Jump to content

Talk:2024 College Football Playoff National Championship

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

Sign-Stealing

[edit]

Regarding this edit by Special:Contributions/174.27.77.115: A significant number of sources mention the CFP Championship in the context of the sign stealing scandal. Not having a mention would be a complete oversight and not following the sources. The IP editor's claim that "Just because it has sources, doesn’t make it relevant" is obviously nonsense. What is relevant is determined by following how WP:RS's discuss the game per WP:DUE. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone else added back in the information in a separate form. Taking that, and a lack of other responses, as consensus to include. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by PCN02WPS (talk). Self-nominated at 01:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2024 College Football Playoff National Championship; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Oppose ALT1 or any hook describing the 1948 national championship as "consensus". Cited article states "first outright national championship since 1948" but ALT1 hook changes this to "...consensus...". On the topic of national championships, "consensus" has several meanings. One is agreement between the two wire service polls (AP Poll and Coaches Poll), which the 1997 title fails (AP only). But the 1948 title didn't have agreement between those polls either... the Coaches Poll started in 1950. Another meaning of "consensus", the one used in the NCAA records book, is any national championship after 1950 awarded by one or more of the Big 4 selectors (AP Trophy, Coaches' Trophy, Grantland Rice Award, and MacArthur Bowl). The 1997 title meets that criteria with 3/4 of the selectors; the 1948 title does not (as it is pre-1950). PK-WIKI (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

full review needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: striking the original hook; as we cannot predict the future, we don't know that there will never again be a four-team format championship; all we know is that the plan is that there won't be one next year or going forward a few years at most. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly long enough, new enough (although I should note for posterity that DYKcheck says that this was "promoted to Good Article status on February 6, 2024"). ALT2 is short enough, cited, and interesting, although I should note that the source claims to contain the fact that the team finished the season undefeated 9-0, which should probably be fixed. No neutrality issues found, no valid copyright complaints. I'm not seeing a source for the Bracket or the Scoring summary tables, and there are two end-of-paragraph claims that prima facie lack a cite which I've marked.--Launchballer 00:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I have fixed the 9-0 citation and the cn tag issues. The scoring summary is cited by the "box score" link in the summary box above it and the bracket is a template so I can't add a citation into the bracket itself though as far as I can tell everything in the bracket are cited in prose in the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Let's roll.--Launchballer 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Bruxton (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 College Football Playoff National Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 01:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Review

[edit]

I am happy to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Completed items

Lead

[edit]
Green tickY I checked the lead to see if the lead summarizes the article and each fact is repeated in the body. I see this in the lead "aside from any all-star games afterwards" but there is no mention of all-star games in the article. All other elements of the lead summarize the cited content.
Added info on all-star games at the bottom of "Aftermath". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling/other

[edit]
Green tickY Lead - the word "afterwards" is not used in the US and because this is a US sport and playoff we should use afterward
Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Lead - "Michigan led at the conclusion of the first quarter due to two touchdown rushes" I would prefer rewording, maybe "Michigan led at the conclusion of the first quarter because they had two rushing touchdowns"? or another wording?
Changed to "after two touchdown rushes" - open to other wording suggestions but I think "because they had two rushing touchdowns" is a tad clunky. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Lead - "Washington answered with another field goal" answered seems colloquial. Consider replacing.
Changed to "Washington scored another field goal" - I also changed "ultimately allowing" to "ultimately leading to". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Michigan - "regarding scouting of future opponents." Might be missing "the"
Added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY "35 games in order to scout future opponents" could just say "35 games to scout future opponents"
Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Michigan - "regular season" should this be hyphenated ?
This phrase is nearly always used in the context of college football without the hyphen. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY First half - "over the course of" Occurs twice, might be redundant. Might replace with throughout?
Replaced as suggested. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY First half - "second touchdown in four plays having taken less" how about rewording to "second touchdown in four plays which took less"?
Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY First half - "Following the long rush" maybe "Following the long rushing play"?
I don't think this is particularly unclear, since the play is described in the previous sentence, though I can change it if you think it is confusing. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY First half - "doing so and turned the ball over on downs themselves." maybe "also turned the ball over?" "on downs themselves" seems to be extra here.
Removed "themselves" but I think "on downs" is valuable information here since "turned the ball over" commonly implies an interception or a fumble, rather than a turnover on downs. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY First half - "went three-and-out on their last drive of the half and punted" maybe say they had three plays and the punted on fourth. three-and-out might not be good for non-American football readers.
"Three-and-out" is linked near the end of the first paragraph of this section - it is also used further up when talking about both teams punting (though personally I think the link gives enough context on its own for non-football-familiar readers). I am open to suggestions but I would like to avoid having to explain fully what a 3-and-out is, especially since that isn't done for other football-specific terms. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Second Half - "Washington scored a field goal of their own on their following drive" "of their own" seems too casual.
Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Second Half - "Washington soon after found themselves facing 4th & 13 on the Michigan 30-yard line" the first part of thes ready funny.
Moved "Soon after" to the beginning of the sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Second Half - "was replayed because of an offensive holding call that offset it." I think we can eliminate the last three words
Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Aftermath - "San Francisco 49ers head coach from to 2011 to 2014 and played" Might be an extra word here?
Good catch, removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY You can also go through the article to see if numbers 0-9 are following MOS:SPELL09.
I had a read through and didn't see anything that went against that; I left yardage counts ("1-yard rush", "8-yard pass", etc.) and yard lines for consistency throughout the article (I'd rather have these in numerals than things like "eighty-one-yard rush" spelled out every time). I also think down-and-distance is better displayed with numerals ("4th & 4" instead of "fourth and four") since they are rarely spelled out and more easily readable IMO using numerals. If you see anything that needs to be changed with respect to this guideline that I may have missed let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Thanks for taking this review! Everything above either changed or responded to. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]
  • Green tickY Host selection - Citations check out
  • Green tickY College Football Playoff "The championship game was the tenth in College Football Playoff history" I cannot confirm this with citation 23.
  • Green tickY Teams- Citations check out
  • Green tickY Washington - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Michigan - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Game summary - Citations check out
  • Green tickY First half - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Second half - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Statistics - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Broadcasting - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Commentary teams - Citations check out
  • Green tickY Aftermath - Citations check out

