Talk:2006–07 NCAA football bowl games

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

I have fixed the page and put the BCS games and non-BCS games in chronological order by date and time according to the NCAAfootball.net web pages, as well as placing TV networks and other changes. NoseNuggets 5:20 PM US EDT July 1 2006.

End of season[edit]

I think it is more proper to say that the season ends with the National Championship Game, not the Hula Bowl. I consider the three "all-star" games to be post-seasonal play. I propose we say in the intro that the season ends with the national championship game, and then to mention that the season is followed by 3 additional all-star games. Johntex\talk 21:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

As of 2006, there are six all-star games. We have done this in the 2005-06 NCAA bowl games article. NoseNuggets 8:25 PM US EST Dec 3 2006

Mistake?[edit]

The page has both the Capital One bowl and the Outback Bowl being BigTen #2 vs. SEC #2, is that right? Papercrab 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should Be Big Ten #1 vs. SEC. #1. BTW, no matter what happens from here on out, Ohio State will play January 8th, and because of that, the Rose Bowl will get the BCS at-large bid. NoseNuggets 7:38 PM US EDT Nov 19 2006.


When I first read the table stating which teams had bowl tie-ins, I was confused on the fact that it had some teams showing up twice for different bowl games!!! For example: The conference champion of the SEC ALWAYS plays in the Sugar Bowl, unless of course they qualify for the BCS National Championship. On the table, it was correct in stating that the SEC does host the Sugar Bowl. However, under the Capital One Bowl, it shows SEC#1 as the host. I could just be reading it wrong though. Also, I'm confused as well on when the table says that the PAC-10 #2 plays in both the Holiday Bowl, and the Sun Bowl. 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bowl games[edit]

This is an encyclopedia with true facts. The Bowl game page should be updated when teams ACCEPT bowl bids, not when they are "IN TALKS"

The Los Angeles Times reported this morning (Dec. 3) that the BCS bowls were decided before the actual announcements on their website. In addition, most bids were handed out throughout the afternoon as a result. NoseNuggets 8:23 PM US EST Dec 3 2006.

ACC Bowl bids[edit]

Virginia Tech's AD, Jim Weaver, announced on our coaches' call-in show that the FSU and Miami bids are conditioned on Virginia Tech being released by the BCS. I found an article mentioning this and have linked it. If the Rose Bowl decides on a rematch between Notre Dame and one of (USC/Michigan), then Virginia Tech would possibly be in the Sugar Bowl. He is hopeful that the rematch will happen, but honestly, I think that's wishful thinking on his part. Still, though, as of right now, FSU and Miami have been "conditionally invited", so I have added a note reflecting that. Obviously, we don't want random speculation, guesses, predictions, or indications that the parties have just been talking, but I'll leave it up to others here if "conditionally invited" teams should be removed completely. I think that displaying the team with a footnote is probably the best idea. BigDT 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl links[edit]

Do we want the bowl games to link to the general page for the game or for the specific year? i.e. Fiesta Bowl or 2007 Fiesta Bowl?--NMajdan•talk 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should link to the specific years. They have the most specific information about this year's game. Also, from 2007 Fiesta Bowl, it is very easy to get to Fiesta Bowl if that is what the reader is looking for. Going the oppposite direction is harder. Johntex\talk 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

picture mistake[edit]

the dot in the picture that denotes the site of the BCS's Orange Bowl is incorrectly placed. The game is in Miami, but the dot in the picture seems to be in the Orlando area, the site of the Citrus Bowl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.47.101 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • The dot actually represents the state for the record where BCS games are played. NoseNuggets 9:41 PM US EST Dec 19 2006

How we plan to update the main page for Bowls.[edit]

Following each game, we plan to add a brief recap of the game played and do a complete bowl season in review simular to last year (2005-06). The schedules (which I don't think need to be merged into the article as the chart serves as the schedule) will be updated. NoseNuggets 9:46 PM US EST Dec 19 2006.

Another Charger of note was there.[edit]

Michael Turner, who is a Northern Illinois alumnus, was at the game as well.

Casino17 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math error[edit]

3-1 is .750 NOT .667

Casino17 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No double linking, please[edit]

Please do not create duplicate links in ecah bowl game, as the scores serve as the links to the teams. Also, list winning team scores first, the site and the payout for each conference (or school) as they were deleted when edits were made. NoseNuggets 1:50 PM US EST Dec 30 2006.

