Talk:Florida Gators football

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Is it time to wrap up 2007 and make 2008 the "current" season? The section is in need of a major cleanup, but it'd be a waste of time since the 2007 season article has it all covered, anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 spring game has already been played, so might as well change the section to discuss 2008. --WTStoffs (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E2A2J cleaned this up on 16 May 2008, but it was reverted by user:Jccort. Don't know why...

I find it odd when users talk about themselves in the 3rd person on a talk page but don't sign what they wrote, and then an anonymous IP immediately performs the very edit(s) that that user suggested.

Anyway, I (and probably Jccort as well) don't think the section should just be deleted without condensing some info and leaving it in the article. Also, other edits were made that are also inappropriate, imo. I'll take care of it now... Zeng8r (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I upset you, Zebg8r, "Third person" was because I wanted to ID myself, but couldn't recall how to sign. Anonymous IP was because I shifted computers but forgot to log on. No conspiracy or ill intent. I DID try to condense some of what was in the article to the basic facts of the 07 season (which was by no definition "current"). IMO, less complete but "encyclopedic" content is better than poorly written, outdated opinion pieces. Remember,

assume good intent and please do not bite the newcomers! E2a2j (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I just finished expanding the conference championship table into a table that lists every season's final record using this link and this link.

I dunno how to change the colors of cells, but I'm thinking that championships should probably be highlighted rather than just asterisked, and maybe division titles should be so indicated as well. Also, I double checked all the numbers, but feel free to triple & quadruple check, just to be sure. I started to get cross-eyed after a while... Zeng8r (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first team offense not have a quarterback listed? Surely somebody was selected. Monkey Bounce (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Somebody must have removed Spurrier for reasons unknown and nobody noticed... until now. Zeng8r (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gators are 38-47-2 all time against the Bulldogs. Icdfys (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The UGA athletic department claims a 1904 win over one of the University of Florida's four predecessor schools, and adds this win to its 39-47-2 total (through 2009). The historical truth is a bit more complicated. The University of Florida was legally created in 1905 by the Florida Legislature's Buckman Act, which abolished all existing state-supported institutions and caused the merger of the academic programs of four schools in the fall of 1905. The new state university operated on the campus of the former Florida Agricultural College for one school year (1905-1906) while the first buildings on the new Gainesville campus were being built, and the university has operated continuously in Gainesville since September of 1906. The new university sponsored its first intercollegiate sports teams during the 1906-1907 school year.

To emphasize its separate legal existence from its four predecessor institutions, the modern University of Florida was first known as the "University of the State of Florida" from 1905 to 1909, and the name was inevitably shortened to its present form in 1909. (Florida State University was known as "Florida Female College" from 1905 and 1909, and its name was changed to the somewhat more grammatically correct "Florida State College for Women" in 1909. Weirdly, from 1885 to 1903, the Florida Legislature designated West Florida Seminary/Florida State College as the "University of Florida," but there is no evidence that WFS/FSC ever used that name/title.) In contract to its predecessor institutions, the University of Florida's governing body was different, its school colors are different, its mascot is different, its admissions criteria and curriculum were different, and its location was different from any of its four predecessor schools. Most importantly, the new university's legal existence began in 1905 as the result of legislative action that revoked the charters of the university's four predecessors, legally abolished the four predecessors' existence, and consolidated their assets and academic programs in a newly chartered entity.

Bottom line: the all-time Florida-Georgia win-loss record currently stands at 39-46-2 (not 39-47-2), the first official meeting between the schools having occurred in 1915 (not 1904). Thus ends this little history lesson. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great response, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, there is no bigger Gator fan than me, but I have very real misgivings about including the 1984, 1985 and 1990 seasons in the conference championship table. This implies an unreconstructed rebel attitude on the part of the University of Florida, the Gators sports program, the football team and Gator fans. Having heard Jeremy Foley speak on this topic, I know that this does not represent his view or the official view of the UAA. (If you have any doubt, please read the quote from UF President Marshall Criser in his Wikipedia article.)

I lived through those years as a UF undergraduate and grad student, and the Pell-Hall scandals deeply offended my sense of right and wrong, as it did many other alumni and fans. Frankly, 20 years later, most of us are over it----8 SEC and 3 national championships later, we do not need to behave like NCAA scofflaws (leave that to fans of other schools). Let's recognize the best conference records for those years in the article text and/or appropriate footnotes, but let's not imply that those records represent SEC championships; they don't. The program was caught in NCAA major infractions twice (in the case of Pell, one of the worst cases in NCAA history), and the team was ineligible for the SEC championships in 1985 and 1990 as a result; the SEC university presidents took the unprecedented step of vacating the 1984 title and not awarding it to the runner-up. That was quite a statement at the time. Let's not engage in not-so-subtle forms of denial that make every non-Gator reader of this article think the university and its alumni are without honor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come the all-blue alternate jerseys aren't shown? RayJay17 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone should add a section to show Florida win/loss record versus Top Ten opponents

Cuchullain, the first recorded football game involving the Florida Agricultural College took place in 1901. However, contemporary photographs exist of the FAC team from 1898. There are no records of any of the games played before the 1901 Stetson game. Other sources make reference to the early EFS teams, but similarly, there are no surviving athletic records. If you read the early history of FAC/UF/USF as outlined in the Andrew Sledd article, you will get a taste of the mess that was FAC prior to Sledd's arrival in Lake City in 1904. The prior president and half of the faculty were fired in 1903–1904, and fewer than half of the approximately 85 students returned for the fall 1904 term. Attrition rates were similar when the new university moved from Lake City to Gainesville. Sledd and VP James Farr (the volunteer football coach in 1901–1902) actually had to recruit new students and cajole some of the old ones to return. In the aftermath of consolidation, there was no wholesale "transfer" of either the FSC football team or the male student body to the new university in either Lake City or Gainesville. The FSU website history can be best characterized as a "gloss" and the writer making a semi-educated assumption. From the 1905 Lake City team (the first after the Buckman consolidation, which only only played one half of a single game) to the 1906 Gainesville team, there is only name that is found on both rosters: William W. Gibbs. The idea that the former FSC team somehow formed the foundation of the new Florida football program is hagiographic at best. If there were any significant number of former FSC football players in Lake City in 1905, they didn't make the transition to the 1906 Gainesville team.