Stable

[edit]
@PCN02WPS: I have one citation related question and then I will do a final check and hopefully pass the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton I replaced that citation with one that says that this game was the tenth CFP championship. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Green tickY The 23 images and logo appear to be properly licensed and free. Bruxton (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Yes
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Yes
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Yes
2c. it contains no original research. Yes
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yes
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes
7. Overall assessment. Good article!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1948 national championship: "consensus" vs. "outright"

[edit]

PK-WIKI, per your latest edit on this article, is there a difference between an "consensus" and "outright". The infobox at 1948 Michigan Wolverines football team says "consensus". College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS lists no other champion besides Michigan for 1948. The term "outright" is most often used with conference championships to denote that the title was not shared by two or more teams. When "outright" is used to described national championships, I think it's meant to denote that the national title was not split between the two major polls, AP and Coaches. Of course, from 1936 to 1949, there was only one major poll, the AP. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion "consensus" is mainly meant to indicate agreement between the AP Poll and Coaches Poll. This is backed up by a quick search on Newspapers.com, where the phrase is barely used prior to about 1965. It was a term meant as an antonym for "split" national championship.
The NCAA records book uses a related but slightly different definition. They have a list of "Consensus National Champions" that includes any/all teams that were selected since 1950 by any of the top tier selectors: AP Poll, Coaches Poll, MacArthur Bowl, Grantland Rice Award, Top 25. The 1950 date again indicates agreement between the polls. I think it would be more accurate to say those are the "consensus selectors", and than 1990 Georgia Tech would be a (not the) consensus national champion, but they did not win a/the consensus national championship.
There are probably modern sources that call 1936–1949 national championships "consensus" by virtue of winning the AP Poll, essentially retroactively applying the prestige of the 1960s+ AP poll back to its humble beginnings as a newspaper column. I don't think these national championships should be called "consensus" without contemporary sources cited using that word. Were the 1939 Texas A&M "consensus" national champions? I would argue definitely not, despite Wikipedia currently listing that. They didn't even win the trophy. 1939 USC topped the Dickinson System ranking and won the preeminent trophy of the day, the Knute Rockne Memorial Trophy.
1997 Michigan won more national championships than 1948 Michigan. They both won the AP Poll. 1997 additionally won the Grantland Rice Award and MacArthur Bowl. Seems kind of silly to call 1948 "consensus" for winning the AP Poll, but 1997 non-consensus for winning the AP Poll and 2 additional major trophies. According to the meaning of the term, neither are "consensus".
PK-WIKI (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every relevant selector listed at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS picked Michigan in 1948, hence "consensus". 1946 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team finished atop the AP poll, but 1946 Army Cadets football team was named national champ by 6 selectors and 1946 Georgia Bulldogs football team by 1 selector, thus there was no consensus champ in 1946. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" is a term or art used to indicate agreement between the two major wire service polls. Ipso facto, any team prior to the 1950 introduction of the UP Poll cannot be a "consensus" national champion.
"Consensus" indicates agreement between the AP/Coaches. The NCAA book additionally adds NFF/FWAA to the term. It indicates nothing about who other selectors chose, or if other schools claim that year.
"Lesser" selectors have no bearing on "consensus" championships post 1950, so I don't see why that would make a distinction between 1946 and 1948. If pre-1950 AP Poll wins would qualify as "consensus", both Note Dame and Michigan would be "consensus" for their respective AP Poll wins regardless of who the Williamson System chose each year.
PK-WIKI (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "consensus" following "ipso facto" above is at odds with what is stated in various articles for national champs, e.g. 1936 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team, 1937 Pittsburgh Panthers football team, 1938 TCU Horned Frogs football team, 1939 Texas A&M Aggies football team, 1941 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team, 1943 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team, 1944 Army Cadets football team, 1945 Army Cadets football team, 1948 Michigan Wolverines football team, 1949 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team, 1909 Yale Bulldogs football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1950 championships are definitely not considered "consensus" national championships by the NCAA records book.
There is a table for consensus national championships, and it's 1950-present. The 1936-1949 AP champions are not in the "consensus" table.
As a result we have not bolded any pre-1950 national champions at College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. There is some discussion of this issue in the Talk page archive there.
PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_College_Football_Playoff_National_Championship&oldid=1242471089"