Talk:Alabama Crimson Tide football/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox

Great work on the page, looks like a great start. Just thought I'd let you know of a new Infobox that was recently created for these types of pages. Please take a look at Template:NCAAFootballSchool (talk links edit), I hope you consider using it as we're hoping it becomes the standard for these pages in the WikiProject. I'd thought I'd let you know about it rather than just replacing it myself. Let me know if you have any questions.--NMajdan•talk 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the template a lot, particularly the expanded version used in the Oklahoma example on the talk page. If it's alright, I'm going to go ahead and replace the infoboxes on this page, as well the Miami and Notre Dame pages with your new template.-PassionoftheDamon 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

National Championship Table

I restored the selectors for Alabama's 1925, 26, 30, 34 and 41 national championship teams. I understand that college football fans and journalists may disagree about these; however, they are listed in the NCAA Records Book and, as such, seem to be a reasonable addition to the quality of this page Akparker 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with listing the claimed championships in 25, 26, 30, 34, and 41. However, as creator of the table, I was using the term 'selector' to refer to AP / Coaches, as listing a myriad of non-wire sources ruins the aesthetics of the table (it horribly distorts the middle field). I'll try it with abbreviations to fix the problem, but I'll confine sources to those listed in the national championship article for internal consistency.-PassionoftheDamon 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale. And you're quite right: the myriad selector listings were not eye-pleasing. Your changes look good.-Akparker 12:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

National Championship Seasons

Added narrative description of each national championship season. Suggest including additional encyclopedic content, such as PF and PA, regular season rankings, etc.Akparker 18:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AU picture

Why does someone want to delete the "aubs eat boogs" picture? It exemplifies the rivalry doesn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.6.244 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The image is unencyclopedic and is also of very low quality. There are better images to convey the rivalry, I'm quite positive. If you feel it should not be deleted, please voice your opinion on the image's deletion nomination page located here.--NMajdan•talk 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I strongly recommend that external links conform to Wikipedia's standards: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article."

The site in question (www.rolltidebama.com) is evidently a fan-based site, and I don't think it belongs here. Sites such as rolltide.com, which is the University's official site, do seem to conform to Wikipedia's standards. Akparker 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. Limit it to quality official web pages. There are hundreds of unofficial web pages of varying quality that people could add there. -Fnlayson 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

'Controversies' section

If we are going to create a section to discuss Alabama's football 'controversies', we need a similar section for EVERY college football entry. I noticed no such section on the Auburn football page, even though the War Tigers lead the SEC in number of major infractions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.83.154 (talk • contribs)

• That's been in this article for a while. I think it's balanced coverage. Similar info not being covered in another similar article may not mean much. Editors don't get paid to write stuff here.. -Fnlayson 03:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The controversies do not need to be removed. Instead, other sections highlighting the program's accomplishments should be added. A solid edition would be a subsection detailing each national championship season (e.g. "1978: Alabama finished the regular season 10-1, winning the SEC championship. The second-ranked Crimson Tide then faced #1 Penn State in the Jan 1, 1979 Sugar Bowl for the national championship. Alabama won the game 14-7. Alabama was subsequently voted # 1 by the final AP Poll on Jan 2, 1979"). Each fact should be sourced.Akparker 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the controversies or infractions of other college teams are not germane to this article. This article is about Alabama football, not Auburn or anyone else.Akparker 18:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies is fine as long as it's accurate, properly sourced and not over-weighted. Ditto for the sucesses. I strongly agree there is no place for controversies of other teams in this article. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 20:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect to the weight of the sanction/scandal section relative to the rest of the article, I'd suggest significantly shortening the Mike Price scandal. Relative to the 112-year scope of Alabama football, it is a relatively minor incident. Akparker 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right; it is too long and far too weighty. It is almost as long as the NCAA infractions section. I'm not sure I would call it a scandal either. The UA acted quickly and was itself generally unharmed in the court of public opinion for their actions. Of course, on the field was a self-evident debacle but that goes in another section I would guess.--JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Price piece, and added a note to cite a source for the lawsuit settlement.Akparker 13:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chick Granning-Darwin Holt incident of 1961 is pretty famous. It involved a huge feud between Bear and Bobby Dodd that sparked Dodd's interest in leaving the SEC. I'm surprised it's not on here. There are several sides to the story, there was a ton of media backlash, and it involved two really famous coaches. You can find references everywhere.--Excaliburhorn 00:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LSU rivalry?