When I originally wrote the Jack Forsythe article, I used the Kabat FHQ journal article for source material because there is nothing better available about Forsythe's time in Tallahassee. Kabat's article is factually weak, and his own text and stated gap-filling assumptions suggest that (e.g., "Forsythe was probably paid."). Kabat, however, at least had access to some of FSC's sketchy source documents. Record-keeping was so bad that the Clemson, Florida State and Florida athletic departments can't even agree on Forsythe's real first name (see the first footnote in the article). Despite some obvious errors, Tom McEwen (the late Tampa Tribune sports columnist) is considered the best source for the early years of the Florida football program. When McEwen wrote his book in 1974, a handful of the early 1900s players were still alive, and there were others who were younger brothers, family members, younger friends, etc., from whom an oral history of sorts could be reconstructed. But if anyone at FSU would like to assert that the new UF football team was populated with former FSC players, I suggest that you ask for a list of the former FSC players' names. Given the seismic upheavals and relocations that took place between 1904 and 1906, it's really not surprising that there was a near-complete disconnect between the 1904 FSC team and the 1906 UF team. One other point regarding the FSU website "history": the comment regarding the move of the fraternity system is also "incomplete" at best; Alpha Tau Omega and Pi Kappa Alpha, the two oldest UF fraternity chapters, were both founded in Lake City. In fairness, the history on the UF website is pretty damn weak, too. When I wrote the Andrew Sledd, Albert Murphree, James Farr and John Tigert articles, I had copies of all of the books listed in the bibliography, as well as a photocopy of Farr's manuscript UF history that the current university historian Carl Van Ness lent to me, as well as a manuscript biography of Sledd from the Candler School of Theology. When I say the published source materials are sketchy, I mean they are sketchy; I have yet to read one, including Norm Carlson's 2007 book, that doesn't have obvious errors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with replacing sources with better sources; I do have a problem with replacing sources with no sources, or with sources that aren't actually any better. If there are better sources than the FSU website (which I use only because it itself is better than the UF website, and readily available), that's great, but we can't be removing it without changing the material attributed to it. And obviously we shouldn't be making changes based only on our personal knowledge of the subject.

Above you say that "There are no records of any of the games played before the 1901 Stetson game", but in the text you quote McEwan as saying that EFS and FAC "had teams in the late 1890s and early 1900s, and actually played each other on at least one occasion". If his book doesn't actually say this, that material needs to go, since Kabat says baldly that "Florida's first intercollegiate football game" was the game in Jacksonville between Stetson and FAC. Do you mean that EFS and FAC played each other after the FAC-Stetson game? If so the lines should be reworded to make that clear. I am aware that there are photos of an early FAC team - I think my father has a print of one somewhere - but simply having a team (or teams) does not mean that they played intercollegiate games; Kabat says that in the case of Florida State/WFS the school had intramural teams prior to 1902 but they didn't play other schools or teams (I see that I was misreading him somewhat - he says that the early teams were intramural only at Florida State, not at every school).

At any rate it will be best to just lay out what the reliable sources do say. If they agree, awesome, if they disagree, we figure out how to incorporate both. If no sources can be found for a particular item, we leave it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I'm just happy to have someone who's interested in the early years of the program to work on the history and early coaches. Too many of these guys are forgotten footnotes, who arrived in Gainesville with strong resumes and high hopes, and saw their head coaching careers derailed by the absence of reliable athletic scholarship-funding sources and the resulting second-tier of talent until the 1950s. If you're really interested, I'll get another used set of the article's bibliography materials on Ebay/Amazon and send them to you. We could use another Gator football history scholar around here. LOL

In answer to your questions, the one documented FAC-EFS game for which references still exist was played in 1903, and McEwen includes it in his brief records table. With regard to the FSU "history" website's assertion that the former FSC football team, or some significant portion thereof, transferred to the new university, that's flatly contradicted by McEwen's naming of the sole 1905 Lake City player (Gibbs) who was a member of the first Gainesville team in 1906. The Buckman consolidation took place in 1905, but the 1905 team only played one half of one game (it was called at the half with the proto-Gators leading 6-0), and President Sledd subsequently canceled the season because too few of the players were academically eligible. So the 1905 team that would have been the first official team of the new University of the State of Florida is treated in the record books as if it did not exist. If there were one or more FSC players in Lake City after the 1905 consolidation, they didn't make the transition to Gainesville in 1906 for the first official team of the new university.

BTW, for most of the university's first three decades of existence, it treated 1905 as its founding date. This is why the 1906 football team was and continues to be regarded as the first Florida football team (the Gators nickname was not adopted until 1911). The Florida Agricultural College/University of Florida at Lake City was "abolished" (the wording used by the Buckman Act), and the new University of the State of Florida was formed in 1905. Notwithstanding the name similarities, these were two different legal entities, which leads to the confusion of such matters as the first Florida-Georgia game (1904 vs. 1915). If the new university had maintained its original "University of the State of Florida" name and its 1905 founding date, there would probably be far less confusion for UGA fans and other interested football historians. FWIW, about 3/4 of football statisticians accept Florida's argument; about 1/4 accept Georgia's. Notwithstanding the commonalities, FAC/UF and USF/UF were not the same university. Different legal charters, different founding dates, different governing boards. It was a relatively clean break at the 1905 outset, and only became confused by later events. From my corporate legal perspective, it's tough to understand how you could play a game in 1904 when you didn't legally exist until 1905.

As you probably already know, President John Tigert (1929-1947), purportedly tired of standing at the back of the line at regional and national gatherings of university presidents, petitioned the Florida Board of Control and the Attorney General to allow the University of Florida to use its EFS predecessor's 1853 founding date. Thus, the university instantly engrafted another 52 years of history onto its pedigree, and subsequently celebrated its centennial in 1953 (when it was arguably only 48 years old). Not to be left out, FSC/FSU followed suit, by moving its "founding date" back to 1857, and most recently moving it back again to 1851. And while the FSU folks have continued this intellectually malleable game of one-up-man's-ship, the knowledgeable folks in Gainesville are mostly embarrassed by it and choose to ignore it. And, yes, I have followed your on-Wiki back-and-forth with Sirberus with much amusement. As you know, both modern universities were legally founded (or re-founded, if you prefer, in 1905); both of their state-supported predecessors, EFS and WFS, were authorized by the same legislation. Notwithstanding their convoluted pedigrees, the two universities are really "twins." Everything else is a lot of mental masturbation.

