Template talk:Michigan Wolverines football navbox

This template is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles

Michigan

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles

Important figures

I think we should review the important figure section with http://mgoblue.com/football/page.aspx?id=28898 in mind. I am thinking we may want to do something like convert all names to last name only and then list

All-Americans:

College Hall of Fame Inductees:

Heisman Trophy Winners:

NFL All-Pros or Pro Bowlers:

NFL First Round Draft Picks:

NFL Hall of Fame Inductees:

I also think we should readd the rivalries and even add the Little Brown Jug link. Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: Thanks for your feedback on the template. I took your suggestions in a number of respects. I have converted to last names only to make room for more players, and I have also mined the mgoblue link for additional entries. However, I don't think it's practical to include all of the individuals who have been All-Americans, College HOF, All Pros or Pro Bowlers, as I think that would result in an overly long template. What do you think? As for the rivalries section, I had dropped it out of the same concern that the template might become overly long, and I thought it less essential than the player lists, and championship season lists. Input from others is welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally think that redlinks on notable figures needing articles might help encourage article creation (unless we are missing 75% of the articles). I also think it might be more informative if the important figures were broken out as per the titles above so that it is obvious why a person is important and so that popular players who are not on the list are explained. A line for current stars might also be added. I am not worried about length for a template like this. I view this template as a comprehensive summary of Michigan Football. Similar, templates are much longer for other organizations. E.G., see Template:Los_Angeles_Dodgers. I also think we may want to create a separate template for active NFLers reflecting Michigan_Wolverines_football#Alumni_currently_in_the_NFL. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template is coming along. I suspect most redlinks are for articles that should not exist. I.e., someone like Jarrett Irons would fail at WP:AFD because major college sports stars must play professionally within one year of graduating to pass unless they do something else to make them notable like a Rob Pelinka has now done. Even Chris Hutchinson (American football) would fail at WP:AFD. His article classifies as Michigan WP:CRUFT at the international wikipedia level. I would probably remove him from the template. In fact, anyone in the Other Important Figures section who did not play professionally or at least sign a pro contract and got cut should be removed from the template regardless of how storied they are as wikipedians.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. professional is a broad term. If Irons did play arena ball he could have a page I believe.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 06:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should backpeddle a bit on Irons. Reviewing WP:SPORTS, consensus All-American may be considered a major national award by some. A well-sourced article for him might pass. However, I don't think Hutchinson's NCAA Post-Graduate Scholarship counts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-Americans

I suggest that a players name appear once for each time he was named All-American. See (http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fballam/fballam.htm for multiple year winners). I also suggest that consensus be italicized and unanimous be italicized and underlined or you could use the notation they use at http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf . What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconciling

I am having trouble reconciling http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf and http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fballam/fballam.htm . Why does Michigan list Bubba Paris as a 1981 All-American?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on revising Template