I don't truthfully believe that the LSU games could be classified as a "rivalry." Big games, sure - but not a rivalry. Crassic^(talk) 15:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Alabama's rivals are Auburn and Tennessee. Perhaps LSU considers Alabama a rival, but that's for their page, not Alabama's. Historically, Georgia Tech was a rival. Should that rivalry be added? Akparker 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree. The Bama-LSU games have been important from a BCS standpoint, but not really a rivalry. LSU might think so because of Nick Saban, but I don't think many Alabama fans would say LSU is a rival. Saint777 15:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• You personally might not think it is a rivalry, but many people across the country consider it a rivalry. CH52584 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CH52584 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• It is a big rivalry, although not on the level on Auburn & Tennessee. -Fnlayson 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• How do you define "rivalry"? What are the criteria? Year-before-last, the Arkansas football radio announcer stated that Alabama was Arkansas' arch-rival. Does Arkansas, therefore, need to be listed as well? How about Ga Tech or Sewanee? They were rivals before World War II. Should they be listed too? I wouldn't think so. Akparker 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know of anyone who does consider it a rivalry. I would think that the fans of the respective schools should be the ones to determine if its a rivalry or not. Most SEC teams are rivals to some extent, its just the nature of the conference.Saint777 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Retaining the LSU rivalry gives the impression that it is on the same level of significance as the Auburn and UT rivalries. This is the principal reason I wish to see it removed.Akparker 00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Every team that plays Alabama wants to think that's the big rivalry. It's not true. The only one that really matters to Alabama is Auburn. --Nyxxxx 06:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. The Tennessee rivalry is crucial to Alabama as well.

"Historical Ranking" section ?

This section will no longer be needed with the recent addition of the "Alabama Crimson Tide Football Seasons" to this page.Akparker 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1941 NC Title?

I am just curious, but does the school actually claim the 1941 title when they had two losses to unranked teams? I cannot understand this as the final 1941 AP vote had Alabama ranked #20 (receiving zero 1st place votes). Not to mention the fact Alabama didn't even finish first in the SEC that year as 4 teams had better records. I just find it curious as I have never heard of the "Football Thesaurus" and no other schools on wikipedia list any Football Thesaurus national champion titles (google only turns up mentions on bamapride, etc just listing the championship with no mention on what it is). From what I have seen Minnesota was the consensus champion that year going undefeated and untied (along with two other schools) and garnering 85% of the 1st place AP votes as well as being awarded every other major/recognized title (Helms Athletic Foundation, College Football Researchers Association, National Championship Foundation, etc). BTW, I am not criticizing the school if they do, but find it odd to claim such a "championship" as a football thesaurus title. --otduff ^t/_c 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• That one does seem questionable, but there are other NC not claimed that probably should be instead (5 others). -Fnlayson 22:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about those 5 either to be honest. Again, if you look at the AP votes, they are not anywhere near a consensus #1. 1945 were 3rd with zero 1st place votes, 1962 was 5th place with a single 1st place vote, 1967 were 8th with zero 1st place votes, 1975 were 3rd with only 3 1st place votes. 1977 is the closest as they were 2nd and received 19 votes out of 63. Again, I don't think it is worth claiming but it is the closest to being considered a national champion. Realistically anything after 1934 (when the AP was created) and 1950 (Coaches) is not worthy of claim unless you are voted first by at least 1 of those two - anything else just seems illegitimate. --otduff ^t/_c 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand it either; seems like the 1945 team would've been the one to recognize. I've wondered if there were some historical significance to the 1941 team (e.g., this was the season when Pearl Harbor was attacked).Akparker 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I state above, I'm not sure 1945 is worthy of claiming as they were ranked 3rd in the final AP poll and garnered zero first place votes. Again, it is odd to be considered a national champion when not a single voter at the time considered Bama #1. As for 1941 being a war year, I really don't see how that is relevant to claiming a national championship in football. Besides that, the attack on Pearl Harbor was in December 1941, after Alabama had lost their two games. Of course, if someone finds out why the school claims this, please post as I would like to understand the rationale. --otduff ^t/_c 01:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really understand why exactly they claim that and not some of the five others. As someone has said, maybe there's some significance of the '41 team. Teams typically claimed the AP titles up until 2005 if they were ranked #1, so I don't know why they claim another poll NC. Crassic^(talk) 00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alabama bases several of their NCs off of someone who came in the 80s I believe who decided who deserved the Championships in those earlier years. Basically, this guy decided to come back and rewrite history on his own. I forget his name, but I'll research it. Morte42 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Morte, as the article states some organizations rewarded the championships retroactively. So, I'm not real sure what your motivation is, but it is in the article.~~Irbster2~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbster2 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Bryant years

