Jump to content

Talk:Ohio State Buckeyes football/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Academic Award Winners

I feel that it would be a nice addition to include a section highlighting players who have won major, national academic awards: i.e. Academic All-American, National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame Scholarship Winners and Mike Lanese for winning a Rhodes Scholarship

[1] --Sam Harmon 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rkevins82 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Buckboard 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify!

In the following paragraph: "Over the next 6 seasons Ohio State finished no higher than 2nd, and had a losing season in 1966, although it did beat Michigan four times. When it lost three of its first five games in 1967 (all at home), public speculation that Hayes would be replaced as coach grew to its highest point since 1953. Jack Park, author of the program's official history, states that decision to turn down the Rose Bowl had "strongly impaired...OCU's recruiting within its own state"

Can any please clarify what "OCU" stands for?--140.254.115.72 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)]

Typo--"OSU"--changed and clarified--Buckboard 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify!

In the following paragraph: "Over the next 6 seasons Ohio State finished no higher than 2nd, and had a losing season in 1966, although it did beat Michigan four times. When it lost three of its first five games in 1967 (all at home), public speculation that Hayes would be replaced as coach grew to its highest point since 1953. Jack Park, author of the program's official history, states that decision to turn down the Rose Bowl had "strongly impaired...OCU's recruiting within its own state"

Can any please clarify what "OCU" stands for?--140.254.115.72 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)]

Typo--"OSU"--changed and clarified--Buckboard 06:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review script recomendations

This article is long and detailed and I thought it might be worth trying to improve the overall quality for GA or FA status. I ran AndyZ's peer review script and here are the results:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 87 yards, use 87 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 87 yards.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is LB.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • arguably
    • many considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As the initiator of this article I appreciate the advice. My biggest suggestion would be my original one: complete the history, make it a main article elsewhere, and use a brief summary of it here. that alone would reduce the size considerably. Make tables of some of the ponderous lists, esp. bowl games, where more data could be incorporated. Take others and make them main articles also. I did not start this with any thought of GA or FA, but I welcome any and all suggestions to improving it.--Buckboard 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review script recomendations

This article is long and detailed and I thought it might be worth trying to improve the overall quality for GA or FA status. I ran AndyZ's peer review script and here are the results:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 87 yards, use 87 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 87 yards.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is LB.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with the word 'The'. For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • arguably
    • many considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, NMajdan•talk 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As the initiator of this article I appreciate the advice. My biggest suggestion would be my original one: complete the history, make it a main article elsewhere, and use a brief summary of it here. that alone would reduce the size considerably. Make tables of some of the ponderous lists, esp. bowl games, where more data could be incorporated. Take others and make them main articles also. I did not start this with any thought of GA or FA, but I welcome any and all suggestions to improving it.--Buckboard 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Rivals

Are the Illinois Fighting Illini really considered rivals? I am not sure of the historical significance, but I haven't seen a heated Ohio State vs. Illinois game in 15 years. Yinfeng.shao 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is referring to the small information box at the top of the page, not the Rivalries section. Yinfeng.shao 12:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if it isn't very competitive, it's still one of the traditional rivalries in the Big Ten. Xombie 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say Penn State is more of a rival these days. Might want to add that, or change Illinois to PSU. Ladanday 06:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The Illinois/Ohio State rivalry has historical importance, but I fear it is no longer very relevant. When Penn State was added to the conference, every team was given two designated rivals. Designated rivals were teams to be played every year, with other conference teams occasionally rotated out of the schedule. Due to geography, and the request of Joe Paterno, Penn State was named one of Ohio State's designated rivals. The effect of this decision was that Illinois and Ohio State fell off each other's schedules in 2003 and 2004, ending the longest-standing continuous annual rivalry for either team, going back to 1914. ChicJanowicz 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if it isn't much of a rivalry these days, they do still play for Illibuck, I think you have to consider it a rivalry. I know that isn't much of a philosaphy, but I see any teams that play for a trophy like that as rivals.
I would prefer to see Illinois listed as the rival. Rkevins82 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not consider Penn State a rival. If we asked 100 people to name a rival, 100 would say "Michigan." That says it all. Showing only one rival on this page would make a statement, The Statement.

Well, if I was one of those 100 people, then count one vote for Penn State. As a school, they haven't been in the conference for that long (about 13 years if I remember correctly & we won the first official conference meeting...) BUT -- this is a big but -- Pennsylvania has always been our neighbor to the east, and Penn State has been leeching talent from the State of Ohio for years. That, along with the fact that OH and PA are two of the nation's biggest football states, and that football between the two states at every other level has enjoyed a significant rivalry (see Steelers vs. Browns in the NFL and the Big 33 Game at the high school level), well, then PSU is a natural fit -- especially when it comes to their preconceived notion of dominating the Big Ten without a thought to OSU and UM. Ryecatcher773 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there room for all three as rivals. While nobody is questioning the significance of the Michigan game, Illinois and Penn State do rate. Penn State plays OSU every year under the new format, one of only two teams that does so. As an alumni, I know how important the Illibuck is to the junior class--the honorary society meets with Illinois juniors at halftime of the game to present the trophy--which I believe is the only trophy game on OSU's schedule.

I was just wondering if anyone remembers last years game (2007)against the illini. yeah they beat ohio state. they may not beat us often but when they do it hurts. thats what makes them a rival to me. I cant wait to play them again and return the illibuck to columbus.

Reffing Called into Question

The BCS national championship was home to a victorious Gators team, but also several missed calls. I have snapshots of several of these. Where would be a good place to put them?