Times/Network[edit]

Do you think Kickoff times and/or network coverage would be in line for addition for the remainder of the bowl games? For continuity purposes, would times/networks be in line for the already-played bowl games as well? The freddinator 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I would like to see some discussion about whether the sponsor names should be included in the bowl titles. I see there options:

  1. Inculde the sponsor name on every bowl
  2. Never include the sponsor name on the bowl unless there is no other way to refer to the bowl (E.g. GMAC Bowl since it has no other name)
  3. Include the sponsor name as above and also when the sponsor name is inextricably linked with the bowl (E.g. possibly the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl since they have sponsored that bowl since its creation).
  • Personally, I favor option 2. One of the guidelines in the Manual of Style is to refer to things by their most common names. Most people would not refer to the AT&T Cotton Bowl, they would just call it the Cotton Bowl. Same with the Rose Bowl presented by citi vs. Rose Bowl. Option 2 is the most consistent with our policies. Option 1 is like doing back-flips to call things by awkward names. Option 3 is too subjective. Option 2 seems to be "just right" and it is our best choice. Johntex\talk 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if you read further down, you'll note that:

Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves.

All of these bowl games, while not "persons", use the name of the sponsor in their official title for the year. Thus, it may be the Rose Bowl Game in general, but it for the year 2007, it was the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi. Similarly, the Fiesta Bowl refers to the game in general, but the 2007 incarnation was the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, just like in 1995 it was the IBM OS/2 Warp Fiesta Bowl. While placing the year may be duplicative, the name of the sponsor for the year is decidedly not. Calwatch 07:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am attracted to option 2 because I grow weary of the corporate sponsorships and name changes, we should probably follow the lead of the NCAA and use the sponsor name. If you take a look at pages 268-271 of the Official 2006 NCAA Divisions I-A and II-A Football Records Book you will see that the NCAA is using the sponsorhsip name in the title of the bowl game in its current record keeping. From an historic perspective, they use the more generic name. In short, I agree with Calwatch - use the sponsor name when identifying a bowl game for a particular year, but use the more generic name when talking about the series of games.--Tlmclain | Talk 13:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sponsor name should never be in the article name, except for GMAC Bowl types. It should be the bold full name of the first sentence though. So 2007 Rose Bowl is fine, not 2007 Rose Bowl presented by Citi, though that should be the first line in 2007 Rose Bowl. Further, we could/should create redirects of 2007 Rose Bowl presented by Citi as a redirect to 2007 Rose Bowl. Using it in templates like the CFB Coaching by year it should just be Rose Bowl (or Rose), not the full name. That level of information about the sponsor should only be on the article it is used on. We don't need to read "Texas played in the 2005 Rose Bowl presented by Citi" -- it's an article about Texas, not the Rose Bowl. It should also only be preferred to the full name one time - the first time - in the article. The the first line has "2005 Rose Bowl presented by Citi" but then after that it's just "Rose Bowl". --MECU≈talk 13:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point about games like "Rose Bowl presented by Citi" - those should simply be 20XX Rose Bowl. However, where the corporate sponsor has actually inserted its name into the title of the game, like Alstate Sugar Bowl or AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, I think we have to refer to those as the 20XX Alstate Sugar Bowl or the 20XX AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic. Personally, I don't like it one bit, but I think those are the correct names of the bowls.--Tlmclain | Talk 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets do the same as Sportscenter and USA Today Headlines: Option 2. Unless they pony up the money like Chick-fil-A did for the Peach Bowl, its still the Peach Bowl. Lets not get too wrapped up in formalities. When someone Google searches for Boise State's comback win. They will search "Boise State 2007 Fiesta Bowl", Not Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.CJC47 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I disagree. It the article name should just be "20XX Cotton Bowl" and the first line: "The 20XX AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic ..." If anything, a redirect of "20XX AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic" article should point to "20XX Cotton Bowl". Sponsors will come and go, the game name will not. GMAC Bowl types excluded. Why do we have to refer to them as such? If it is decided the other way against me, then "20XX Cotton Bowl" should be redirected to whatever name is decided upon. But for useability and ease of remberance, if I'm working on a coach page and putting in their bowl games, I'm not going to remember 2006 AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic, I'm going to remember 2006 Cotton Bowl. --MECU≈talk 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are talking - I wasn't considering redirects. I would be in favor of naming it the "20XX Cotton Bowl" and making "20XX AT&T Cotton Bowl Classic" the redirect. That will work in most cases. One exception that I can think of is the "Peach Bowl" which has had "Peach" completely dropped from its name (now its the Chick-fil-A Bowl). There, "20XX Chick fil-A Bowl" would be the article and "20XX Peach Bowl" would be the redirect.--Tlmclain | Talk 15:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Fiesta Bowl has been sponsored by Frito Lay since 1994 IIRC. Besides, I only use the game name (with sponsorship) in the story. ~~ 7:22 US EST Jan 1 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoseNuggets (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think that based on our Manual of Style, we use the official name of the bowl on first reference for articles about the bowl and college football wrap-up articles. For team name articles, the official name or a commonly recognized short name is acceptable. The short name should be used on all further references. Calwatch 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"other prestigious games"?[edit]

By what measures are the Holiday and Chick-fil-A Bowls considered "prestigious?"

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006–07 NCAA football bowl games. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006–07_NCAA_football_bowl_games&oldid=1196493179"