No mention of all the years before Bryant came along in the "history" section! Ouch! -- LS Shoals (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I got the ball rolling a little bit, but it could still be so much more, so I included an expansion tag. Also, I think there needs to be some info about Georgia Tech in the rivalry section. They don't play anymore but old-timers like myself can remember when this was a HUGE rivalry. Just look at the fight song! -- LS Shoals (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. I think Ga Tech should be mentioned in the History section vs. the Rivalries section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a little more work. I'm not too much of an expert on all this editing so please discuss whether or not it's all OK. I removed the expansion request because the top of the page told me article was getting too long (above the normal kilobyte limit on football team topics) and I removed a lot of the info around the Mike Shula part that to me doesn't seem necessary (it would mention "close losses" which would suffice, but then went on to mention who the losses were to, mentioned Shula's contract, etc.). -- LS Shoals (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article needed more early history and probably has a gap or two to fill in. The length is not too long. 84 kb is fine. See WP:SIZE for info on article length. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to expand/start on the early history but have been a bit sidetracked whenever I get some form of time to work with. If needed, we could always split the history section into a seperate article. Plus, I'm eventually going to start a seperate article for the NFL section. Latics (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bama's 12 National titles

It seems to me that there is nothing that dictates the source of the number of national titles, simply that it be the number that is "generally accepted," not from a specific organization, and it seems to be beyond the scope of the college football wikiproject to dictate which number should be used.

Furthermore, the BCS champion is only guaranteed the USA Today/Coaches national title, not the AP title (see LSU in 2003, who won the Coaches/USA Today Poll, but USC won the AP), so, in that case, LSU did not win a "wire" title.

And please, threatening users with whom you disagree with a vandalism warning is childish, and does not assume good faith. I'd advise you to change your attitude. CH52584 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If he is threatening users, an admin should be alerted to his actions. As for the national championships, if he reads this, the Alabama page recognizes those claimed by the university. Latics (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He posted an "invisible message" (I don't know what it's called) in the article saying if anyone reverts his edit, he'll give them a vandalism warning. I'm not exactly sure what to do to alert an admin, but I've posted a similar message on the college football wikiproject page.CH52584 (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, invisible message/hidden message and changing to listing only the 7 AP/UPI NCs also. User seems to be pushing an agenda. That's also saying there were no national champions before the AP poll started. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I've looked at his contributions and reverted, and referenced, his edit to Minnesota's page. He's not really attacking anyone, he's just really not going about this entire situation the right way. I'll try and keep an eye out on him. Latics (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just received this message from him on my talk page: "I still inexperience at editing so an article that I read earlier had some stuff on Wire counting only. I thought it was tru so I edit it like that. Sorry." It appears the issue is settled.CH52584 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandal Alert

Hello Crimson Tide football editors:

There's an 18 year old kid who has been reverting the number of NCs on the Alabama, Notre Dame and other pages. He claims to be a recruit of USC and other schools. I have responded on his Talk page thus:

Here's your recent edit summary on the ND football page:

..--You WILL get a vandalism warning if you change this. This is WIRE national titles = AP or UPI, please don't change this to "11"...if you disagree, bring it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football-->.

I'm willing to overlook this intrusion - and that's what it is - as a factor of perhaps age and inexperience. But the vandal here is you.

After I saw your illegitimate edit, I made two immediate visits to other pages WP:CFB and USC Trojans Football, a school from whom you have an offer.

Two immediate notes:

a) Nowhere does the WikiProject CFB establish or seek to establish a criterion for pre-BCS national championships. There is no expressed dependence on wire service polls as definitive - which is a good thing, because in case you didn't know there were no wire service polls prior to 1936 - but there were consensus national champions going back to Walter Camp in the early 1900s and even before. USC Trojans Football article claims 11 national championships. Why didn't you revert that? USC has won wire service championships only in 1962, 1972,one of two in 1974, one of two in 1978, one of two in 2003, and 2004. That makes a total of six, with only three undisputed.

So why didn't you go to the USC page and revert their claim of 11? And what will happen if I visit the Michigan page, which also claims a number of pre-wire service championships? Did you revert those and place a vandalism warning there?