The article cries out for decent pictures. One would be very nice in the summary so that it is below the info box. Another would be well-placed near the end of the 1979-present segment of the history, and a third or alternate location would be in the empty spot under Player roster, depth chart and schedule, which is empty. I would ask that the captions not stress reffing controversy to avoid POV, but emphasize the Buckeye player shown. Similarly, check for similar locations in the related 2006 Ohio State Buckeyes football team. Thanx.--Buckboard 05:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

John Segrist/Sigrist

Let's not get into a fight over the spelling of this player's name. Even in school records it is inconsistent. It was inconsistent in contemporary news reports of his injury and death. It is inconsistent in the list of letterwinners between him and his brothers. The truth is that no one knows for sure the best way to spell his name. We should just choose one spelling and stick with it.--ChicJanowicz 13:50, 29 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize there was disagreement. I certainly did not want to start a fight. I was just reading an article in the Chicago Tribune about him and saw the different spelling. Rkevins82 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

John Segrist/Sigrist

Let's not get into a fight over the spelling of this player's name. Even in school records it is inconsistent. It was inconsistent in contemporary news reports of his injury and death. It is inconsistent in the list of letterwinners between him and his brothers. The truth is that no one knows for sure the best way to spell his name. We should just choose one spelling and stick with it.--ChicJanowicz 13:50, 29 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize there was disagreement. I certainly did not want to start a fight. I was just reading an article in the Chicago Tribune about him and saw the different spelling. Rkevins82 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 Heisman trophy question

Hello, I found this article because I was following the contribs of User:24.106.234.138, who had added "Stevie Christman 2007" to the list of Heisman trophy winners. I don't follow American football, but I was under the impression that the different teams are still playing, so that any trophies wouldn't yet be given. Therefore I reverted the edit. If I was in error, feel free to restore the info. Thank you. --Kyoko 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It apparently was re-added by User:24.106.234.138. Sounds like we have a rampant editor on our hands. Reverted. Morte42 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Heisman trophy question

Hello, I found this article because I was following the contribs of User:24.106.234.138, who had added "Stevie Christman 2007" to the list of Heisman trophy winners. I don't follow American football, but I was under the impression that the different teams are still playing, so that any trophies wouldn't yet be given. Therefore I reverted the edit. If I was in error, feel free to restore the info. Thank you. --Kyoko 15:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It apparently was re-added by User:24.106.234.138. Sounds like we have a rampant editor on our hands. Reverted. Morte42 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation requests

If someone requests a source documentation for other than factual claims, please also come here and submit for discussion. I am all for "encyclopedic tone" but I am against dull, pedestrian prose.--Buckboard 08:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In the section that say Woody Hayes beat out Paul Brown for head coach-- what is the source? Paul Brown was just taking the Browns into the NFL- why would he want to return to Ohio State? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.114.85 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Park, The Official Ohio State Football Encyclopedia (officially endorsed and licensed by tOSU), page 275: "Athletic Director Dick Larkins coordinated a six-man search committee that selected and interviewed seven finalists for the position: Paul Brown, head coach and general manager of the Cleveland Browns...Brown had just finished his fifth highly successful seson as head coach of the Browns, the team he created in 1946 following World War II. Many fans wondered why he would be interested in returning to the college game. In his book, PB: The Paul Brown Story, Brown described his first two years at Ohio State as the happiest, most exciting, and rewarding period of his life. ... He met with the Ohio State selection committee on Saturday, January 27, 1951." --Buckboard 15:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckboard (talk • contribs)

Citation requests

If someone requests a source documentation for other than factual claims, please also come here and submit for discussion. I am all for "encyclopedic tone" but I am against dull, pedestrian prose.--Buckboard 08:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In the section that say Woody Hayes beat out Paul Brown for head coach-- what is the source? Paul Brown was just taking the Browns into the NFL- why would he want to return to Ohio State? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.114.85 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jack Park, The Official Ohio State Football Encyclopedia (officially endorsed and licensed by tOSU), page 275: "Athletic Director Dick Larkins coordinated a six-man search committee that selected and interviewed seven finalists for the position: Paul Brown, head coach and general manager of the Cleveland Browns...Brown had just finished his fifth highly successful seson as head coach of the Browns, the team he created in 1946 following World War II. Many fans wondered why he would be interested in returning to the college game. In his book, PB: The Paul Brown Story, Brown described his first two years at Ohio State as the happiest, most exciting, and rewarding period of his life. ... He met with the Ohio State selection committee on Saturday, January 27, 1951." --Buckboard 15:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckboard (talk • contribs)

Floating Picture

What is the picture doing underneath the references section? I tried to edit it out but its not there when you go to edit it.-Sportman2 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Was in the middle of a reference for some reason... --ElKevbo (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Floating Picture

What is the picture doing underneath the references section? I tried to edit it out but its not there when you go to edit it.-Sportman2 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Was in the middle of a reference for some reason... --ElKevbo (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists and tables

I will be taking the long lists, including coaching staff, MVPs, all-Americans, and making them tables for easier reading.--Buckboard 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the table of Heisman Trophy winners is very confusing. Mostly because the columns are not labeled. Sparky01gt (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists and tables

I will be taking the long lists, including coaching staff, MVPs, all-Americans, and making them tables for easier reading.--Buckboard 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the table of Heisman Trophy winners is very confusing. Mostly because the columns are not labeled. Sparky01gt (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

2002 National Championship

We desperately need a write-up of the championship season, especially the BCS Championship game against Miami. That game in particular has been described by Sports Illustrated and ESPN as one of the best college football games ever! Can we please get something written and approved?

Before the year is out I will finish the history section if I have to do it myself. I had hoped by doing the older history that others might pick up the ball and run with it (no pun intended) but that has not been forthcoming. As pointed out below, this is very very long and needs many subjects farmed out to main articles, starting with the history. But I'd like to finish it before we do that. This has been a labor of love but the emphasis has become labor.--Buckboard 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes football team and 2003 Fiesta Bowl, app. someone was listening, and contribute.--Buckboard 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps also you could mention that they were at the time, the only team to go 14-0. With their recent win, TCU now joins them, and either Alabama or Texas will be the third. --Nate 02:50, 6 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.136.89 (talk)

The list of 14-0 teams are (in chronological order) 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes, 2009 Boise State Broncos and 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide. (Notice, TCU did not win the recent Fiesta Bowl that would've given them their 14th win + perfect season.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TPershiganv50 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2002 National Championship

We desperately need a write-up of the championship season, especially the BCS Championship game against Miami. That game in particular has been described by Sports Illustrated and ESPN as one of the best college football games ever! Can we please get something written and approved?

