Talk:List of NCAA college football rivalry games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	List of NCAA college football rivalry games is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

"For a much longer list..."? It's a much better list. I know next-to-nothing about the topic, but what's the difference between these two lists? Would they be better off as one? Or is this a list of trophies that have failed to inspire a proper rivalry between the two teams? :) 207.67.116.11 12:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• The use of this page is that once complete, it can have a redlink to missing articles to assist in article creation. Further, this article can have information about each rivalry whereas a category cannot. BigDT 12:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reorder list by date of first game 2 Unnamed, nontrophy rivalry games? 3 Final Date 4 SEC 5 Merge suggestion 6 Battle of I-10 7 Rivalry name in the notes - formatting for easier note-reading

[edit] Reorder list by date of first game

The reformatted list looks great (thanks for the hard work!). I propose reordering the list based on when the first game was played. I propose this as the order because with two teams involved in each game and some rivalries having no official name, it is difficult to alphabatize. Comments? I may try my hand at this in a couple of weeks if nobody responds to this.Kgwo1972 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Sorting by date will lead to duplicates arising if there is a conflict about the original date or if an editor is unsure of the date first played. I added the Textile Bowl before having a chance to look up its date of first playing. I think name of game/trophy is a good primary sort, with first team listed alphabetically a secondary sort (for games like Georgia–Georgia Tech, where there is history but not necessarily a formal name to the game. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the table as it stands is difficult to read. While the order makes sense, having the gaps can be a bit confusing. I like the idea of sorting by year first played, though disputes over the first game could cause issues. I would imagine that the web sites for each university's athletics departments would be a valid resource, though. If a game date comes up as disputed, a reference is the best way to resolve it. An alternative would be to break it into two or three tables. Named Rivalry Games, Rivalry Games with Trophies, and Named Rivalries with Trophies would be an option. Of course, after it is broken up like that, we may as well split it into three articles. I'll keep thinking about it. Z4ns4tsu 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of ordering by the date of the first game - it's really not much use. If you are searching for a game, you are either going to look up the name of the school involved or the name of the game. Since there are two schools involved, sorting by school would be annoying - thus, sorting by game name seems reasonable. As far as breaking the list, originally, this list was just trophies. One of the things I was trying to fix when I redid it was having so much duplication. If there are three lists, that's three lists to maintain and invariably, someone who doesn't know the obscure name for a game and only knows the name of the trophy is going to duplicate the school. If blank space is confusing, we could just have one column that would contain the game and the trophy. If you have both a game and a trophy, then the trophy gets put in parentheses. If you just have one, then you put what you have. That change could mostly be accomplished by only changing the template. (Only the special cases of the three-way trophies would need to be edited.) BigDT 02:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BigDT. I like the table sorted by name of the rivalry game. I don't find the blank space confusing at all. However, I'd also be OK with combining the game title and trophy title into one column to remove the blank space. Johntex\^talk 02:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the combination of the titled game and trophy onto one line, with a <br> tag to separate, so something along the lines of:

Clean Old-Fashioned Hate Governor's Cup	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1893
Textile Bowl	Clemson	North Carolina State

How does that look? —C.Fred (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's any better. While it looks better, we'd have to have a pretty arcane rule for getting things in the right order. Z4ns4tsu 13:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It would just be whatever was the first thing listed on the game/trophy page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks good except that it is hard to know if the table is showing one thing that has word-wrapped to two rows or if it is two seperate things. I recommend putting dask or something between them:

Clean Old-Fashioned Hate - Governor's Cup	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1893
Textile Bowl	Clemson	North Carolina State

or

*Clean Old-Fashioned Hate *Governor's Cup	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1893
Textile Bowl	Clemson	North Carolina State

or maybe putting the trophie in parentheses:

Clean Old-Fashioned Hate (Governor's Cup)	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1893
Textile Bowl	Clemson	North Carolina State

I think I like the parentheses best. Johntex\^talk 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like the hyphen at all. My order of preference is (1) leave it the way it is now, (2) parentheses, (3)Use <br /> BigDT 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• In retrospect I agree with BigDT. My hyphen idea is no good because hyphens are sometimes used just to illustrate wrapping. My order of preference is (1) parentheses (2) leave it the way it is now. Johntex\^talk 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• So if we do parenthasis, which I agree looks the best, how would we do games without a name? Some options:

Un-named (Floyd of Rosedale)	Iowa	Minnesota	1935
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate (Governor's Cup)	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1983

(Floyd of Rosedale)	Iowa	Minnesota	1935
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate (Governor's Cup)	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1983

Floyd of Rosedale	Iowa	Minnesota	1935
Clean Old-Fashioned Hate (Governor's Cup)	Georgia	Georgia Tech	1983

• I think I like the first one best. (signing my last, too) Z4ns4tsu 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• I also like the first one best. Johntex\^talk 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• I don't like having "unnamed" in there ... for two reasons: (1) the vast majority would have "unnamed" and (2) it's not really factual - if the rivalry doesn't have a name apart from the trophy, it's usually known by the trophy. For example, VT's game with UVA is the "Dominion Virginia Power Commonwealth Cup" or whoever they get to sponsor it in a given year. There are a few games with obscure trophy names (for example, UVA and FSU have one that the name escapes me and you'd never know unless you play NCAA 2006), but for the most part, if there is only a trophy, the game is known by that name and so it really isn't "unnamed". Of these, I like #3 the best, but I still suggest leaving it as is. BigDT 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnamed, nontrophy rivalry games?

Should they be included? (Think Michigan v. Ohio State). Rkevins82 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just given your example, they have to be. --NMajdan•talk 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added it as "The Game" and am starting a talk on the current The Game article about name changes. Rkevins82 20:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Date

Wouldn't Series Record be a better field here? There are only a handful of discontinued rivalries and these could be mentioned in the page of the respective rivalries. I think Series Record would be a much more relevant and interesting statistic. --Cliedl 03:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the discontinued ones could almost be explained well with footnotes, e.g. the Slab of Bacon being replaced(?) with Paul Bunyan's Axe. The main issue I see with series record is notation: can we just do it first team listed–second team listed–ties for space reasons, or are people going to list the team leading the series, which will widen the field? Short fields are easier on the eyes. Secondarily, what series record will be used when some games aren't counted by both sides (e.g. WWII games for Clean, Old Fashioned Hate)? —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be very careful about adding a series record ... think about (1) the challenge of keeping it updated here and (2) its usefulness in a printed/CD version of Wikipedia. Frequently, I have encountered old records in articles. Unless it's something essential, I prefer not to add content that we plan on being obselete. BigDT 17:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEC

I think the SEC has a few more rivalry games. Auburn-Alabama and Florida vs someone. One may be called the Battle between the hedges and the other may be known as the largest outdoor daquari party (off the top of my head). This is a great article. Keep up the good work. TonyTheTiger 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Auburn/Alabama is huge. And you're thinking of the largest cocktail party.--NMajdan•talk 21:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, officially, you're thinking of the Georgia–Florida game. Unofficially, though.... But both of the games you mentioned are listed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. both games are listed, but something is known as the Battle between the Hedges that isn't listed. What is that? Also, coordinate with this page: College rivalry TonyTheTiger 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

I, for one, think it's a really bad idea. This article is a table of named football rivalries. The other one is a list of schools that are in some fashion rivals. Merging the two would be awkward. BigDT 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not be too bad of an idea. How I see it working is we would move the contents of this article under the United States section of the other article, deleting the current content. But I do see your point that these are, for the most part, strictly football rivalries and not school rivalries in general. So they might have their place as separate articles.--NMajdan•talk 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

don't merge - as mentioned above, this aritcle is NCAA only and football only and the other is global and all sport (and even extends beyond sport). Additionally, the combination of the two would be too long of an article and would need dividing. Brholden 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I will remove the merge banner in a couple of days if there is no objection. Brholden 05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of I-10

UTEP and NMSU also play for the Brass Spittoon

[edit] Rivalry name in the notes - formatting for easier note-reading

Because the number of notes is so large now, I'm going to boldface the name of the rivalry (trophy, if no name) in the notes so that readers of the notes can quickly determine to which rivalry the note relates. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)