This controversy also exists on the Talk page for USC football - here I quote on especially hardworking editor:

Ultimately, there's no way to demonstrably disprove the claim of 11 titles, as there's no determinant universally regarded as "official." It's clear that there were years when USC was selected but that the university itself doesn't recognize as legitimate claimants, and to some extent it's simply a question of what each university recognizes individually.

That is the rule around Wiki FB pages, and I'm perfectly willing to allow USC to claim as many as they can justify, 11 being entirely reasonable.

But so is it for Notre Dame - read the article for the justification.

b) And before you go reverting good faith edits and get a vandal ban - you might want to check

[1]

This is from the NCAA itself. You'll find a lot more than 11 national titles listed.

The only reason that I'm not having you banned for rudeness is, as I said, your youth and inexperience. But proceed cautiously if you wish to be taken seriously in adult company. Sensei48 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for further disruptions from him. Rather than report him to an admin, I'm simply going to alert the football pages at Alabama, Ohio State, and Minnesota about him as well. Cheers! Sensei48 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! CH52584 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Red" Drew's record

I've seen most sources say his record at Alabama was 53–28–7, but I've also seen a few that say 45-28-7, and a couple that say 54-28-7. This article mentions different records in separate places as well. Anyone know the correct total? - LS Shoals (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At rolltide.com, if you count up the results for each of Drew's seasons, it equals 54-28-7. Yet, I've seen lots of sources say just 53 wins. Did he not coach a certain game one season? If anyone is certain, please post. As of now I've listed what the university's official archives states. (54-28-7 plus all the other records of other coaches now adds up correctly to the overall record) - LS Shoals (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

New section?

I'd suggest a short section in this article displaying UA's Academic All-Americans. Please post thoughts. - LS Shoals (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to do it for all sports on the Alabama Crimson Tide article.CH52584 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

another suggestion

On the chart that shows the head coaches and their overall records, would it make sense to remove the third number (ties) from the records of Dubose and subsequent coaches since overtime was adopted in 1996? - LS Shoals (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the zeroes designated for ties after I looked at articles for different teams and they all had their charts this way. Please still discuss though if you don't feel this is necessary. - LS Shoals (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary, but doesn't really matter either way. I suppose it's possible that a tie MIGHT actually happen in the future, if a game goes to 15 overtimes and it's 3 in the morning and no winner has been decided, but we can cross that bridge when (if) we get to it. CH52584 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've looked around Wikipedia as well and it seems to be the consensus that if you had no ties (regardless of year, era, etc.), the zeroes are (should be?) omitted. It just looks better and makes more sense. LS Shoals...I agree with you. - A55h4t (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really needed, but listing all the zero ties makes for a more consistent appearance with the coaches that do have ties. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Football seasons

I have created Alabama Crimson Tide football, 1980–1989. I did this by basically copying the 1970-1979 article and changing all the words. If I get around to it, which I might or might not, I'll do similar for all the other decades that don't have articles.

I wonder if such an approach might not be more suitable for more recent seasons? Do we really need individual articles for each season? Of well over 100? Maybe we would be better served by creating individual articles for each season where they won a conference or national title and organizing the others by decade. Unless we really feel we need a separate article documenting how terrible they were in 2000. Vidor (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just seeing how the season articles have been popping up, we'll likely have individual articles for each season from 1990 to present. For the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s ... we'll use the same format as the 60s, 70s, and now 80s. Unless someone else wants to chime in. That's just my two cents. –  LATICS  talk  20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You asked, "Do we really need individual articles for each season?" I think that's eventually what's going to happen, with each new season getting it's own page, eventually all the seasons will have their own pages unless we come to an agreement that each season page should be deleted once that season is over.CH52584 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Under History's "Notable Games", I listed the 1979 Sugar Bowl. Anyone remember the "Goal Line Stand"? The 1979 Sugar Bowl was even listed by Keith Jackson as his most memorable game, http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/bestbowls.html .Jabam (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I also want to add that this game resulted in a National Championship, according to the AP Poll http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/national_championships/ap_poll.php?year=1970 .Jabam (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What notability does this game have beyond the GLS and the national championship? This game is already mentioned in the summaries of national championship seasons. Speaking as a Bama fan, this was a memorable moment. But remember, we have to write this as a non-biased encyclopedia and not use it to showcase what Bama fans thought were great games. See the message at the top of the page in the edit window. LS Shoals (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Bowl list

Just removed the list of bowls, as I feel it is adequately covered by this article. Don't know how any of you others see it, but it's kind of an unnecessary list. So, if you disagree ... please discuss. Roll Tide. –  LATICS  talk  03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine. Looks like a good move to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