Before the year is out I will finish the history section if I have to do it myself. I had hoped by doing the older history that others might pick up the ball and run with it (no pun intended) but that has not been forthcoming. As pointed out below, this is very very long and needs many subjects farmed out to main articles, starting with the history. But I'd like to finish it before we do that. This has been a labor of love but the emphasis has become labor.--Buckboard 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes football team and 2003 Fiesta Bowl, app. someone was listening, and contribute.--Buckboard 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps also you could mention that they were at the time, the only team to go 14-0. With their recent win, TCU now joins them, and either Alabama or Texas will be the third. --Nate 02:50, 6 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.136.89 (talk)

The list of 14-0 teams are (in chronological order) 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes, 2009 Boise State Broncos and 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide. (Notice, TCU did not win the recent Fiesta Bowl that would've given them their 14th win + perfect season.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TPershiganv50 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohio State's "True" Big Ten Record

The chart showing Ohio State's record between the ten current Big Ten members, the former member (Chicago), and the future member (Nebraska) currently shows the all-time record between the schools. However, this includes matchups that wouldn't have counted as league games since Ohio State joined the Big Ten in 1913 and other schools joined afterwards. For example, the 5 OSU-Indiana games played before the 1913 season wouldn't count as Big Ten games for either school. Likewise, the actual Big Ten conference-game series between OSU and Penn State would be 12-6-0 (since Penn State joined in 1993) and not the overall 14-12-0 that included matchups prior to Penn State's admission. I propose adding a column showing the all-time record, the conference game record, and an explanation noting that. Overall, it would only affect the numbers in place for the matchups with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, and Penn State. Frank12 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohio State's "True" Big Ten Record

The chart showing Ohio State's record between the ten current Big Ten members, the former member (Chicago), and the future member (Nebraska) currently shows the all-time record between the schools. However, this includes matchups that wouldn't have counted as league games since Ohio State joined the Big Ten in 1913 and other schools joined afterwards. For example, the 5 OSU-Indiana games played before the 1913 season wouldn't count as Big Ten games for either school. Likewise, the actual Big Ten conference-game series between OSU and Penn State would be 12-6-0 (since Penn State joined in 1993) and not the overall 14-12-0 that included matchups prior to Penn State's admission. I propose adding a column showing the all-time record, the conference game record, and an explanation noting that. Overall, it would only affect the numbers in place for the matchups with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, and Penn State. Frank12 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Results By Year Table Notes

I recently posted a table I created summarizing all of Ohio State’s seasons in the All-time records section. As I was making the table, there were a lot of points that I wanted to address. I was going to add the notes (in collapsed form) right under the actual table in the article. However, it seemed out of place. So I’ve decided to post it here instead so the information is available. I hope you all like the table.

Duffman894 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Results By Year Table Notes

I recently posted a table I created summarizing all of Ohio State’s seasons in the All-time records section. As I was making the table, there were a lot of points that I wanted to address. I was going to add the notes (in collapsed form) right under the actual table in the article. However, it seemed out of place. So I’ve decided to post it here instead so the information is available. I hope you all like the table.

Duffman894 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tressel controversy concern

I've noticed that information involving Jim Tressel's resignation from OSU and the suspended players has been posted without citation, with concerns me. Also, I think fair warning should be given to any presiding editors that they may be seeing some serious vandalism/edit war concerns. (As a Buckeye myself, I admit I'm not hugely into the sports, but I do have concerns for this page.) Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tressel controversy concern

I've noticed that information involving Jim Tressel's resignation from OSU and the suspended players has been posted without citation, with concerns me. Also, I think fair warning should be given to any presiding editors that they may be seeing some serious vandalism/edit war concerns. (As a Buckeye myself, I admit I'm not hugely into the sports, but I do have concerns for this page.) Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Alert

Hello Buckeye Football editors -

There's an 18 year old kid who has been reverting the number of NCs on the Ohio State, 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

[2]


Yeah, that 404 page will learn 'im! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.70 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Vandal Alert

Hello Buckeye Football editors -

There's an 18 year old kid who has been reverting the number of NCs on the Ohio State, 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

[3]


Yeah, that 404 page will learn 'im! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.70 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

All-time Big Ten record table

I rearranged and updated the table showing Ohio State's "true" Big Ten records through 2012 along with some statements clarifying the information shown. I took out the all-time record against Big Ten opponents because it was too confusing or similar to the other columns, and I made the table sortable. I figured it was easier to include the vacated wins and designate that as opposed to leaving them out since there is a difference between Ohio State's all-time record against Penn State and vice versa (OSU is 12-7 in Big Ten play against Penn State with their lone vacated win, while PSU is now 2-12 against Ohio State in Big Ten play with their vacated wins). This is because the losses still count for the losing team, who does not gain a victory as some have been lead to believe.

I would appreciate any comments that might clear up anything else displayed here. Jmg38 (talk has stated that they will try to add the appropriate colors to the table since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that yet. Thanks! Frank12 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Big Ten record table and its description

This table only includes Ohio State's all-time conference record against other Big Ten members and not non-league matchups. Ohio State began Big Ten play in 1913, so games before then would not count in this table. Likewise, any matchups against Big Ten opponents that occurred when they were not in the league (Chicago after 1939, Michigan between 1907-1916, Michigan State before 1953, Penn State before 1993, and Nebraska before 2011) would not count either. (See Big Ten History for further information).

Ohio State's vacated wins from 2010 are NOT included. (See 2010 Ohio State Buckeyes football team for further information.) Penn State's victories over Ohio State that were vacated from 1998-2011 are included, as they still count as losses for Ohio State. (See NCAA and Big Ten sanctions for Penn State and Wikipedia's explanation for vacated victories in the NCAA as well for further information).

