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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I don't think there is any principled reason to sort tied teams by poll ranking. It raises endless questions about which poll to use and whatnot. I think it should be sorted by: 1. league record 2. overall record 3. alphabetize. For actual ties that get broken under the rules (i.e., for division representative in the league title game), I would argue for an exception in deference to an actual broken tie. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Making the order contingent on the rankings means that the order has to be rearranged on Sunday when the new poll results come out, even if you can agree on which poll to use. I do not think that is a good practice. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