National championship chart

Okay. What would really be the best way to show this chart? I've got a possible tweak on my sandbox of how User:LS Shoals and myself believe it would look better, as the keys/symbols in the chart look award as the years don't align properly. I know I've already replaced the chart last week, combining the conf. championships and nat'l. championships. How do we optimize the chart, I guess? Should we stick with the current one, use the one on my sandbox or possibly do something else—in terms of symbols, colours, etc.? All input appreciated. :) –  LATICS  talk  02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you have it in your sandbox. Looks a lot cleaner, more simple and easier to view. Just my opinion, but since its not a big change I would support going to the newer version you have in your sandbox. Rtr10 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the symbols used in the article now. But sandbox version is OK too. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If need be, I mean, we can always overhaul the chart. I'd just like to have the best possible chart for the page, for easy accessibility (preferring symbols over colours, in the case of the colour blind) as well as just being a decent looking chart with all needed information. –  LATICS  talk  03:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It might just be my computer's settings, but on my screen the years with symbols next to them aren't aligned vertically with the other years on the chart. They're also partially obscured by the lines of the boxes they're within. To me, it's just a matter of - all the years are in alignmed vs. out of alignment but the chart is easier to read (symbols) -- LS Shoals (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just started using Firefox instead of IE and now the chart looks perfectly fine! -- LS Shoals (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

yet another suggestion...

The Crimson Tide is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5] The program began in 1892 and is one of the most successful in the modern era (post World War II) with 513 total victories, a .701 percent winning average.[6]

Should we remove the reference to the team's success in the "modern era"? To me, it just clutters the opening. I realize things changed dramatically around that time; Harvard and Yale and the academies found themselves no longer on top of the college football world, and several teams that were around in college football's early days suddenly weren't around anymore. But pointing this out by mentioning the "modern era" at the expense of not recognizing the entire Alabama body of work doesn't seem worth it.

The team was very successful in the decades before, yet there is no mention of this in the article's first paragraphs. And using their winning percentage of .701 in the post-1945 timespan to explain the team's success doesn't make much sense to me considering that the team's overall winning percentage since the program's inception is higher at .709. And you can safely ascertain that in their 116-year history, the team would have had to do well for a 63 year chunk of that span to be considered one of the all-time greats.

I'd reword it to read along the lines of

The program began in 1892, and is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5]

Thoughts? -- LS Shoals (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest just removing the modern era part. For example:

"The Crimson Tide is one of the most storied and decorated programs in NCAA history, claiming 12 national championships.[1][2][4] The team's seven consensus national championships rank second only to Notre Dame's eight.[5] The program began in 1892 and is one of the most successful, winning over 70% of its games since."

Something like that anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vacated wins

With the NCAA handing down penalties today having Alabama vacate wins in 2005, 2006, and 2007, it looks like a number of things in the lead need to be modified. I think we need to wait until the actual games vacated are published before we make any changes to the article itself, but we probably need to keep up with what all needs to be changed once that happens:

• "Over the program's 112 year history, Alabama has amassed the seventh most victories in Division I with 799, for a sixth best .709 winning percentage." - Will change to "eighth most victories in Division I with 778, for an eighth best .690 winning percentage."

• "Other NCAA records include eight perfect, undefeated and untied, seasons, 21 10-game win streaks, and is only second to the Oklahoma Sooners with 29 10–win seasons." - Will change to "20 10-game win streaks, and is only second to the Oklahoma Sooners with 28 10–win seasons"

• "Against current SEC programs, Alabama holds a winning record against every team." - Will change to "Against current SEC programs, Alabama holds a winning record against every team except Arkansas."