You will note that I have tried to carefully draw the distinction in the text between pre-1905 WFS/UF/FSC and post-1905 FFC/FSCW/FSU, and pre-1905 EFS/FAC/UF and post-1905 USF/UF. In order to maintain the factual/historical integrity of these articles, I think we need to maintain these distinctions and include the explanation somewhere. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuchullain, your most recent edits to the "Origins" section look good and can easily be supported by citations to McEwen and other sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yeah, I've learned a lot about the history of Florida's state schools for work recently. I agree that 1905 is the "real" founding date for the modern UF, FSU, and FAMU institutions, but I've learned that you can't say that very loud around the boosters if you don't want to be doused with conventional wisdom. But there were institutions before that that the modern schools trace their origins to, and as such this article (and the corresponding FSU article) is the place to discuss this interesting footnote). And honestly, the distinction between the current schools and their predecessors is largely intellectual and of interest to a very small number of people.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge regarding the FSC football team moving to the university. I was using the word "transfer" in the sense of "moving from one place to another", and it is certainly true that a number of male FSC students did move from FSC to the University (among other places), but the FSU webpage is the only source I've seen that claims the FSC's football team transferred to the University.

On the recent edits: good, I was hoping you'd vet them to make sure the details were right. It would be cool to add a line about the 1905 UF-Lake City team. Man, it's a good thing that one half-game wasn't against Georgia, or we'd still be hearing about it, and there would be even fewer people in the world able to sort it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that "Gators running back Chuck Hunsinger rushed for 2,017 yards in 1948 and 1949", but this just cannot be. In 1972, Nat Moore broke the Florida single-season rushing record with about 840 yards. Perhaps Hunsinger recorded his total over three years rather than two. Cwelgo (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cwelgo, you get a gold star, Gators fan. I checked the 2010 Florida Gator Football Media Guide, and it confirms Hunsinger's career yardage at 2,017, but shows him as being active from 1946 to 1949 (freshmen were NCAA eligible during World War II and immediately after). The original source for the 2,017 yards in his junior and senior seasons was Tom McEwan's 1974 book, and even though the vast majority of yardage was compiled in 1948 and 1949, he still had some positive yardage as a freshman and sophomore. I will fix the text of the article tomorrow, when I can dig out all of my Gators football books. Thanks for being diligent. Any time you want to get actively involved with WikiProject University of Florida, let me know on my contact page. We could always use another hand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the use of the phrase "Bowl Eligible" for the blue shading for each season. Florida has been eligible for bowls a number of times without being invited to a bowl (1986 comes to mind), but those years are not shaded blue. Come to think of it, in the distant past there were no bowl eligibility requirements whatsoever and teams with losing records were sometimes invited (e.g. 1970 William & Mary) so in a sense every team was bowl eligible every year. I suspect the phrase should be "Bowl Team" or "Bowl Invitation", but clearly the conference champion teams were also bowl teams and they are shaded a different color, so I don't know what phrase to suggest. "Non-champion Bowl Team"? Yech. Cwelgo (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned college football editors may want to comment on the navbox TfD here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. The nominating editor wants to delete the University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_31#File:Florida Gators football helmet.gif.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Change the head coach in the table. It still says Randy Shannon and that causes wikipedia to show him as the head coach in other sites. Editing is locked right now. There are too many redundant tables at the end of this article, imo, which makes for difficult reading. Several of them could be combined into the yearly records table, such as bowl games, coaches, final rankings, etc. That would also make it easier to update, since you'd only have to update one or two tables instead of many. I'd do it myself, but wiki-tables are not my forte. Anyone?... --Zeng8r (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I also think that List of Florida Gators football seasons should be merged into this article. ~ Richmond96 t • c 16:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who removed the list of draft choices. First, it was enormous. Second, I'm uncertain it was good content to either to add to this article or create as a stand-alone list. We already have

List of Florida Gators football players

, which includes those former Gators who have played in the NFL. Draft information is included in every individual bio, and it's accurate.

Several of the other recently added tables, such as highest scoring seasons, recruiting class rankings, top ten finishes, etc., border on fancruft. I agree that the final AP Poll rankings should be incorporated into the yearly records table, and it should be reincorporated into the main article. I am not enamored of the current format of the stand-alone season records table; the split of wins, losses and ties into separate columns is rather odd and makes for difficult reading. If either of you would like to set up a sandbox to experiment with a revised season records table, I would be happy to participate.

What we need, and are still missing, is a stand-alone list of Gator All-Americans. All-American lists have become standard WP:CFB articles for all of the major Division I programs. The Gators have 31 consensus All-Americans, and I believe approximately 80 first-team All-Americans. User:Patriarca created a solid template for the Alabama All-Americans, and it would be a good pattern to follow. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew about the separate list of seasons; I started updating and tweaking it here. But as I said, wikitables are not my forte, and it's quite a mess at this point, especially after 1992 when there's supposed to be something in the "division" column. It needs another column for conference records, and it would be nice if it could be sorted by years, final ranking, wins, losses, and ties, imo. Have fun!... --Zeng8r (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zen. I will take a crack at it later this week. To my way of thinking, we need to eliminate the separate columns for wins, losses and ties for both overall records and conference records. This will make the win-loss-tie records more easily read at a glance. There should a column for final poll rankings (AP and coaches), and another for conference finishes. I would like to create a standardized format that we could use for all of the main Gators sports team articles. This is going to take some work. Part of the art of these things is including the essentials without overloading them with trivia. It can be done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda like how the wins and losses are separated so that you (theoretically) could sort the seasons by most and least, etc. I don't know how to do it, but it can be done. Just an idea... --Zeng8r (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just deleted this newly added section for the second time this evening. There is no such thing as a "state championship" in Florida college football. There is, however, the

At a minimum it should be retitled to the Florida Cup. It should also be sourced, which it is currently not. I agree that "State Championship" is inappropriate language since it may mislead the reader into thinking there is a formal state championship for colleges along the lines of those found at the high school level. There is not, particularly now that Florida has 7 division 1 FBS teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a quote from a creator of the Florida Cup taken from http://miami.scout.com/2/60229.html

I think calling it a state championship is ok since it now has a reference to a quote from a creator that calls it the state championship and it does say "State Football Champions" on the trophy. Theworm777 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Florida Cup only gives the concept of a Florida "state championship" in college football a semi-official status only since 2002. Pre-2002, there was no such status, and beating the two in-state rivals was simply about bragging rights—nothing more. It is simply factually incorrect to refer to a "state championship" from 1938 when Florida and Miami began to play, or from 1958 when Florida and Florida State began to play. It is not the place of Wikipedia articles to invent accolades to award to college football teams. The Florida Gators football team has won eight SEC and three national championships on the field; none of those titles were shared because of identical conference records or split poll results, or were bogus retroactively awarded computer "championships" like other CFB programs claim.