I am thinking of eliminating the other important figures section. I think we have fleshed out every type of individual who could reasonably contest being added for being in a class of important individuals. I think the remaining persons are personal favorites more than important persons. The only possible category I might add would be Michigan Hall of Honor. However, I think we should leave the template generic so that other schools from other conferences as well as our own can copy it in a way that helps the project move forward without needless battles. I like guys like Dennis Franklin, Jon Vaughn and Jamie Morris. However, from the international Wikipedian perspective, they are not cleanly distinguished from others not included on the template. Why not add Julius Franks, Elmer Gedeon and endless others if we don't just say we have got all important categories of Michigan players included. Any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the Template is too long, but I think the Other Important Figures (OIF) section is needed. While having a subjective element, there is a short list of people whose importance in the U-M tradition is indisputable. Don Canham and Bob Ufer are good examples. Sure, we could add categories for athletic directors or broadcasters, but most who have served in those capacities (unlike Canham and Ufer) are either unimportant or appear elsewhere on the template (e.g., past A.D.'s like Yost, Crisler and Schembechler, and current A.D. Martin). Rather than adding more categories, I think the OIF section is the best way to handle it. Similarly, individuals who have set truly major records at U-M but don't fit other categories would fit in this category. Examples include Jamie Morris who set the all-time school rushing records (both season and career) and still holds the record for all-purpose yardage in a U-M uniform. Steve Breaston is another example, as he holds the all-time return records (both punt and kickoff) by wide margins. (Right now, you have included him in the Alumni Active in the NFL section, but he would unfairly fall off the list if he is released by his current NFL team. If we want to shorten the template (which I think is a good idea), I think better candidates would be (i) the Alumni Active in the NFL section (it is very long and consists of people who are either already listed in the template elsewhere or are marginal players in terms of their U-M importance), and (ii) shortening the All-Americans section by eliminating double-references (maybe just include a parenthetical (2) if someone was a two-time winner as in the case of multiple Pro-Bowl appearances). Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to look at the template is to view it as a general template that we are using for Michigan. What should every football program (in BCS conference) do? I think it might be unfair to Western Michigan Broncos football for whom being drafted at all or ever having played in the NFL might be worth keeping them on the template to hold them to a BCS standard. However, I think most BCS schools would be able to summarize the important wikilinks for their program by copying our format. We have the second most AAs so even though we seem over loaded it is not too much of a problem as a general policy. I think the best way to shorten the section might be to eliminate the "^" and use italics or underlining to represent consensus and unanimous. I think many of the players who we want to say are important are important due to their recent good will production due to recent athletic production. Even though Chad Henne and Ryan Mallett are important to Michigan football, they have not really earned their place on the template. There will be several 2007 All Big Ten awardees and I don't think either will be first team. However, I will not contest this section due to your explanation of a need for a catch all section, which catches them too. I guess we are doing O.K. I left something at Talk:Gerald Ford about whether they want our big template or just the retired numbers one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good reasoned point about the length of the template being the result of the inordinate number of AAs, Pro Bowlers, etc, who have come out of the U-M program as opposed to other programs. As for specific people in the OIF category, I think Henne is just like Morris and Breaston. Though he never made All-American and may never be a Pro-Bowler, he is the holder of a number of very significant all-time U-M records, including the all-time career record for passing yards. I included Mallett mostly because of his central importance to the current program, but he also holds the U-M record for the longest pass from scrimmage in school history with a 97 yard pass to Manningham in the Nov. 2007 Wisconsin game). Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought on shortening the template. If the Alumni Active in the NFL section is kept, it should be limited to the REAL NFL. Guys like Adam Stenavich who are playing in the NFL Europe should not be included. Cbl62 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Williams

This Brandon Wiliams: nfl pfr has the hardest WP decision to make. He is easily confused with this Brandon Williams nfl pfr. He has no stats. He hardly played at Michigan. What is going on here?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gutierrez & Justin Fargas

Should Matt Gutierrez and Justin Fargas be on our template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Fargas never did anything that great plus he transfered to USC. Gutierrez never did anything either. michfan2123 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harbaugh

I added Harbaugh to the Pro bowlers, but my edit summary got garbled. Here is the link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/misc/pb1995.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott and Elliot

Is there a good reason that the template consistently spells J. Elliot with one 't' but wikilinks to the Jumbo Elliott (American football) article with two 't's? Not that Jumbo Elliott (American football) consistently spells it with two 't's, but mostly it uses two. Further, the P.Elliott wikilink redirects to a one 't' spelling for the main article Pete Elliot, which then uses two 't's throughout in open defiance of the article title. (At least Bump is fully consistent.) Is there a definitive source on the spellings? -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, it is Elliott. michfan2123 (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you fixed all of the Elliot(t) associated articles too. Excellent. Michael Devore (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it was a problem. His article was at Elliot so I moved the page to Elliott. Good job catching that. There is no more Elliot. michfan2123 (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave in Carr... for now

I'm just as excited about the coaching change as any of the maize and blue faithful, but, we're still in the Lloyd Carr era for a couple more weeks, so, I put him and his staff back in, right above Rich Rod and his staff. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is how we should leave it until after the Capital One Bowl. If not that, then we should remove Rich Rod and his staff completely. They're not the Michigan staff yet. The template should reflect the current staff. Trogdor077 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bostic Pro Bowl count

Keith Bostic was invited to one Pro Bowl and lost the tiebreaker for a second invitation. The template shows two Pro Bowls. I think we should change it to 1 and am going to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-American controversies