That's what I saw off of the top of my head for changes we will need to make to the lead. It will probably be somewhat confusing trying to update all of the articles that will need to be updated to reflect these changes. --Lissoy (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement about Arkansas will not need to be changed. Bama is 11-8 against Arkansas. Take away the wins in 2005 and 2007, and it's still 9-8. CH52584 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the winning percentage needs to reflect that these wins were vacated, NOT forfeited. They don't count as either a win or a loss, and thus I am not sure if the actual game itself counts in the denominator when determining the overall winning percentage. Might want to check on that. CH52584 (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that vacated wins do count as losses for the vacating team, but don't affect the opposing team's records as forfeits do. This article explains the way I understood vacated wins vs. forfeits fairly well. If this understanding is correct, it would mean that Arkansas and Alabama would both have losing records against one another, so one could say that no SEC team has a winning record against Alabama, but not that Alabama has a winning record against all SEC teams. I'd like to see some clarification from an official source before we come to any conclusions. --Lissoy (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you re-check your link, the author has an update at the end, as there is some discussion in the blog below on that exact point. And according to this article, which quotes the NCAA Committee on Infractions chairman, Paul Dee, Alabama's record from 2005, 2006, and 2007 is now 0-2, 0-7, and 2-6, respectively, while the records of the opponents don't change. CH52584 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it ever decided what needs to be done? The lead and infobox are still written as if the wins were never vacated, but the head coaching chart does. Once it's decided, a little footnote should be added next to the records that would scroll down to an explanation about the '93 forfeited games and the '05-'07 vacated wins. LS Shoals (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Must have been put on hold when Alabama appealed that. Probably should wait until that is over so things don't have to be fixed back. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So should Shula and Saban's official records on the chart be restored back to their on-the-field records until everything is settled? LS Shoals (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, it appears that the appeal is at or near the final stages. Hopefully, it should sort itself out soon. :) –  LATICS  talk  05:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited all the records on the page so that they match. The posts above are correct, in that the NCAA has ruled to vacate the wins, but hasn't officially done so yet, since the appeal has been pending. LS Shoals (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Others feel that the controversy section, moe notably NCAA sanctions does not need headers. I disagree as there is more than one instance of NCAA violations. Thoughts?216.54.205.2 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a non-issue, not really deserving of a header. No major penalties were handed down and there is really no effect on the past, present, or future of the program, except in the record books. CH52584 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ANY ONE KNOW WHY?

HELLO, Can any one tell me why / AND HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE BIG AL elephant? and why we say roll tide what does it have to do with ALabama? got FRIEND ASKING ME ? I would like to know more myself as well.any one know please e-mail ...

mustangteddybear@yahoo.com

Thanks Vanessa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.250.115.137 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to rolltide.com and find Elephant Story under the Tradition toolbar or use search box. Try some google searches in the future. This is page is for improving the article and is not a discussion forum (see WP:TP for more). -Fnlayson (talk)

2010 Season

I believe the Duke game is at Duke's alternate site due to Wallace Wade Stadium being the smaller venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Duke even have an "alternate site"? If they do I'll look into this and fix if necessary. LS Shoals (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

10 game win streaks and 10-win seasons

This kept getting changed. Here are the stats:

10-game win streaks = 22 21

1. '19-'20 - 11
2. '24-'26 - 20
3. '30-'31 - 13
4. '33-'34 - 14
5. '36-'37 - 14
6. '45-'46 - 14
7. '61-'62 - 19
8. '63-'64 - 12
9. '65-'66 - 17
10. '71 - 11
11. '72 - 10
12. '73 - 11
13. '74 - 11
14. '75 - 11
15. '77-'78 - 12
16. '78-'80 - 28
17. '85-'86 - 10
18. '88-'89 - 12
19. '91-'93 - 28 (23 if you take away 5 forfeits from beginning of '93 season)
20. '93-'94 - 12
21. '05 - 10 (this one will not count if the appeal is unsuccessful)
22. '07-'08 - 13

10-win seasons = 29

1. 1920: 10-1
2. 1925: 10-0
3. 1930: 10-0
4. 1934: 10-0
5. 1945: 10-0
6. 1952: 10-2
7. 1961: 11-0
8. 1962: 10-1
9. 1964: 10-1
10. 1966: 11-0
11. 1971: 11-1
12. 1972: 10-2
13. 1973: 11-1
14. 1974: 11-1
15. 1975: 11-1
16. 1977: 11-1
17. 1978: 11-1
18. 1979: 12-0
19. 1980: 10-2
20. 1986: 10-3
21. 1989: 10-2
22. 1991: 11-1
23. 1992: 13-0
24. 1993: 10-2-1* (this one does not count because of the forfeits)
25. 1994: 12-1
26. 1996: 10-3
27. 1999: 10-3
28. 2002: 10-3
29. 2005: 10-2 (this one will not count if the appeal is unsuccessful)
30. 2008: 12-2