Team Big Ten
Wins 		Big Ten
Losses 		Big Ten
Ties 		Winning
Percentage 		Streak First Big Ten
Meeting 		Last
Meeting
Chicago Maroons 10 2 2 .786 Won 8 1920 1939
Illinois Fighting Illini 64 29 3 .682 Won 4 1914 2012
Indiana Hoosiers 68 8 4 .875 Won 17 1913 2012
Iowa Hawkeyes 45 14 3 .750 Won 3 1922 2010
Michigan Wolverines 44 46 4 .489 Won 1 1918 2012
Michigan State Spartans 28 11 0 .711 Won 1 1953 2012
Minnesota Golden Gophers 42 7 0 .857 Won 7 1921 2010
Nebraska Cornhuskers 1 1 0 .500 Won 1 2011 2012
Northwestern Wildcats 59 14 1 .804 Won 4 1913 2008
Penn State Nittany Lions 12 7 0 .632 Won 1 1993 2012
Purdue Boilermakers 38 14 2 .722 Won 1 1919 2012
Wisconsin Badgers 55 18 5 .734 Won 2 1913 2012
466 171 24 .726

All Data from College Football Data Warehouse[1] Updated through the 2012 NCAA Division I FBS football season.

Very nice table. My only concern is that, while including the 2010 wins is cleaner, it's inconsistent with what OSU and the NCAA regard as the official record of those games. It's a little screwy, I know, that Michigan has lost one more game to OSU than OSU has won against Michigan, but OSU has surrendered the right to claim any wins from 2010. I think the correct thing is to omit the win(s) and footnote the affected records to make it clear what isn't being shown. Leave in the losses to PSU, as those games do remain as OSU losses; any screwiness there will show up in a PSU article, which like this one, should be properly footnoted. Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories may provide some insight, though I have a vague sense that the NCAA has said something about these issues (especially head-to-head streaks) since that was written. JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's the current NCAA policy (9/11/12) - see page 6 (recording vacated victories) and 11 (streaks). http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf . JohnInDC (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the table to omit the 2010 league victories. Also updated some of the streak numbers to account for the vacated games. You make a good point, we really don't need to address Penn State's records here... making a note about Ohio State's 2010 season should suffice as everyone that visits the page would likely know about that. Also, I'm amazed by how close the series with Michigan is when you factor out all of the times they met and were not playing a league game. Thank you for the reference from the NCAA also. I wish that had been explained more clearly since many believed the results of vacated games become flipped. Frank12 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that the table is improved by employing different colors for each of the teams. It's a little hard on the eye (mine anyhow) and seems a bit too tarted up. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the colors look pretty awful, especially with the colors in the field headings. It doesn't really add anything to the readability. Xombie (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Frank, that's a great table but the colors make it harder to read and, while the idea is cool, they're - well, ugly! I've undone the addition of the colors for now. Let's talk. I also undid the addition of leading zeroes because it makes the column looks screwy (we don't ordinarily see leading zeroes in numerical lists), just for the sake of one sort function. I bet there's a way to accomplish what you'd like to in software. JohnInDC (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough guys, I was curious to see what it looked like. Now, does anyone know how to make the headers and footers look like the rest of the tables or can we not color it that way in a sortable table?Frank12 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm the last guy to ask. I would probably cast about the encyclopedia for tables that look right and then steal the code - JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

All-time Big Ten record table

I rearranged and updated the table showing Ohio State's "true" Big Ten records through 2012 along with some statements clarifying the information shown. I took out the all-time record against Big Ten opponents because it was too confusing or similar to the other columns, and I made the table sortable. I figured it was easier to include the vacated wins and designate that as opposed to leaving them out since there is a difference between Ohio State's all-time record against Penn State and vice versa (OSU is 12-7 in Big Ten play against Penn State with their lone vacated win, while PSU is now 2-12 against Ohio State in Big Ten play with their vacated wins). This is because the losses still count for the losing team, who does not gain a victory as some have been lead to believe.

I would appreciate any comments that might clear up anything else displayed here. Jmg38 (talk has stated that they will try to add the appropriate colors to the table since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that yet. Thanks! Frank12 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Big Ten record table and its description

This table only includes Ohio State's all-time conference record against other Big Ten members and not non-league matchups. Ohio State began Big Ten play in 1913, so games before then would not count in this table. Likewise, any matchups against Big Ten opponents that occurred when they were not in the league (Chicago after 1939, Michigan between 1907-1916, Michigan State before 1953, Penn State before 1993, and Nebraska before 2011) would not count either. (See Big Ten History for further information).

Ohio State's vacated wins from 2010 are NOT included. (See 2010 Ohio State Buckeyes football team for further information.) Penn State's victories over Ohio State that were vacated from 1998-2011 are included, as they still count as losses for Ohio State. (See NCAA and Big Ten sanctions for Penn State and Wikipedia's explanation for vacated victories in the NCAA as well for further information).

Team Big Ten
Wins 		Big Ten
Losses 		Big Ten
Ties 		Winning
Percentage 		Streak First Big Ten
Meeting 		Last
Meeting
Chicago Maroons 10 2 2 .786 Won 8 1920 1939
Illinois Fighting Illini 64 29 3 .682 Won 4 1914 2012
Indiana Hoosiers 68 8 4 .875 Won 17 1913 2012
Iowa Hawkeyes 45 14 3 .750 Won 3 1922 2010
Michigan Wolverines 44 46 4 .489 Won 1 1918 2012
Michigan State Spartans 28 11 0 .711 Won 1 1953 2012
Minnesota Golden Gophers 42 7 0 .857 Won 7 1921 2010
Nebraska Cornhuskers 1 1 0 .500 Won 1 2011 2012
Northwestern Wildcats 59 14 1 .804 Won 4 1913 2008
Penn State Nittany Lions 12 7 0 .632 Won 1 1993 2012
Purdue Boilermakers 38 14 2 .722 Won 1 1919 2012
Wisconsin Badgers 55 18 5 .734 Won 2 1913 2012
466 171 24 .726

All Data from College Football Data Warehouse[2] Updated through the 2012 NCAA Division I FBS football season.