I hate it like the dickens when editors add meaningless fancruft like this to college sports articles because it implies that things like "state championships" actually have an official status and meaning, when they do not. We should always strive for accuracy in our articles. We should not include trivia or sports fan puffery; this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog for overwrought sports fans to claim bragging rights. If UF's University Athletic Association does not claim these so-called "state championships" in its annual football media guide, I think that speaks pretty darn loudly as to what its official position is. Bottom line: Florida has won real conference and national championships, and over-eager editors do not need to claim these invented "state championships" on its behalf. Please show me an authoritative source, preferably an official one, not a sports column or blog, that states that the Gators won "state championships" in football in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1982, 1983 and 1985. If no one can provide an authoritative source or sources for those "championships," then this cruft needs to be removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if the person who did state championship section can not show a good reference for everything before 2002 it has to be removed because its not

verifiable. Theworm777 (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Support retitling the section Florida Cup and limiting it to the years when the cup was actually awarded. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I say kill the whole section unless someone can show the "Florida Cup", "state championship", or whatever is really noteworthy to the subject of this article.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google news search turned up a far greater number of articles on amateur rugby, soccer, and baseball tournaments named "Florida Cup" than the football trophy. And from a similar google news search, I can't find any official "state champion" award prior to 2002. So, it's not encyclopedic, not supported by verifiable third-party references, and even its notability is questionable. I'd say dump the entire section, and maybe even the entire Florida Cup article (though this isn't the venue for that particular discussion). -Jhortman (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through this discussion, I have to agree with Dirtlawyer1 that the entire section should be burned with fire. The whole thing is really not worth noting, and remember that a few years ago, the the second highest ranked team in the state was

gilding the lily. Horologium (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

A Florida Cup refers to when Florida, Florida State or Miami beat the other two teams in the same season. Beginning in 2002, the Florida Sports Foundation, the official sports promotion and development organization of the State of Florida, has presented the winner of the series with The Florida Cup (trophy), symbolizing the Florida college football champion. Florida was awarded with the Florida Cup trophy in 2008 after beating Florida State 45-15 and Miami 26-3. The cup has only been awarded 6 times, since Florida and Miami don't play every season only Florida State could win it any season if they win both games vs Florida and Miami. FSU won 2 cups in 2010 and 2011. Miami won the first 3 Florida Cups from 2002 to 2004 [1]

This is what i think it should be change to.Theworm777 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits involving the 1984 championship and similar (eg these) need to be discussed and vetted on the talk page before they can be included. Several of the claims are wrong on their face. We can't say without comment that Florida "won" the 1984 SEC and national championships, let alone the 1985 and 1990 titles. As Dirtlawyer points out, the 1984 SEC title was voided following a scandal, and they were ineligible going in to the other two years. Nor can we say they "claim" these honors, since they don't. A case could be made that they're significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, but we're going to have to hear it here first. Do independent sources on the Gators football team usually include them along with the actual titles? Sources from the university clearly avoid them.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Since UF doesn't claim the titles, they should be mentioned in the history section, but should not be included in the lead or the infobox. Heck, even when Spurrier stood up for his 1990 team and asked for some recognition in Florida Field, the wall said "1st in the SEC" and was listed separately from official conference titles. But it was all painted over when he left, partially because the university never really "claimed" them and partially to make room for more championships.

Anyway, I'm with Cúchullain and Dirtlawyer on this and the Florida Cup issues. This isn't a Gator board; it's an impartial encyclopedia that requires objective and well-sourced facts. School pride must be tempered accordingly. --Zeng8r (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All are valid points. I do think it should be mentioned in the information box that we were awarded the 1984 national title by numerous publications and polls. The rest of the article will show why it is awarded, but not claimed. The 1984 Gators were one of the greatest teams ever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gators1906 (talk • contribs)

I have revised the text of the "National championships" section to explain the Gators' national championships history in greater detail. The 1996, 2006 and 2008 Gators were ranked No. 1 in both major polls, and were the recognized consensus national champions after winning the designated national championship game in each of those seasons. The 1984 Gators were ranked No. 3 and No. 5 in the two major polls, but were ranked No. 1 by several other minor selectors----by no means a consensus national championship in the era before the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance and Bowl Championship Series championship games existed. The 1985 Gators were ranked No. 5 in the AP Poll, were ineligible to be ranked in the Coaches Poll because of NCAA probation, and were ranked No. 1 by one very obscure selector. That's the complete history. Frankly, the 1984 Gators were a great team, but they weren't ranked No. 1 in either of the major media polls that were generally used to determine consensus national champions in that era. Ditto for the 1985 Gators.

I believe that this issue has now been fully addressed in the revised text, in a manner that also respects the UAA's decision not to "claim" national championships in either 1984 or 1985. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently asserts that "the 1928 Gators set a new national scoring record of 336 points." There is no in-line citation for this record, and it appears to be inaccurate. Michigan had exceeded that point total five times in 1901 (550 points), 1902 (644 [points), 1903 (565 points), 1904 (567 [points), and 1905 (495 points). Vanderbilt had also exceeded it in 1915 (513 points), 1912 (391 points), and 1904 (452 points). See also Texas in 1914 (358 points) and Cornell in 1921 (392 points). Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl, I've got at least one published source that states the Gators were the highest-scoring CFB team of 1928 – Tom McEwen, The Gators: A Story of Florida Football, The Strode Publishers, Huntsville, Alabama, p. 97 (1974). That seems to be verified by contemporary newspaper accounts. I have spot-checked the powerhouse programs for 1928, including the mythical national champions Georgia Tech (221) and USC (267), and have found none that scored more than 267 points that year (Alabama 187, Arkansas 251, Army 215, Boston College 263, Illinois 145, LSU 180, Michigan 36, Nebraska 144, Notre Dame 99, Ohio State 135, Oklahoma 120, Oregon 234, Pitt 177, Tennessee 249, Texas 122, Vanderbilt 152, Wisconsin 163). So the claim of being the 1928 national scoring leader appears to be credible. What I can't find is any source that supports this was a "new national scoring record," and a CFDW spot check of your evidence verifies there were several previous teams who scored more than 336 points. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with them being high scoring team of 1928. Only concern is with assertion of "new national scoring record". Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've already changed the disputed text to reflect the sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP user has been making