We need to set a clear policy for All-American inclusion on the template. It should be clear that the template only includes persons who were listed as first team A-A on at least one of the lists that is recognized in the determination of consensus All-Americans. There seem to be several persons who were named All-Americans either by unrecognized lists or as second team or lower such as Rick Volk, Billy Taylor (American football), Paul G. Goebel, and Bubba Paris. There may be future controversies where people want an article they have contributed time to added to the template. I am going to try to consider adding a note clarifying the template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single, authoritative source for College Football All-Americans. There are many wire services and selectors over the course of the past 110 years who have picked All-Americans. Walter Camp didn't start until 1903, AP in 1926, Sporting News in 1943, Football Writers in 1947, AFCA in 1947. For many years, there was also the UP/UPI. Michigan had two recognized All-Americans (William Cunningham and Neil Snow) before Camp even began making his selections. And in the time period from 1903-1926 (or so), Camp may have been the most widely reported selector, but there were others as well, including the New York Herald. I think the best solution is to use the offical lists established by the University of Michigan. The official U-M list is: http://mgoblue.com/football/article.aspx?id=40334. In addition, the professional staff at the Bentley Historical Library, which is one of the leading academic historical archives in the country, has also compiled data on All-American selections. The Bentley's list of U-M All-Americans is: http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fballam/fballam.htm The Bentley describes their methodology in compiling the list as follows: "126 individual players have earned first-team All-American honors representing 149 separate citations, including two three-time winners and seventeen two-time All-Americans." Accordingly, it is clear that the Bentley list is not based on second-team selections. Paul G. Goebel, Rick Volk, Bubba Paris and Billy Taylor all appear on the U-M and Bentley lists. Under wikipedia standards, I am not sure how we can make the subjective decision to eliminate first team All-Americans if they are included on both of those official lists.

However, the issue applies beyond the four players you identified (Volk, Paris, Goebel, and B. Taylor). The following additional players are identified on the Bentley list as first-team All-Americans but are not included on the Template: Ernest Allmendinger, 1917; Cedric Smith, 1917; Tom Edwards, 1925; Harry Hawkins, 1925; Maynard Morrison, 1931; Edward Frutig, 1940; Butch Woolfolk, 1981; Jim Harbaugh, 1986; Matt Elliott, 1991; John Cocozzo, 1992; Derrick Alexander, 1992; John Runyan, 1995; Will Carr, 1996; David Terrell, 2000; Larry Foote, 2001; and Bennie Joppru, 2002.

Also, if you limit the pre-1947 time period only to AP or Walter Camp, that would mean dropping the following players from the template, even though they are included on the UM and Bentley lists: William Cunningham, Neil Snow, Miller Pontius, Frank Culver, Robert Brown, and Julius Franks.

One thing I can clear up, though, is that Rick Volk, does belong; he was a Sporting News first-team All-American in 1966. [1] Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grantland Rice is another example of an All-American selector who was highly respected for many years. He was the successor to Walter Camp in picking the All-American team for Collier's magazine in 1925. Maynard Morrison was picked as a first-team All-American as a guard in December 1931.Cbl62 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had agreed to go by the neutral arbiters of All-American history. Let's keep in mind WP:V. In a typical year there are between 6 and 10 lists recognized for consensus. The average reader will want to be able to verify these claims. If he goes to www.ncaa.org he will find http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf If he goes to his local bookstore he will find the ESPN Encyclopedia of College Football, ESPN Encyclopedia of Big Ten Football. They only include the recognized lists. I am a Michigan fan and like all the guys named on the unrecognized lists. If we are going to add them we should asterisk them somehow. This would create four classes of All-Americans. 1. Unanimous A-A (all recognized lists) 2. Consensus A-A (50% of all recognized lists) 3. A-A (at least one recognized list) 4. A-A* (no recognized lists but at least one other list).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who have I included that you don't agree with?? I did not include Paul G. Goebel at this time, even though he is identified as a first-team All-American in the official UM and Bentley Library lists. I frankly think the U-M and Bentley lists are legit, but have held back for now (because of your comment). The only two players I added are Maynard Morrison and Ed Frutig. I have verified through original published sources that they were legitimate first-team All-American selected by Hearst/INS in Frutig's case and Collier's/Grantland Rice and NEA in the case of Morrison. These were widely-recognized national All-American selectors, and I have included in-line citations for each in the body of the article. Also, Frutig and Morrison are both listed as first-team All-Americans in the NCAA publication, http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf. That would seem to be an over-abundance of verified proof that these two were first-team All-Americans. Does the ESPN book you have not list them? If not, it would appear to be an error. So, please let me know what I have done that you don't agree with.Cbl62 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with adding A-A's from the recognized lists like Morrison and Frutig. I don't know how we missed them before. My problem is with the likes of Rick Volk and all the other previously discussed controversies. As I state above we risk losing a WP:V challenge to our template if we don't make note of the fourth type of A-A. If you want to add Volk and all the others, then we have to make a 4th type designation. That is all I am saying. I am not sure what to say about the likes of Rueben Riley and Brandon Williams (cornerback). They are pretty tough to verify as well. I have to thin about what that policy should be. Should we separate practice squad players from active roster players?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Volk All-American