LS Shoals (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alabama only had a 9-game winning streak in 2005. – Latics ^Talk! 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good eye. I was looking at it as if it was a 12-game regular season. I kept wondering how I got 22 when it was originally listed at 21. Either way, someone kept changing this number to 29, and I just wanted to show that it wasn't quite that many. LS Shoals (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you putting All-Time 10 win seasons on Alabama football page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamaboy929292 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's there in the lead. LS Shoals (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated to 22 & 30 after win today. - LS Shoals (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alabama Crimson Tide football/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I update the the class to a B Class. It still needs some work, but is a pretty good articles. Main thing is it doesn't really have a history section, it's mostly just tables and list of people. It needs more actual information. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

G.H./M.H. Harvey

Who coached Alabama in 1901? There seems to be several conflicting sources. Some say that it was an M.H. Harvey, who had previously played for Auburn the previous season. Others say it was G.H. Harvey, who had previously coached Auburn in 1893. When the Aflac Trivia Question aired during the CBS broadcast of the Iron Bowl last week (saying G.H. coached both Alabama and Auburn), my most knowledgeable friends all stood up in disbelief swearing that this was wrong. I know this isn't enough to use as verification so I went to rolltide.com

From the archives of the university's official athletics site, here is a scan of a document from 1901 about the team: [2]. I think this is about as reliable as it gets, and it should be changed back to "M.H." on the page. LS Shoals (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1902 head coach

According to the 2009 Media Guide, both Eli Abbott and James O. Heyworth were head coach during the 1902 season. However, I'm not sure who is credited with which win(s). Does anyone have some clue to help me figure it out? – Latics (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently reading the 1902 season recap for clarity... – Latics (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that he was co-head coach, but I suppose the university only credits Abbott with the records. Unless someone else has information otherwise, I guess it's all fine after all. – Latics (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review Edits

Most of the recent peer review edits are fine in my opinion. However removal of the championship table and listing of national championship seasons I disagree with. This info is of high importance to Alabama's football tradition and having a large, detail section on the national championships makes sense to me. This is also consistent with how other teams discuss their championships in their main articles.

If a seperate article on Alabama's national championship seasons were ever to be created, the detailed info could be placed there and the article referenced in a condensed section on the main page.

Until then I think the detailed info on the main article is fine. This section of the article will not undergo alot of yearly churn either. 24.126.172.165 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fairness And Wiki NCAA Death Penalty Article

Hello Crimson Tide Editors -

I'm stopping by here because I question whether Alabama has been fairly represented on the Wiki page Death Penalty (NCAA). As we all know, the only CFB program to suffer this penalty was SMU - but the Wiki article lists UA as a "near-death" situation, and I don't believe that either the facts of the case or the sources provided justify that assertion. In fact, one of the sources cited here[3] actually states that

The university has really done everything we expect an institution to do when they're investigating violations of NCAA rules, said infractions committee chairman David Swank, adding that he couldn't recall a similar case where a school received no sanctions. They reported it, they investigated it, and they took corrective actions.

... and that's from AthensOnline, as in Athens, GA - not your best locale for objective observations about UA. I'd go in and do something about the article myself, but my knowledge of the real facts is limited and I have my hands full with other projects here, including keeping vandalism off of the Notre Dame football page. That's my alma mater - but I hate to see any legendary CFB program unjustly maligned, which I believe that the current death penalty article does to Alabama. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone FIX the first paragraph!!!!

There have been some ridiculous (although i must admit -- hilarious) changes made to the first paragraph. Someone fix all the changes!!! This is my team...has been for 28 years...we deserve to have this page displayed correctly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.57.170 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was probably vandalism and has been reverted. -fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nav box standardization

A rigid standardization of football team nav box templates is being discussed at College football Wikiproject. Editors pursuing this standardization have already significantly altered the Alabama football navbox, and you may wish to review those changes and add your input. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• As long as they don't mess with tradition. Drmies (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 January 1#File:Alabama Football.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

NCAA's statement

My edit about the NCAA's statement was reverted by fnlayson for what he calls " seemingly incomplete/biased add". Just because something does not reflect well on a school does not mean it is biased. These are not my words but the words of the ruling body. The cited lines were:

When responding to Alabama's unsuccessful appeal, the NCAA Committee on Infractions stated
that Alabama was "serial repeat violator" and has an "abysmal infractions track record" and 
an "extensive recent history of infractions cases unmatched by any other member institution
in the NCAA,"

There is not a lot of difference between the cited source and what I added and this section is specifically about the NCAA. I believe their statements should be entered here.

Should this revision be reinstated?