Please note that there was other alleged "controversy" material that has been deleted. Most, if not all of it was already covered elsewhere, and I will leave it to you to review the diffs in the article history. Thanks for your always reasonable input. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Seems some here who have bias towards UF are spending all their time making sure facts are covered up or conveyed in a non-neutral way. Whether the NCAA sanctioned UF is of no consequence and does not mean it was not a controversy. No charges or sanctions were done in the Luther Campbell case at Miami or the Jameis Winston case at FSU, however those issues still remain in the Controversy sections of their respective wiki pages as with any other program who has controversies. Florida State also handled the academic scandal in an exemplary way and it should be noted the inconsistencies in punishments or lack of between the situations. Maybe the NCAA wiki page itself needs a section on controversy with their inconsistent handling of sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:8300:63:6C3C:51C0:9DC1:36FC (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this stuff belongs in the article at all, I think it should go in the main history section. I don't see the need for a separate "controversies" section. ~ Richmond96 T • C 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that, but if it is done in its own section on other university football pages then there is no reason not to be consistent and it really just fits better in its own section. Helps when researchers are going through to just look for these specific details when comparing programs. As a CFB enthusiast, I was shocked not to see Tank Black even mentioned in the UF history and now I see why with so many alumni so quick to be sure it is never heard of and take it down as if it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:8300:63:6C3C:51C0:9DC1:36FC (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You "anonymous" user/s are apparently bored waiting for the football season to kick off. Either that, or you're lost and confused. This is Wikipedia, not a partisan sports blog or a message board. (I'm thinking Warchant is more your flavor.) Articles must be non-biased and fair, with due weight given to information. Sports articles should not be fanboy positive or rival-baiting negative. The thing is, I'm positive that you/y'all are regular editor/s who are editing without signing in to hide your identity, just for kicks, so you already know all this. In the history of Florida football, the Tank Black incident was a minor footnote at most - no sanctions, no NCAA investigation, nobody arrested, no institutional involvement. As I said, it deserves a sentence or two in the appropriate section devoted to the relevant seasons. Any more than that is overkill and violates

WP:UNDUE

.

And if you feel the need to reduce bias in any other sport-related articles, go fix it. Just don't introduce it here. --Zeng8r (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

He's trying other places now - an anonymous editor added a very similar section on arrests to Will Muschamp today, which is ridiculous since there haven't been many issues to discuss. Tellingly, he also added a blurb about FSU's win against Florida last year while he was at it. Obviously, somebody thinks this is Warchant. I've always thought that a "No Smack Talk" banner should be placed at the top of every sports related article to warn casual editors against overly promoting their team or disparaging a rival contrary to Wiki-policy. But our current problem child is not a Wiki-novice; this is a bored registered user trying to stir the pot, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zeng8r and Richmond96: Yes, I know. Here's more of recent handiwork: here. I could use a hand with the reverts and the inevitable talk page discussions for 1996 Florida Gators football team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I added Florida's two unclaimed national championships (1984, 1985) to the info box, and that change was reverted with a "by consensus, we have determined not to claim "unclaimed" national championships -- if the team doesn't claim them, why should we on their behalf?"

Well, because:

1. It's not claiming them, the info box points out specifically that they're not claimed. That's what "unclaimed" means.
2. There's code for unclaimed national championships in the infobox for them for a reason. It's pertinent information for an encyclopedic entry.
3. Many teams have similar information in their infoboxes for the above reasons.

What makes those two unclaimed national championships so special that pointing out that they're unclaimed national championships shouldn't happen?

-131.96.118.223 (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's been reverted again... this is verifiable, NPOV information, with no original research. Explain why this information does not belong, or I will be readding it again.

-131.96.118.223 (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I once again removed the so-called "unclaimed" national championships from the infobox per the pre-existing consensus of editors who work on this article. Nothing requires that optional infobox parameters be utilized. The "unclaimed" championships are those of minor "national championship" selectors, and are discussed and explained at an appropriate level in the article's main body text. These were not split championship years; they are trivia, especially the 1985 selectors, and given the UAA's bare acknowledgement of their existence, we believe that the brief explanation in the main body text is the appropriate level of attentions they deserve. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It remains verifiable, NPOV information that's not original research, and information for which there is an explicit entry in the infobox for such "trivia". Trivia being one of the many uses of Wikipedia. If you can explain why it shouldn't be there, other than you think it's not important, I'm all ears. Otherwise, look for it to be readded. 131.96.118.223 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can explain why it shouldn't be there." Uh, you mean like these were minor NC selectors, and the discussion in the main body text puts them in context? And that this had previously been decided by the consensus of editors working on the article? You mean reasons like that? You do seem overly concerned about such Florida Gators matters for a Georgia State University student. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HangingCurve: I appreciate your recent efforts to improve coverage of the Florida Gators football team's 1996 national championship season. That said, the main Florida Gators football is a survey -- an overview -- of the Gators football team, past and present, including the program's history, and it must balance its coverage of different eras of the Gators' history. As I am sure you are aware, there are individual season articles for the Gators' three national championships seasons and each of the Gators' individual seasons since 1999, and decade histories before 2000. The Gators have had many noteworthy and important seasons in their history, including 1928, 1952, 1960, 1966, 1969, 1984, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, 2006 and 2008. The level of '96 detail included in several of your recent edits to the main article are greater than the balance required in a survey of the entire Gators' program and its history; much of this detail should probably be moved to the season-specific 1996 Florida Gators football team article, so as to maintain the balance of the main/parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would others feel if one had a picture to accompany the section on jerseys something like this? Pretty sure 1928 was in error and means 1930, by the way. Cake (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the artistic skills to recreate all of those historic jerseys and helmets, I say go for it; after all, a picture is worth a thousand words. By the way, the painting you linked is missing some old helmets. If you want to be a completist, this amazing website is an invaluable resource. Zeng8r (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I have the artistic skills, but it's a well-done picture with but a few errors really hindering one from using it. I focus so much on the days before the SEC that helmets did not quite cross my mind (not sure if our leather helmets ever had any style, like say Michigan State), but I had seen that site before. Found it odd it has nothing before 1962 in the first image, yet the last picture for the Gators seems to show helmets at least back to the 40s. Found some neat images of Libertore and Infante to see the helmets in '62; and a few more of the Penn St game with the Confederate flag helmets, though none better than those on the site. Cake (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor point on jerseys: shouldn't the picture of the orange jersey have orange pants? The white pants are already the home uniform, yet the alternate orange pants are not seen. Cake (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. They wore that combo a couple of weeks ago, but before that, they hadn't worn it since 1989, so it's not exactly a common look (thank goodness - my eyes!). Orange pants could go with white jerseys as a road option. Zeng8r (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, and I know it's only been three games, the Gators have stuck to mono-color uniforms: blue/blue, orange/orange, and white/white. I have also heard talks of a blue-out for the Tennessee game so that would lead me to believe they are going to wear mono-blue again. It's early I know, but maybe that will be a staple of the Coach Mac era. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blue jerseys on white pants, and white jerseys on blue pants, and white jerseys on white pants.
• Oppose orange jerseys on orange pants. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about blue/blue? I'm pretty sure that's been at least a yearly occurrence for as long as I can remember (post 2006). ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue on blue is too much of a good thing, but it's not nearly as bad as all orange. Orange on orange looks like a bad high school uniform. Only Charley Pell, the former head coach at Clemson, could come up with all orange uniforms. No accounting for personal taste, as my grandmother always said. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2015