Very nice table. My only concern is that, while including the 2010 wins is cleaner, it's inconsistent with what OSU and the NCAA regard as the official record of those games. It's a little screwy, I know, that Michigan has lost one more game to OSU than OSU has won against Michigan, but OSU has surrendered the right to claim any wins from 2010. I think the correct thing is to omit the win(s) and footnote the affected records to make it clear what isn't being shown. Leave in the losses to PSU, as those games do remain as OSU losses; any screwiness there will show up in a PSU article, which like this one, should be properly footnoted. Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories may provide some insight, though I have a vague sense that the NCAA has said something about these issues (especially head-to-head streaks) since that was written. JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's the current NCAA policy (9/11/12) - see page 6 (recording vacated victories) and 11 (streaks). http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf . JohnInDC (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the table to omit the 2010 league victories. Also updated some of the streak numbers to account for the vacated games. You make a good point, we really don't need to address Penn State's records here... making a note about Ohio State's 2010 season should suffice as everyone that visits the page would likely know about that. Also, I'm amazed by how close the series with Michigan is when you factor out all of the times they met and were not playing a league game. Thank you for the reference from the NCAA also. I wish that had been explained more clearly since many believed the results of vacated games become flipped. Frank12 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that the table is improved by employing different colors for each of the teams. It's a little hard on the eye (mine anyhow) and seems a bit too tarted up. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the colors look pretty awful, especially with the colors in the field headings. It doesn't really add anything to the readability. Xombie (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Frank, that's a great table but the colors make it harder to read and, while the idea is cool, they're - well, ugly! I've undone the addition of the colors for now. Let's talk. I also undid the addition of leading zeroes because it makes the column looks screwy (we don't ordinarily see leading zeroes in numerical lists), just for the sake of one sort function. I bet there's a way to accomplish what you'd like to in software. JohnInDC (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough guys, I was curious to see what it looked like. Now, does anyone know how to make the headers and footers look like the rest of the tables or can we not color it that way in a sortable table?Frank12 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm the last guy to ask. I would probably cast about the encyclopedia for tables that look right and then steal the code - JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph re Sport Illustrated investigation and report

A pair of IP editors (actually judging by their location, likely the same person) have repeatedly removed one paragraph pertaining to the swag-for-tattoos controversy, claiming variously that it is "irrelevant" and "unproven", even "slanderous"; I have been restoring it because it is certainly relevant, it is properly and reliably sourced (Sports Illustrated, goodness) and has remained in the article, undisturbed and without comment, for months. Given the persistence of this editor, I am raising the matter here for discussion. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph re Sport Illustrated investigation and report

A pair of IP editors (actually judging by their location, likely the same person) have repeatedly removed one paragraph pertaining to the swag-for-tattoos controversy, claiming variously that it is "irrelevant" and "unproven", even "slanderous"; I have been restoring it because it is certainly relevant, it is properly and reliably sourced (Sports Illustrated, goodness) and has remained in the article, undisturbed and without comment, for months. Given the persistence of this editor, I am raising the matter here for discussion. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Conference Championship issues

I am deleting the 2010 conference championship from the table. While someone correctly deducted the wins, listing OSU as 0-1 on the season, OSU also vacated their 2010 Big Ten Championship, so it should not be listed. Also, someone might look into the accuracy of the table. The text at the top claims 32 Big Ten Championships, but if I am counting correctly, the chart lists 35 before I delete 2010. So there are some definate accuracy issues there. Aub2010bcsnc (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also very confused about this, because the text at the top says 34, while it says 36 in the table. Someone needs to fix this.--Kobra98 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 team wasn't eligible for post-season play but I think they were still "champions" of the Leaders Division. I can't find a straight-up source for it but this Big 10 page about the championship game describes it as a contest between Legends champion Nebraska and Leaders "representative" Wisconsin: Link. JohnInDC (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Conference Championship issues

I am deleting the 2010 conference championship from the table. While someone correctly deducted the wins, listing OSU as 0-1 on the season, OSU also vacated their 2010 Big Ten Championship, so it should not be listed. Also, someone might look into the accuracy of the table. The text at the top claims 32 Big Ten Championships, but if I am counting correctly, the chart lists 35 before I delete 2010. So there are some definate accuracy issues there. Aub2010bcsnc (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also very confused about this, because the text at the top says 34, while it says 36 in the table. Someone needs to fix this.--Kobra98 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 team wasn't eligible for post-season play but I think they were still "champions" of the Leaders Division. I can't find a straight-up source for it but this Big 10 page about the championship game describes it as a contest between Legends champion Nebraska and Leaders "representative" Wisconsin: Link. JohnInDC (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

List of players drafted

Kudos to the anon editor who's put so much work into those charts. (I have only reviewed a couple of the linked names but all appears to be in order.) It strikes me though as quite a long list for what is a general article on the OSU football program - what do people think about moving it into a separate, standalone article? JohnInDC (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is bloated enough as it is. Is it really necessary to include all OSU players drafted into the NFL? That seems to violate the rule against indiscriminate collection of information. Luis1972 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As I indicated at the outset, this large collection of (fairly tangential) information is really disproportionate to the article as a whole. Unless consensus moves against it, I intend to move the section out into its own, new article. JohnInDC (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to see what others think about this. I prefer to follow encyclopedic standards and use summarization as much as possible. If it were up to me, I'd say something like "Since 1936, there have been xxx Ohio State players taken in the NFL draft." And you then make an external link to a website that has all the specific information and you're done. The fact that so many OSU players are taken in the draft is undoubtedly a notable piece of information. The names, draft position, and years taken are something that probably don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, in my opinion. It's not supposed to be a repository for all information, just a summary. I would also do the same thing to the bowl records, B1G records, list of All Americans, etc. Luis1972 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree but I'm not sure I am bold enough simply to remove the info, preferring to export it to a new article. If I do do that, it won't hurt my feelings if you AfD the new article. I also won't object if you just remove the info from this page, along the lines you suggest. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

