Jump to content

Talk:Lloyd Carr

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


Picture

[edit]

No pic of lloyd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.155.31 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

[edit]

Rated High because on the WikiProject Talk page, a current coach of a BCS/Top25 team would be rated High. Bornagain4 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article

[edit]

I like Lloyd, and most of the text is useful, but how about some headings? Right now it is one jumbled mess.

  • Wow, just got done cleaning up the article and there was overwhelming lack of neutrality. I've removed alot of the bias and unrelated information, revised the scrutiny section, added topics and moved some information to more relavent areas of the article. In the future, please don't copy the Lloyd Carr bio out off a University of Michigan source without editing the article for neutrality. AStudent 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home coaching record is 69-9?

[edit]

As of what date was this stat accurate? It should be removed, since it will be virtually always out of date. Blockhouse 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)blockhouse[reply]

Michigan is 69-9 at home under Carr to date (end of 2006 regular season). That record is no more susceptible to datedness than his overall record or any other coaches. Jweiss11 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan didn't win the big ten in 2006..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.66.136 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches' Poll

[edit]

Is there a reason why only the Coaches' Poll is used in the box containing Carr's record? I think the AP Poll results should also be provided, especially given that Carr won the AP national title in 1997. (Otherwise people might wonder how he won a national title when his team was ranked #2 in the Coaches' Poll.) Funnyhat 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking

[edit]

After viewing Tom Osborne's page, I've deleted the "(tied with Nebraska)" comment next to the ranking in 1997. This does not seem necessarily relevant given the pure statistical nature of that box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.134.70 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]