(UTC)

Perhaps some clarification is in order. The blue top and white pants is the standard home uniform; and white top with blue pants is the standard away uniforms. The all blue and all white are alternates. We also have orange alternates of both tops and pants. Displaying the orange-on-orange is not just to show that particular combo, but with some basic imagination the various permutations such as blue-on-orange (this has been done though not with best results, recently 2012 v. Louisville) / orange-on-white (also not the best results, see 1995 v. Nebraska, one of my earliest, vivid Gator memories; or 1996 v. FSU the first time) / orange-on-blue (don't think ever done this, worth a try) combos possible. We have three colors for our uniforms. All possible combinations along with showing the proper home and away uniforms could be shown easily by filling the white pants under the orange jersey with some orange. For now, the orange pants are not even shown. Pell aside, the Gators are pretty set in their blue jerseys, yet cannot seem to pick a helmet (many feel the one now is very dated). If that 1934 jersey on the first referenced picture is real, that's a pretty slick orange jersey. Cake (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gators are going all-orange again. Looks like I may be right about mono-color being the new standard... ~ Richmond96 T • C 16:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think we knew Ole Miss is an intentional combination of Harvard and Yale's colors and wore the Princeton orange of the old East Florida Seminary. All the better to support my argument that there's no need for two sets of white pants and no orange pants on the jersey image. Cake (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a mention of Fleming Field, but I understand the history is difficult. I will be looking for things. Let me know if you find anything to expand on what we have already. Cake (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: Please be cognizant of the volume of new photos we are adding, many of which are already included in the relevant biography articles. Photos should complement and enhance the main body text, should not twist the text into contorted shapes, we should not use photos of a poor quality, and we should not try to use every photo simply because it's available to use. We should look to select the best available photo to illustrate each section, perhaps two photos for the larger sections. Also, please note that caption text does not use a period unless the caption constitutes a complete sentence, e.g., "John Tigert, 1930" (no period), but "Steve Spurrier won the Heisman Trophy in 1966." (with period). BTW, I'm not sure how you managed to get the 1996 Sports Illustrated cover past the WP copyright police, but that is a clear keeper to illustrate the Spurrier coaching tenure if we can justify its inclusion under a fair-use rationale (FYI, I doubt you're going to be able to justify using it in two articles). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the many edits concerning the photos is my own trouble in deciding which of those available fits best, and which size is best to see the detail. If you feel any are superfluous or replace it with something better, you won't find too strong an opposition from me, as obviously the prose is more important. However, I will add we have so many that we should not neglect the imagery either, especially when it comes to helping the reader understand game concepts (e. g. a picture of a team lined up in a T-formation). I also just replaced the images of Larry Smith and the 2008 team for ones which I hope are of better quality. Thanks for the advice on the period. One of those things you'll see me do half the time one way and half the time another in hopes an editor points me in the right direction. There is an entire category for SI Covers on wiki, and I would argue some of those are less notable than the "Attack of the Gators." I too fear someone coming along and removing it, but such a seminal Spurrier moment to get on the cover over Peyton that it seemed worth a try. At the least, it should be here for Wuerffel's article or the 95 team's. Cake (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part I try to follow the formula of putting a face to a coach, and one or two players. In retrospect this is because it seems almost necessary for Pyle and Kline. The exception is the Graves era, which perhaps has too many photos, or too little text, or both. Well, it was such an important era for us, with much ground to cover. This includes visually, such as the many different jerseys and helmets. So I was torn on many, and felt the need to include all I did. That leaves two other cases:

• I am torn on the 28 backfield and Bethea, such that I ended up including both. Bethea's image is PD and of nice quality given the time; the 28 backfield is possibly not PD and of inferior quality given it's hardly the original, rather a poor scan on a newspaper. But we've got the different jerseys of 28 and 30, the different tales of the Phantom Four and beating Chicago and so on. Thus I included both.
• The shot of the North endzone in the 70s. Admittedly a blurry image. But it might be the only one of the period on here. I suppose without say a video of the Florida Flop, that section is really missing something. Cake (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have y'all considered splitting this big puppy (or "hatchling", since this is about gators), now weighing in it at almost 200,000 characters, per WP:Article size? A logical point of division might be to split the history section into a new article on History of Florida Gators football with a hatnote linking the two. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the readable prose portion of the article is just a wee bit shy of 100,000 characters, so a split isn't mandatory, but something to consider. Cbl62 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to split. And there remains a lot of word-smithing and referencing to be done in the aftermath of the recent additions. IMO, the history should be one of the two or three core elements of the article: recounting the team history is one of the primary reasons to have a team article. Frankly, it would make a lot more sense to shunt the bowl history and the like into a separate list, and a lot of the random, non-notable player lists should probably be removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Florida-Georgia rivalry is certainly notable. It's played at a neutral site, usually ranked teams etc. Of course the FSU rivalry is also very notable. I am pushing back on Tennessee. There's nothing special about it. I see all the attempts to make it sound like more, but in the end, it's 2 SEC rivals that play each other every year, no different than Kentucky, Vanderbilt etc. There were a few years where their match-up meant something, but in the borader picture, most of them are just run of the mill schedule games. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Niteshift: With more than a passing interest, I have been watching your edits to the rivalries listed in the infobox of the Florida Gators football article over the past several days. I am usually the editor who removes odd additions to the list of rivals -- such as Alabama and South Carolina, which are not traditional rivals of the Gators in any meaningful sense -- and so I considered reverting your edits when you deleted LSU, Auburn, and Auburn from the list, but I decided to think about it for a while. Auburn and Miami have not played annual rivalry games against the Gators since 1987 and 2002, respectively, so one could say that those rivalries are either dormant or waning, and those teams are no longer considered major rivals. Fair enough; there is some logic to removing them and emphasizing the active rivalries. LSU remains an annual opponent of the Gators, and LSU is their officially designated cross-division rival within the SEC. That said, the Florida-LSU rivalry does not have the tradition or history, or the consistent intensity, of other Gators rivalries. It might fairly be said that LSU is not one of the Gators' "main rivals." Having reviewed those rivalries, I can say with a high measure of confidence that Florida State, Georgia and Tennessee are on a different level, and all three are among the Gators' principal rivals. During the 1990s and early 2000s, the annual Florida-GeorgiaTennessee game was consistently the most important annual SEC game in determining the eventual conference champion, and it has remained a red-letter date on the Gators' schedule since. It is easily substantiated that Gators coaches, athletes, alumni and fans consider Tennessee to be one their principal rivals, and the same may be said of Tennessee coaches, athletes, alumni and fans of Florida.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a graduate of the University of Florida, a former academic tutor employed by the University Athletic Association, a long-time fan of the Florida Gators sports teams, a frequent editor of articles related to the University of Florida and the Florida Gators sports teams, and one of the prime contributors to this article over the past six years. All of that said, I think I can say with some objectivity that I (and several of the regular editors of Florida Gators articles) are probably better positioned to judge who University of Florida athletes, alumni and fans consider to be their principal rivals. From our subjective viewpoint, Florida State, Georgia and Tennessee are the Gators' three most important rivals, and all three of them are on another level from "just another SEC game" (recognizing, of course, that FSU is not an SEC member). I expect that other regular editors of Florida Gators articles, such as Zeng8r, Richmond96 and MisterCake will readily substantiate my analysis. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we agree that GA and FSU clearly belong on that list, we won't need to spend any more time talking about those. I see one revert had the edit summary of "Even Tim Tebow says so". With all due respect to Tim, he is looking at his 4 year period and we should be looking at a longer term view. The alleged rivalry, according to the article, started in 1992. Except for the time that Peyton Manning was there, the Vols really haven't done a ton. Even the Vols article says "The games' national implications diminished in the 2000s, as first Florida and then Tennessee suffered through sub-par seasons." Yes, there was a brief time period where this was an important match-up, but this is nowhere near the GA and FSU rivalries. That said, if a bunch of Gator fans (since you just pinged a whole group) are going to claim to be in "a better position" to decide (because we all know a fan opinion is always more valid than an outside observer), I won't remove the entry again. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed I concur with the above analysis. Other than the Gators recent streak against Tennessee, there is no reason to consider removing the article. In my view, that would make as much sense as removing it for Tennessee once having Neyland; or removing the Georgia article since Georgia used to dominate the series. I am at a loss for defending this much better than "read the notable games." As above in the 90s and into the 00s the UF-UT game always decided the SEC East champion (He surely misspoke with florida/georgia). Many greats have tales with the series. Bobby Dodd started his first and last games against UF (his son Dodd Jr. played at UF, and Ray Graves was to be his successor at Tech). Peyton Manning never defeated UF (Sports Illustrated never expected it). Doug Dickey coached at both schools. I would think even from the perspective of Tennessee, their tier one rivals are Bama, Vandy, and UF. Not to say Georgia, for instance, isn't a Vol rival. As the Gators close the season with FSU; they open with (cupcakes and then) Tennessee. Cake (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with keeping both The Third Saturday in September and Florida's permanent cross division rival in there. Miami? Ehh. Auburn? Ehh. Tennessee and LSU, to me, are more than just another SEC game. This is despite the fact that Tennessee has only beaten Florida four times in my lifetime, and none since I started paying attention to football. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Good lord, R96, is 1996 your birth year?! I have boots that are older than you! Let us know when you turn 21; we'll take you out for a legal drink. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC) --- Would be my first, legal or otherwise. :) Yep, I was born the year of UF's first title and became a fan while watching the clock run out on their second. ~ Richmond96 T • C 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia, FSU, and UT are Florida's biggest rivals, no doubt about it. The Tennessee game has perhaps only gotten national attention since the mid-90s, but it's been a heated and odd rivalry for partisans going back to 1928, and for reasons beyond just what happened on the field - the Doug Dickey saga, Spurrier growing up in Tennessee and then needling them when he beat them, UT leading the charge to strip Florida's 1984 SEC title, etc etc etc. Definitely belongs on the list, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC) PS What's with the link that's been hanging out at the bottom of this talk page? I tried to remove it just now but don't see it in the text editor....[reply]

