336:
for about 70 years now. If we are looking toward a historical stand point, in my opinion, it would make more since to use the AP. As for BCS selection, it is really irrelevant to the SEC standings now. Obviously
Alabama and Florida will go to a BCS bowl and the other teams will not. Just makes more since to me to use something that is relevant to all 12 teams, rather than just two. Its only a week though, so either way doesn't really matter to me.
84:
22:
74:
53:
211:) it automatically bolds that teams name, making it appear that Arkansas was bowl eligible if the current key is used. Also, majority of the CFB project has concluded that it isn't necessary to denote bowl eligibility since you can simply look at their record and know that if they have 6 wins or more.
263:
I see what you are saying, but at the same time someone viewing the table that may not be familiar with how bowl eligibility works may not know that a team is or isn't eligible because they have 6 or more wins. Not to mention there are teams that can have six wins and not be bowl eligible due to NCAA
335:
The AP Poll is generally used as the poll of record used in
College Football. Different pages use different polls, I know several use the Coaches and some use AP, but I have never been aware of any certain standard. I don't see why the Coaches Poll should be used now, while the AP Poll has been used
304:
The ranking needs to be changed to one of the polls, because the BCS does not come out after the bowl games, hence no final ranking. The BCS ranking is irrelevant after the BCS bowl selections. This template is being used on pages that will show historic information and using a ranking that does not
350:
Yeah it doesn't really matter to me either. I do know that most of the CFB templates, like the team schedules and whatnot, default to the coaches poll. I believe they decided it that way because the AP is no longer used as part of the BCS poll criteria and the coaches is, thus, giving more credence
240:
I'm just speaking based encounters with other CFB project editors and most i've seen have agreed that it isn't needed. It's not that it isn't notable, it's that you can already see who is bowl eligible using the information already on the template (their record, 6 wins). Also, it wasn't specially
320:
You are correct in your reasoning, but should probably just wait until after the BCS selection next weekend. Also, i believe that the coaches poll is the poll agreed upon by the CFB project and was used in past seasons
278:
That's a good point, but it would probably be easier/cleaner to just put a special notation on the team that is on probation or whatever rather than a notation on all 6+ win teams.
140:
448:
130:
453:
106:
443:
186:
226:
Not doubting you, but do you have a link to a discussion on bowl eligibility not being notable? I'm a member of the CFB project and have never seen that.
97:
58:
246:
242:
208:
365:
I agree with you with the standardization of the conference standings templates. I'll even go in and change/update the rest of them myself.
351:
to the coaches poll. All i know is that whatever is used, it'd be nice to use the same thing on all the conference templates.
33:
392:
428:
413:
374:
360:
345:
330:
314:
287:
273:
258:
235:
220:
197:
185:
For those interested, please see the discussion here related to standardizing conference standings templates:
39:
187:
Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project
89:
21:
105:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
419:
I think the score is fine as is. No real need to do anything else than list the score in my opinion.
399:
356:
326:
283:
254:
216:
193:
207:
Bold should not be used on these templates because when you view it from a teams page (such as
406:
102:
424:
370:
341:
310:
269:
231:
83:
437:
352:
322:
279:
250:
212:
189:
158:
420:
395:
has been played, should we highlight, bold, etc. to show
Florida won the SEC?
366:
337:
306:
265:
227:
79:
73:
52:
264:
probation restrictions. Just something that needs to be considered.
181:
Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project
15:
161:
for mathematical explanation of the games behind calculation
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
8:
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject College football
305:publish final standings is not acceptable.
47:
19:
449:High-importance college football articles
49:
454:WikiProject College football articles
118:Template:WikiProject College football
7:
444:Stub-Class college football articles
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
241:noted on any previous seasons
1:
375:23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
361:23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
346:23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
331:23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
315:23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
288:23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
274:08:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
259:19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
236:19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
221:14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
429:06:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
414:00:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
177:02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
98:WikiProject College football
198:20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
470:
141:project's importance scale
134:
121:college football articles
67:
46:
169:
90:College football portal
300:Need to change Ranking
28:This article is rated
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
175:
167:
34:content assessment
412:
393:Championship Game
173:
163:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
461:
411:
409:
404:
396:
176:
171:
168:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
112:College football
103:college football
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
59:College football
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
469:
468:
464:
463:
462:
460:
459:
458:
434:
433:
407:
400:
398:
389:
302:
205:
183:
172:
162:
137:High-importance
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
62:High‑importance
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
467:
465:
457:
456:
451:
446:
436:
435:
432:
431:
388:
387:Champion note?
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
301:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
204:
201:
182:
179:
166:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
466:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
442:
441:
439:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
410:
405:
403:
394:
391:Now that the
386:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
319:
318:
317:
316:
312:
308:
299:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
202:
200:
199:
195:
191:
188:
180:
178:
164:
160:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
401:
390:
303:
206:
184:
159:Games behind
156:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
438:Categories
30:Stub-class
353:Ryan2845
323:Ryan2845
280:Ryan2845
251:Ryan2845
249:, etc..
213:Ryan2845
209:Arkansas
190:Ryan2845
174:Roswell
139:on the
402:LATICS
36:scale.
421:Rtr10
408:talk
367:Rtr10
338:Rtr10
307:Rtr10
266:Rtr10
228:Rtr10
425:talk
371:talk
357:talk
342:talk
327:talk
311:talk
284:talk
270:talk
255:talk
247:2006
243:2007
232:talk
217:talk
203:Bold
194:talk
165:DAWG
157:see
131:High
440::
427:)
397:–
373:)
359:)
344:)
329:)
313:)
286:)
272:)
257:)
245:,
234:)
219:)
196:)
170:in
423:(
369:(
355:(
340:(
325:(
309:(
282:(
268:(
253:(
230:(
215:(
192:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
