeping vandalism off of the Notre Dame football page. That's my alma mater - but I hate to see any legendary CFB program unjustly maligned, which I believe that the current death penalty article does to Alabama. regards, Sensei48 ( talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There have been some ridiculous (although i must admit -- hilarious) changes made to the first paragraph. Someone fix all the changes!!! This is my team...has been for 28 years...we deserve to have this page displayed correctly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.57.170 ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
A rigid standardization of football team nav box templates is being discussed at College football Wikiproject. Editors pursuing this standardization have already significantly altered the Alabama football navbox, and you may wish to review those changes and add your input. CrazyPaco ( talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:Alabama Football.png.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
My edit about the NCAA's statement was reverted by fnlayson for what he calls " seemingly incomplete/biased add". Just because something does not reflect well on a school does not mean it is biased. These are not my words but the words of the ruling body. The cited lines were:
When responding to Alabama's unsuccessful appeal, the NCAA Committee on Infractions stated that Alabama was "serial repeat violator" and has an "abysmal infractions track record" and an "extensive recent history of infractions cases unmatched by any other member institution in the NCAA,"
There is not a lot of difference between the cited source and what I added and this section is specifically about the NCAA. I believe their statements should be entered here.
Should this revision be reinstated?
El Heuro ( talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the "controversies" section is overplayed in respect to other NCAA pages. For instance, the page for Oklahoma (which was on probation throughout much of its storied 47-game winning streak in the '50s) makes little mention of that controversy (and later NCAA probations for OU are WORKED INTO the GENERAL narrative). Perhaps a page on NCAA controversies and programs would be better.
In any event this page gives the appearance of harboring "attack edits" (a full section for Mike Price - who never coached a game at Alabama - in a history of a 117-year old program?).
The NCAA issue is certainly played far bigger than historical context should allow. For instance, the "controversies" segment deal with a 15 year period. The program has existed for 117 years. Is that worthy of a stand-alone section with a rambling piece about a coach who never coached a game? Remember, Mike Price is given more space in the Alabama article that coaches such as Wallace Wade and Frank Thomas - who are in the College Football Hall of Fame. Is Mike Price more important in Alabama footbal history than Frank Thomas or Wallace Wade? Only in a hopelessly slanted article - which this is at this point.
This is not balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.14.217 ( talk) 20:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The above user desires to delete three sections of text from the article. I reverted those deletions, assuming good faith, and asked him to bring his thoughts here for community discussion. His deletions and my reverts are noted in the history section. JodyB talk 12:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say it's more trimming the article than significantly reworking it, I think it's on the verge of suffering from bloat. The three sections in particular are all recent additions and don't really rise to enough notority to warrent their own sections. First the Clinton Dix improper benefits. As of present it's currently a run of the mill secondary violation/suspension story, which every school has in frequent amoutns every year. Unless something bigger comes from it, it's not really worthy of a subsection. Second, including a section on Florida as a rival. The rivals section should probably be limited to chief rivals, otherwise it would get quite large and include almost every conference opponent. Finally the recently introduced "top 10 rivals" table is pretty odd, as the records are not even the most 10 top frequently played opponents and it's reduntant with the series record article and the fact that the all time record against conference opponents are also included in elsewhere in the artilce. But I'll give people a chance to argue if they think they warrant inclusion before removing again. Zaqwert ( talk) 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)