Regarding the controversy over Rick Volk's status as an All-American, I have verified that he was picked by The Sporting News as a first-team All-American at safety in 1966. This information is verified both at the U-M list - http://mgoblue.com/football/article.aspx?id=40316 - and by viewing old issues of The Sporting News, which are available on line at http://www.paperofrecord.com/ The December 10, 1966 issue announced the publication's All-American team and Volk was a first-team safety along with Nate Shaw of USC. Steve Spurrier was the top vote recipient in the 1966 poll. "Spartains, Irish Lead All-America: Pro Selectors Pick 4 From Each College," The Sporting News, December 10, 1966. Cbl62 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are four types of first-team All-Americans. 1. Unanimous (first team on all All-American lists that are recognized as contributing toward consensus; 2. Consensus (first team on at least half of such lists); 3. All-American (listed on at least one such list); 4. All-American* (listed on no lists contributing toward consensus but at least one other such list and thus often not listed as an All-American by many sources that compile such lists including www.ncaa.org and the ESPN Encyclopedia of College Football). Volk is type four. All such persons are listed at http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fballam/fballam.htm but not listed at http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/footballs_finest/2002/154-174.pdf . We can basically cite Bentley if we want to see if a player is at least a type 4.

Saying a player is listed by TSN and that they are a reputable list in a year it was not recognized toward consensus is like saying in 1976 Bill Clinton was a major national politician. In other years he certainly was. However, in that year he was a rookie State attorney general. Confirming he was in TSN does not move him from 4 to 3. He is still not an A-A by any recognized list for his year. It does not distinguish him from other type 4s. I think all type 4s deserve equal treatment regardless of which unrecognized list they were on. Volk is not in the same class as someone who was on four recognized lists in a year when ten lists were recognized. He remains a type four no matter how well confirmed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is it that decides that The Sporting News is a "real" list one year and not a "real" list in another? Were those decisions made at the time by some governing body? Or is this a subjective retrospective determination? Did The Sporting News do something wrong to get put in the penalty box in 1966? The Sporting News is one of the oldest and most respected publication in the country. I don't understand the logic.08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)

Need to shorten the template

I don't favor creating a "Type 4" All-American on the template. The Sporting News is one of the major All-American selectors. It is not an un-recognized or second-rate selector. As I've been saying for some time, I think the template is way too long and complicated as it is. I'd be inclined to do the following:
1. Limit the All-American selections to those who we can verify were a legitimate first-team All-American. Under this standard, a Rick Volk belongs. A Bubba Paris may end up having to drop off. I've done research and can't find any contemporaraneous record of Paris having been A-A.
2. Collapse the multiple listings of individuals who have won 2 or 3 times. The double-listings take up a lot of space.
3. Eliminate references to unanimous, consensus, or any other variation of A-A from the template. That level of detail can be left to the articles on individual players.
4. Eliminate the template category for current NFL players. Simply being in the NFL, even as a second or third stringer is not, in my view, notable enough to be included in the Michigan Wolverines Football template. I think including Pro Bowlers (and maybe All-Pros), Pro Football HOF, and even 1st round picks is useful, but inclusion of all current NFL'ers seems excessive.
5. Eliminate the "Active First-Team All Big Ten Players at Michigan." Again, and per the discussion at the College Football project site, the template is way too long and needs to be shortened. This seems to me like another good candidate for deletion.
6. Consider eliminating the "Big 10 Championship" seasons section. Right now, it's not so useful because there are so many unwritten articles. But I think this section could be very useful as the articles get filled in.
7. The "Other Important Figures" section should be kept narrow. My original concept was to cover someone who is an all-time record holder not listed elsewhere (e.g., Henne and Hart) or truly legendary figures who just don't fit elsewhere (e.g., Canham and Ufer). I'd consider dropping guys like Gordon Bell, Dennis Franklin, Tai Streets, and Jon Vaughan.
The one thing that was clear from the discussion on the College Football project page was the overwhelming consensus that the template is too long. Rather than creating even more categories, and sub-categories (e.g., Type 4 All-Americans), we should be thiking of ways to shorten and simplify the template. You and I have both worked hard to improve the template, and I don't think either of us should make unilateral decisions. If we disagree, I suggest we discuss and try to reach a consensus. Let me know your thoughts.Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the College Football Hall of Fame section could also be dropped. There is nobody on that list who is not also listed either as an All-American or Coach, so it doesn't result in inclusion of anyone who would otherwise not be listed. All these categories are nice, but we have to make some decisions on how to shorten the template.Cbl62 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since all four players in the "Active First-Team All Big Ten Players at Michigan" section are now inactive (Manningham, Henne, Long, Krauss are all leaving UM), that section seems like the easiest one to delete. Unless I hear a different view, I propose dropping that section right away.Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support eliminating both Hall of Fames with a College HOF asterisk in the A-A section and a Pro HOF asterisk in the Pro Bowl section (not sure about George Allen). I would like to keep both sections, but if we have to shrink those are two good ones. I would support eliminating all practice squad players. I would support eliminating the Other important figures section largely if not entirely. Have this year's All-Big Ten teams been announced? I think the 2007 players should be on the template. I also think the 2006 players should be on until opening day rosters are set for next year. Has Manningham declared for the draft? The All-Big Ten players are important and should be kept until their professional status is determined. I find the Big Ten Championships section informative. I referenced it quite a bit writing articles. Most listings of A-A players distinguish unanimous, consensus and regular. Since we are a tertiary source, we should convey that information which is important to secondary sources. Most listings of A-A players lists years if multiple listings is not the way to do so choose another method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping of template