List of players drafted

Kudos to the anon editor who's put so much work into those charts. (I have only reviewed a couple of the linked names but all appears to be in order.) It strikes me though as quite a long list for what is a general article on the OSU football program - what do people think about moving it into a separate, standalone article? JohnInDC (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is bloated enough as it is. Is it really necessary to include all OSU players drafted into the NFL? That seems to violate the rule against indiscriminate collection of information. Luis1972 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As I indicated at the outset, this large collection of (fairly tangential) information is really disproportionate to the article as a whole. Unless consensus moves against it, I intend to move the section out into its own, new article. JohnInDC (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to see what others think about this. I prefer to follow encyclopedic standards and use summarization as much as possible. If it were up to me, I'd say something like "Since 1936, there have been xxx Ohio State players taken in the NFL draft." And you then make an external link to a website that has all the specific information and you're done. The fact that so many OSU players are taken in the draft is undoubtedly a notable piece of information. The names, draft position, and years taken are something that probably don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, in my opinion. It's not supposed to be a repository for all information, just a summary. I would also do the same thing to the bowl records, B1G records, list of All Americans, etc. Luis1972 (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree but I'm not sure I am bold enough simply to remove the info, preferring to export it to a new article. If I do do that, it won't hurt my feelings if you AfD the new article. I also won't object if you just remove the info from this page, along the lines you suggest. JohnInDC (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"The" Ohio State

I am aware that the official, legal name of the school is "The Ohio State University" and I don't particularly care whether the article frequently includes the "The" when describing the school, but an IP editor using find-and-replace inserted the school's full legal name in every place "Ohio State" appeared in the article, which 1) made for some awkward phrasing in some places; 2) improperly changed the titles of articles cited in refs; and 3) created - in at least one instance - grammatical errors (e.g. the article began with "The The Ohio State University...". I don't want to pore over a hundred or so changes that were sort of silly in the first place, just in order to identify errors, so I'm reverting the whole lot of them back to the way the article was (and which appeared to be a reasonably stable version). JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"The" Ohio State

I am aware that the official, legal name of the school is "The Ohio State University" and I don't particularly care whether the article frequently includes the "The" when describing the school, but an IP editor using find-and-replace inserted the school's full legal name in every place "Ohio State" appeared in the article, which 1) made for some awkward phrasing in some places; 2) improperly changed the titles of articles cited in refs; and 3) created - in at least one instance - grammatical errors (e.g. the article began with "The The Ohio State University...". I don't want to pore over a hundred or so changes that were sort of silly in the first place, just in order to identify errors, so I'm reverting the whole lot of them back to the way the article was (and which appeared to be a reasonably stable version). JohnInDC (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

The non-sense seems to be picking up steam on the main page, probably due to the recent position the Buckeyes are in, now that they are 1 win away from the national championship game -- I've noticed this in recent years, with the trolling that goes on here when the Buckeyes are on the verge of doing great things. No doubt a case of jealousy on the part of fans of other teams. In any case, more editors here would be appreciated to be able to handle the need for the reverting of all the vandalism. As I type this, there have been no less than 6 vandal entries in the last 20 minutes by one particular IP user: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.192.121.97 .. Let's keep the Buckeye page proper and clean. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism is still ongoing. As of this morning, there have been at least three more entries since I last checked. And again it's by a user with an IP user name. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked for page protection the other day but it was denied. I guess I'll try again. JOJ Hutton 18:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC

Vandalism

The non-sense seems to be picking up steam on the main page, probably due to the recent position the Buckeyes are in, now that they are 1 win away from the national championship game -- I've noticed this in recent years, with the trolling that goes on here when the Buckeyes are on the verge of doing great things. No doubt a case of jealousy on the part of fans of other teams. In any case, more editors here would be appreciated to be able to handle the need for the reverting of all the vandalism. As I type this, there have been no less than 6 vandal entries in the last 20 minutes by one particular IP user: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.192.121.97 .. Let's keep the Buckeye page proper and clean. Thanks. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism is still ongoing. As of this morning, there have been at least three more entries since I last checked. And again it's by a user with an IP user name. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked for page protection the other day but it was denied. I guess I'll try again. JOJ Hutton 18:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC

2014 or 2015?

On the table at the top of the page it says this is the 2015 championship, but would't it be the 2014? Correct me if i'm wrong but last year Florida State was the 2013 FBS Champion, thus making OSU the 2014 champion. KentuckyBengalsAndReds (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ohio State Buckeyes football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this. An enthusiastic Cleveland sports fan nominated 6 articles simultaneously all of which need a lot of additional inline citations. I am quickfailing the worst three offenders of the bunch. I encourage the nominator to review WP:WIAGA and revise the article accordingly before resubmitting. Pay special attention to criteria 2.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Try again. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015

you just need to change the Championships numbers to reflect the 2015 national Championship and the big 10 Championship. DTBrown72 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

National champion trophy photo

Nice photo, deserves a place here. It needs to be somewhere besides the "Championships" section though. The tables there do not flow around it, and on some browsers (most notably tablets) it results in unwieldy white space as tall as the photo is high. I have twice moved it to the "Urban Meyer" section, where the text flows smoothly around it, but have been reverted twice. I intend to move it out of "Championships" again in light of the obvious rendering problems and am open to suggestions to where else in the article it should appear. Perhaps as a substitute for the "125th season" logo, which, nice as it is, will grow of increasingly less interest as time passes. Discuss! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I slid the photo up, so it now sits below the pic of Coach Meyer and above the IlliBuck trophy. Doesn't interfere with the flow in any case that I can see (photo heavy section already). Take a look and see what you think. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That's an improvement. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of images in the article, perhaps too many, and it's hard to find suitable placements for them all. Thanks for that. JohnInDC (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but on my screen, the trophy looks fine alongside the table. And the photos in the article all have specific meaning - National Championship winning coaches, Heisman Trophy winning players, Illibuck being OSU's only annual trophy game, Brutus being the mascot, and the 1st ever CFP Trophy. I'm not so rigid as to say my way or the highway, but just find a way to make it work and not look like it was thrown together...that's all I'm looking for. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You may not be wedded to your point of view but you've reverted this change, what, 5 times now, twice after two editors here apparently agreed there were better locations for the photo than the one you prefer. That's not really consistent with consensus editing. And you know, It's not so poorly placed in the Urban Meyer section - he's the one who won it after all. You should stop edit warring and see what other editors think. JohnInDC (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Easy there with the edit warring accusation...3 of those 5 edits were 3 days ago, and they came consecutively, as I corrected my own blunder. And I'm still within WP:3RR bounds, so It's not like I've been "on the attack" or anything. I'm washing my hands of it...not worth fussing over. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made a new pic which should make everybody happy. I have combined pics of the AP, Coaches, and CFP trophies to better represent the Buckeyes' championship legacy, and I centrally located the pic so it shouldn't knock things out of whack for people with smaller screens. BTW, they still give out the AP and Coaches trophies to the CFP National Champion, so they're still relevant. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Zeke's Streak Under "Culture & Lore"