El Heuro (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You only covered one side of things and imo the coverage gives undue weight. NCAA COIs seem to state things like that after praising the school for its investigation work. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So would not it be more in the spirit of editing to add to it rather than to just take it away, if someone feels that way? I thought we were about bringing the information, not taking away the information. What would a better edit be, that has that important information? I still do not agree with the opinion, if an organization has hall of fame inductees, it is not necessary to counterbalance it with statements of what those inductees did that is not becoming. Kind of ironic that the WP:WEASEL WORDS "seemingly" was used in the reason for the edit. Not that it has direct input on edit reasons, just ironic. El Heuro (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section

I agree that the "controversies" section is overplayed in respect to other NCAA pages. For instance, the page for Oklahoma (which was on probation throughout much of its storied 47-game winning streak in the '50s) makes little mention of that controversy (and later NCAA probations for OU are WORKED INTO the GENERAL narrative). Perhaps a page on NCAA controversies and programs would be better.

In any event this page gives the appearance of harboring "attack edits" (a full section for Mike Price - who never coached a game at Alabama - in a history of a 117-year old program?).

The NCAA issue is certainly played far bigger than historical context should allow. For instance, the "controversies" segment deal with a 15 year period. The program has existed for 117 years. Is that worthy of a stand-alone section with a rambling piece about a coach who never coached a game? Remember, Mike Price is given more space in the Alabama article that coaches such as Wallace Wade and Frank Thomas - who are in the College Football Hall of Fame. Is Mike Price more important in Alabama footbal history than Frank Thomas or Wallace Wade? Only in a hopelessly slanted article - which this is at this point.

This is not balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.14.217 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Then add the information to the Oklahoma article. Just because that article lacks a probation section doesn't change the fact that it happened to Alabama -- LS Shoals (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Other stuff exists, or is omitted as in other articles. Better these problems be covered properly than somebody come by and add inaccurate and incomplete content on it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Without passing judgment on if the material is unbalanced, I object to the blanket removal of this information. If the Sooners or any other article(s) don't have appropriate, balanced, and well-sourced information about their controversies then it needs to be added. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Assuming we agree that a blanket removal of the section is overkill and that the Oklahoma article merits some elaboration about controversies, might we also agree that Alabama's controversies, though well-documented, should be treated here in proportion to larger achievements and notability as suggested by the anonymous editor? --Dystopos (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Shorten the whole section. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Alabama is quite literally the only team page on this site with an entire section devoted to controversies. Not even SMU, the recipients of the harshest sanctions in college football history, have this section.Skeletor59 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Zaqwert and reworking the article

The above user desires to delete three sections of text from the article. I reverted those deletions, assuming good faith, and asked him to bring his thoughts here for community discussion. His deletions and my reverts are noted in the history section. JodyB _talk 12:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say it's more trimming the article than significantly reworking it, I think it's on the verge of suffering from bloat. The three sections in particular are all recent additions and don't really rise to enough notority to warrent their own sections. First the Clinton Dix improper benefits. As of present it's currently a run of the mill secondary violation/suspension story, which every school has in frequent amoutns every year. Unless something bigger comes from it, it's not really worthy of a subsection. Second, including a section on Florida as a rival. The rivals section should probably be limited to chief rivals, otherwise it would get quite large and include almost every conference opponent. Finally the recently introduced "top 10 rivals" table is pretty odd, as the records are not even the most 10 top frequently played opponents and it's reduntant with the series record article and the fact that the all time record against conference opponents are also included in elsewhere in the artilce. But I'll give people a chance to argue if they think they warrant inclusion before removing again. Zaqwert (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. Give people a little time and then move ahead. At the moment I have firm opinion but I will be looking too. JodyB _talk 21:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with Zaqwert on his thoughts about trimming the article back a bit. The "Clinton-Dix improper benefits" section seems to be an excellent example of WP:RECENT and the information better placed as part of the Ha Ha Clinton-Dix and/or the 2013 Alabama Crimson Tide football team articles. Furthermore, in the greater context of Alabama football this controversy falls nowhere near the level of Antonio Langham, Albert Means and Textbookgate that resulted in significant sanctions on the program as a whole. IMO, the rivals should be limited to Tennessee, Auburn, LSU and possibly Ole Miss and Mississippi State. As for Florida, playing in memorable SEC Championship games does not constitute a rivalry by itself. Regarding the "Top 10 rivals" I feel WP:OR is in play. Just being common opponents does not constitute a "rivalry" without additional sourcing and as such should be deleted. Furthermore, if people want to see that type of information, there is a nice article on series records here. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)