I have substantilly revamped the template. Instead of having it serve as an article in and of itself, I have returned it to the original concept of being a template that guides the viewer into the articles. To resolve any and all All-American controversies, I have removed the debate from the template and created a new and separate Michigan Wolverines Football All-Americans page, which is linked in the template. I have also collapsed all of the various categories, many of which resulted in a single player being listed as many as seven or eight times. Instead, we know have a clean run of players of importance. The details of their qualifications can be found by either reviewing the individual articles or by clicking on the various lists icons for passing records, rushing records, All-Americans, etc. This cuts the lenghth of the template substantially while at the same time allowing room to include a broader list of players.Cbl62 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally preferred it the way it was before where I could see why a player was relevant to the template by looking at the template. I also dislike the arbitrary eras of importance. The template now again invites addition of everyone's favorite players in an arbitrary manner. However, I will await feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 12:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which current NFL and Michigan players were eliminated in the conversion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was utility in having subdivisions for each category of award, but the very strong consensus on the College Football WikiProject page was that the old format was way too long and complicated, effectively trying to become an article rather than a template. By moving the detailed discussion of All-Americans, Heisman winners, MVPs etc. to separate articles with links on the template, I think we address those concerns. The new format is much shorter, and if the perception remains that it is still too long, it can be shortened further by getting stricted on who gets listed in the template. As for the three eras, I thought it was helpful to split the players up chronologically for ease of reference. For example, if someone is interested only in the modern era, they can look only at the last group and not get bogged down in player from 60 or 100 years ago. Far from being arbitrary, I tried to come up with time periods that made sense and resulted in rougly equal divisio of the players. The middle period tracks the years when Bo Schembechle was coach. The remaining two sections are the pre-Bo and post-Bo periods. I only eliminated the lesser players, but if there is someone who you think has been inappropriately dropped let me know.Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused on which players were added and which were removed. Did you add all type 4 A-As? At first glance I see a few missing. It seems some marginal guys who never fell under any of the previous categories are still in. Some active players like Askew are not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mallett

I doubt he will ever play another game as a Wolverine, should we remove him yet? michfan2123 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard rumors but was't sure how solid. I'll take him off for now.Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he may go with a passing/running play platoon.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare other templates

I've looked at other sports teaem template, and don't find any others with multiple subcategories of important figures. All seem to go with a single "important figures" section. See

. I think this supports the revamping. The one thing I did different was to divide into three time periods as noted in prior section. Frankly, our template still has way more people than the others, and we should probably try to prune it further.Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the length and format of other important figure sections. I still prefer to know why a player is important by merely looking at the template, however. I think college football may have different concerns than pro baseball with respect to important figures. What do you think about a separate template with three sections (Active NFLers, NFL practice squad and All-Big Ten)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubly hidden format

I find the template less useful with the doubly hidden format. Does anyone else agree?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

For quite some time, there's been a consensus that the template was bloated and needed trimming. I decided to be bold and give it a shot. The "Important Figures" section is the easiest pick for removal, as it is too subjective IMO. I also dropped the "Playing Fields" and "Big Ten Championships" as the groupings that I thought could most easily be lost. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]