In the table at the bottom of the article that lists Buckeye folklore (Hang On Sloopy, Holy Buckeye, etc.), there were a few things that I felt could be added. For instance, an article about the 2015 Sugar Bowl, particularly about the play affectionately known as "Zeke's Streak" -- it was important because it led to Ohio State's first-ever bowl win against an SEC opponent.

Maybe some other article ideas could be about superfans, such as Buck-I-Guy and Big Nut, as well as an article about the 1997 Rose Bowl and the notorious pass interference call in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl.

Whocaresohio (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bowl wins and all time total

OSU played in and lost the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, which also served as the 2003 BCS National Championship game. The summary chart here counts the game twice - once as a Fiesta game and once as the 2003 BCS championship. This has OSU playing in one more bowl game (47) than it actually has (46). I don't care which descriptor we pick for that game in the summary chart, but we need to pick one or the other. If "BCS", then knock down the Fiesta count by one. I prefer "Fiesta" but only because the Wikipedia article for that game is titled 2003 Fiesta Bowl, with 2003 BCS National Championship Game as a redirect back (in contrast to 2007 BCS National Championship Game and 2008 BCS National Championship Game, which link to pages titled as such). Discuss. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We'll also need to conform the year-by-year chart to the summary table. As it now stands they are inconsistent, with the former showing 2 BCS Championships, not the 3 reflected by the summary table. JohnInDC (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It seemed to me that people would care more about the school's playing in a National Championship Game than in yet another Fiesta Bowl, so I did precisely the opposite of what I said I favored, and pushed that 2003 Fiesta appearance to the BCS column. The totals all add up right now, though now the Fiesta is undercounted by one. (The BCS screwed everything up by calling it both "the Fiesta Bowl" and the "BCS Championship Game" that year.) The most comprehensive solution would, I suppose, be to add a note to the 2003 entry saying how the game was 2 things that year, and then footnote both the BCS and Fiesta tallies in the summary chart to describe whatever those numbers reflect - a double count, or an undercount, or something. That would be comprehensive but really inelegant, and my footnoting skills are sufficiently primitive that I would screw it up even if I could devise sufficiently concise wording. If someone else wants to take a crack at it - well, have at it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ohio State Buckeyes football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

All-time wins against all teams table

It looks like a lot of hard work went into that table but I've removed it for the time being, for several reasons - first is, it's very large and probably warrants a standalone article. Second, it's entirely sourced to a single website - "Winsipedia" - of unknown reliability (at least to me). I'd like to gain a consensus on its inclusion here, or elsewhere in the encyclopedia before restoring it. Comments, thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

JohnInDC ,
I was the one who put up the All time wins table. I'm really new to wikipedia but I agree that it should be it's own page...I just don't know how to do it. I'm an Ohio State football historian and figured that people might appreciate a complete list of Ohio State vs opponents. I can vouch for the website Winsepedia...it's extremely accurate. I've found a similar list in Ohio State's football archives in the past and had a lot of it copied down for my own use. But alas, I cannot find it anymore. I would have linked it to that considering that people would find that more accurate. But the Winsepedia site is really accurate...I haven't found anything that contradicts my notes. If you could do something to put my page back (or in a new link) I would greatly appreciate it...I've wanted to do that page for some time and it did take me quite a while. Thanks! - The 60er 7:06 PM 15 March 2016
This is very helpful, thanks. Can you go to WP:Reliable and see if Winsipedia satisfies those criteria? Its reliability in your eyes is not quite as important as its pedigree, as it were, and characteristics. If we can come to a conclusion about that then we can see about creating an article (or adding on to one if there's a good place for it). JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

JohnInDC, I went over the WP Reliable criteria and I believe that Winsipedia satisfies those criteria. Furthermore, I succeeded in finding a different copy of OSU's football archives which backs up everything I have down (http://grfx.cstv.com/schools/osu/graphics/pdf/m-footbl/1516_Records2.pdf). This list looks better than the one I previously had because it comes directly from Ohio State's football website as opposed to being a separate site. I went through it and it backs up everything a wrote (I copied my entry for reference). This definitely looks more credible than Winsipedia even though I think it's information is accurate. Thanks! -The 60er 10:05 PM 15 March 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 60er (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • My concern is simply that this article turns into a mirror of the Ohio State Football Media Guide. Whether or not Winsipedia is reliable really isn't relevant (I would say it generally is). We don't need every minute detail of Ohio State football here; that's why they have their own website and media guide, on top of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTMIRROR. The regular series with current Big Ten teams and any non-conference series that are regular or long-standing (or otherwise significant) should be included, but not every series. The vast majority of the games Ohio State (and any school) has played are not notable or significant. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

JohnRidinger, I understand your concern. I don't think that Wikipedia should restate the media guide. But in my experience a lot of people are curious about their school's all-time record against such and such other team. As an Ohio State football historian, I get asked all the time "What is OSU's record versus _____?" or "How often has OSU played _____?" One reason I wanted to put this in here, is to provide a quick and easy table for people to reference for those answers. Also, the Ohio State media guide is not very easy to find or navigate. In my opinion, the majority of people would give up searching before finding it. I think having the table on Wikipedia would help a lot of people find answers quickly and efficiently. I did the work to create the table for the benefit of those interested (which is a lot more than you would think) and I believe that it should be included here. Respectfully, - The 60er — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 60er (talk • contribs) 04:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Then have a link to their media guide (which includes this very information) as a citation for the records against Big Ten competition and any other significant series. Readers who want to know more of those details can be directed to the media guide, which is online. Just because someone could be interested in info doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be included here. That's the whole point of external links and further reading sections. Remember, this should be a thorough summary of the topic, not a detailed repository of every fact (again, please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING). It's trivia that Ohio State owns a particular record against most schools, especially those schools they rarely play or haven't played in nearly 100 years such as Mount Union or Ohio Wesleyan. Even their series with MAC schools aren't significant or regular. I would encourage you to at least make a page in your sandbox for the table for the time being. Perhaps other editors may feel that a separate list article would be appropriate for it. --JonRidinger (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

JohnRidinger, Whatever the majority wants is fine with me. If a lot of people have objections about my piece, then by all means, take it out. I'm just an old guy who doesn't completely understand the Internet. You younger folks have a much better idea of what should or should not be on here and I respect that. -The 60er — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 60er (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@The 60er:, no worries! It's more to do with all the policies that Wikipedia has to try and make articles consistent and good quality, like the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy I've mentioned before and WP:SCOPE, among many others. I'm definitely someone who also can get incredibly detailed with certain topics, so editing on Wikipedia has been a lesson in deciding what's most important for a good article. And that has taken (and continues to take) a lot of editing experience! I don't mean to come across as just slamming the door to your efforts. :)
One option I alluded to a bit earlier is you can do is at the top of your page there's a link that says "Sandbox" (User:The 60er/sandbox). This is a personal space for each user to work on projects or "store" info that might not be appropriate for the full article, or still needs some work. I typically use my sandbox to write sections for various articles or entire articles before adding them to the actual main space. You could place the chart there for the time being so it's not totally lost. I've done some other charts too that really don't belong in the main space, but I like the chart options available on Wikipedia (see User:JonRidinger/KentStow for an example). Like I said, other editors may feel that the chart should be its own stand-alone list, similar to List of Ohio State Buckeyes football seasons, and that way you could move it there easily. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ohio State Buckeyes football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong name?

I'm pretty sure the team is proudly called "The Ohio State Buckeyes". They make a big deal about the "The" and you notice player and couches strongly imphasising the "The" when they say it. RobertGary1 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the schools webpage the "The" is actually part of the legislation that created the school. https://library.osu.edu/find/collections/the-ohio-state-university-archives/digitalcontent/faqs#1 RobertGary1 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Matt Henrey

You have that Matt Henrey has the longest interception returned for a touchdown (102 yards in 1990 vs Iowa). First, I believe that no yards in the endzone count as official yards. Whether the touchdown is on the goal line or 9 yards deep, if it goes for a touchdown it is only 100 yards. Second, no one returned an interception for a touchdown against Iowa. http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/ohio-state/1990-roster.html Third, according to my "Official Ohio State Football Encyclopedia" (published following the 2002 season), no one named Henrey ever lettered at Ohio State. I thought that it might be a typo and maybe his name is really "Henry" - only one "Henry" received a letter, and that was in 1949. Finally, in the same book, it lists interception records of 100 yards by David Brown and Marlon Kerner. (I believe that in 2003 Will Allen also accomplished that.) No Matt Henrey is listed in the top 5.

I think Matt Henrey should be removed from that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.162.36 (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch. Looks like that was inserted in 2011 and somehow managed to survive this entire time. JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Brings back old memories - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football/Archive_13#.22Giovanni_Strassini.22. JohnInDC (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

1986 and 1998

These games were played at the end of the regular season as well. The article indicates they were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.67.192.98 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Both years Michigan played Hawaii in a regular season game following Ohio State - see 1986_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team and 1998_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team. JohnInDC (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Amusingly I responded to this question (citing a Michigan article at the OSU page!) without realizing that it should have been asked at Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry‎, where the answer is 1) still the same and 2) makes a good bit more sense. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Co-champions 2015 2016

The Big 10 recognizes co-champions. The tiebreakers decide who goes to what bowl game. Here's a Big 10 press release specifically noting that OSU had won a share of the East Division title in 2016, at least a share for the 5th year running. http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112616aaa.html . Please stop removing this info. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ohio State Buckeyes football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

David Long

If the David Long on the 1971 Ohio State Buckeyes football team is related to either David Long Jr. or David Long (American football), please help establish that connection. Both are new articles created last night.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Sub-articles

I believe this article should be split into sub-articles due to the length. I propose the following sub-articles:

  • List of Ohio State Buckeyes football championships
  • List of Ohio State Buckeyes football award winners

KD0710 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG / History of Ohio State Buckeyes football

This article is currently 111 kB[4] WP:TOOBIG gives: 

> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

One option is moving additional content and obvious WP:RECENTISM to History of Ohio State Buckeyes football, as seen in Category:History of college football by team. Note, 4 coaching era sections in this article are already tagged with "This section is too long" re this issue. Other options include addressing non-standard sections and those with sourcing issues. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

National Finalist?

The info box has National Finalist listed for the years they played in the National Championship game and lost. It should either be eliminated, named to National Championship Game Runner-up, or add 2002 and 2014.

I propose eliminating the category completely since it’s not an actual title or record. KD0710 (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

When ohio state started playing football

This article states ohio state played its first game in 1890. Frederick Patterson was a black man who later in life built automobiles and busses,his biography states he was the first black player on ohio states football team in 1888. Did they have a team but not play any games? 69.180.215.96 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Western Conference or Big Ten

The statement of when Ohio State joined the Big Ten differs from the account offered at https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/ohio-state/index.html which has them in the Western Conference until 1953. 108.18.207.197 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ohio State has an overall .734 win percentage, not .731

Think the math is wrong on the all time winning percentage, I could be wrong 73.150.209.7 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

The number of consensus all Americans is wrong. According to:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/ohio-state/all-america.html

The correct number is 68 not 90. 90 is the number of seasons a player has won not the number of people. Other teams places list the number of people not the number of times it has been won 2601:241:8D80:4980:8516:9C54:1DD4:968 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/ohio_state/opponents.php
  2. ^ http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/bigten/ohio_state/opponents.php
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ohio_State_Buckeyes_football/Archive_1&oldid=1211859114"