• It's from 2012. Someone copy pasted a reference in. I changed it to a regular external link, so now it won't show up down here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Niteshift36, Zeng8r, Richmond96, and MisterCake: I thought you might find this website interesting: [2]. It's an attempt to quantify the intensity of sports rivalries by surveying the responses of alumni of the universities and fans of the teams. In the case of Florida's football rivalries, the relative intensity of the top 2, top 3 and top 5 is pretty clear. You may enjoy playing with the website to review the rivals of other CFB teams, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Pretty sizable drop in score between 2-3. I'd say that makes a stronger case for leaving off LSU and Miami. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: Many of these details represent a level of severe over-kill: [3]. The Florida Gators football main article is by necessity a survey article, an overview of the program and its history. Discussion of transfers, National Guard service, and changes of position of individual players are clearly beyond the scope. Discussion of noteworthy individual games may be appropriate for decade or season articles; only the most important games in program history deserve mention in the main article narrative. Much of this detail can and should be moved to the 1920s season articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can carve it up a bit later. I suppose I was struggling to say something about 1914. As for the individual mentions; Yon as I'm sure you know was quite a figure after graduation, and Dowling transferred to perhaps the greatest southern team there ever was. Providing excuses more so than arguing. Cake (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did my best to cut the fat. I don't much trust myself nor do I see much to cut from the 80s on. I must add something about 1905, for otherwise Gibbs seems to play for a phantom. Cake (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: Well I got through the 90s anyway. How's it look? Better? worse? Cake (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better, Cake. Much better. We probably still need to pare some detail from Woodruff, Spurrier and Meyer to better balance the eras. It's relatively easy to cut, and the text is often tighter and reads better afterward. There are also some minor NPOV/editorial comment issues that can be easily eliminated with some basic copy-editing. The real work is sourcing every sentence/factual statement in the history section with the best available online newspaper articles and hard-copy books. We should be very cautious about relying on Peter Golenbock, Buddy Martin or Rajitar; each has its own problems. Golenbock interviewed a bunch of former players, compiled some great anecdotes, but clearly lacked a decent editor and fact-checker; his book is riddled with spelling and factual errors, and should only be relied upon when he is quoting a former player or coach. Martin was a long-time sports-writer, but he was never particularly good on facts. Rajitar and his wife's book was mostly compiled from Wikipedia articles about Gator athletes and teams; but for Wikipedia's free-use license, it would be a flagrant copyright violation and a solid case of plagiarism. Apart from the multiplicity of contemporary newspaper articles, one largely untapped reference resource is the Sports Illustrated article archive ("The Vault"); ESPN has so many online articles from the 1990s through the present that it's hard to sort through all of them. For the major championships and coaching changes, The New York Times archive is an excellent resource. The Gainesville Sun fills a lot of the holes; The Sun articles from the last 10+ years are available through the paper's website, and most from the 1960s, '70s and '80s through Google News Archive. The Independent (former St. Petersburg paper) is one of the best online references for the 1950s and '60s Gators, and can be searched through Google News Archive. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my own case I find the sourcing easier than the wordsmithing, which is probably why you mention it as possibly neglected. I try to be cautious with all the sources. McEwen seems the best of the bunch and he too could've used a better editor. - at least in my edition. I've heeded your prior advice on Martin and found it to be sound. Carlson too has his flaws. Rajitar does not ring a bell, so I figure any citing of him is left over from others. Of the above perhaps an error from Golenbock slipped in; do you notice any? Cake (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McEwen is solidly sourced from the late 1920s through the early 1970s because many, if not most of the players and coaches from those four decades were still alive and available to be interviewed. He knew many of them, either personally or through his big brother, and because he was based in Tampa he was in regular contact with all of the key figures from the early years who lived there. McEwen is less reliable for the years before the 1920s. I get the sense that McEwen was a pretty decent sportswriter and editor for his era; certainly more so than Buddy Martin. Another good writer who overlapped with McEwen was Jack Hairston; Hairston wrote columns for The Gainesville Sun and The Florida Times-Union. Steve Rajtar and his wife wrote Gators Gone Pro; it's a Wikipedia rip-off. Norm Carlson is pretty good for the late 1950s through the 1990s -- the years he worked for the athletic department -- but he sometimes makes factual errors for the eras before his employment, which is probably a function of his reliance on oral history for events before his time. I've also found an occasional factual error for events during his tenure -- probably a function of him relying on his own memory (without fact-checking). We are lucky to have a pretty complete chain of reliable sources from the 1920s forward.

BTW, I'm still trying to find out what happened to Coach Kline; he completely disappears from the public record after 1937. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was me; I am just being absentminded. Purged the incestuous references to Rajtar. Do you have a source for Buser promising to bring a midwestern style? That would be helpful. I will look into Kline once I've become exhausted fixing this one up. Cake (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think Woodruff is ok in length. Spurrier and Meyer still maybe a bit long; wrestling with it. I wish someone would copyedit the opening paragraph to the first prominence and some of Spurrier's paragraphs (e. g. 2 and 4). The info is there but the English not so much. Cake (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: Is it overkill to cite the All-SEC and/or All-America selections? For example citing every team in 1966 would get tedious. Add some {{Cn}} if I missed any. Added sources for just about every claim which cannot be gleaned from a schedule/cfbdw. Cake (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterCake: After World War II, your most comprehensive source for All-American and All-SEC honors is the media guide. As you know, the media guide's list of honors has some omissions and at least one unexplained "upgrade" from the late 1920s through 1941; I have found no significant errors in the honors list after the war. Consensus All-Americans can be sourced to the NCAA records book, which lists all of them by year and team. (See footnotes for List of Florida Gators football All-Americans.) The media guide and NCAA records book simplify the citation challenge. That said, All-American honors became so common after the 1966 season that they, too, should probably be pushed to the season/decade articles and player bios. (I think all of the player articles already include an accurate list of honors with citations, but you may want to check the new bios you created in 2015.) Ditto first-team All-SEC selections after the 1950s -- too commonplace to list in the main article.

Obviously, Van Sickel and the other 1928 guys need to be mentioned as the first Gators All-Americans; Ferguson's 1941 first-team All-SEC and honorable mention All-American honors were a major highlight for the mediocre teams of the Lieb years and because of his namesake award; LaPradd's 1952 AP first-team honors were a big deal for the best team of the Woodruff years and because he was only the second AP All-America first-teamer for the Gators. Linemen Barrow and Heckman received first-team honors from FWAA in 1956 and 1958. After that, I would suggest the AA highlights are (1) Spurrier as the first-ever Gator to receive consensus/unanimous All-American recognition in 1966; (2) Alvarez's consensus All-American honors in 1969; (3) Marshall as the first of only two Gators to receive back-to-back consensus honors in 1983 and 1984; (4) Smith's unanimous recognition in 1989 (only the second unanimous honors); and (5) Spikes' back-to-back consensus honors in 2008 and 2009, which correspond to the 2008 championship season. Since the 1960s, All-American honors are so common that most them are no longer worth a whole sentence, and possibly can be worked into the text as "All-American wide receiver Bob Smith" if the player is also a meaningful standout in the context of the narrative. Possible addition: consensus All-American recognition received by Wuerffel and both of his starting wide receivers (Anthony and Hilliard) in 1996 -- quite remarkable, and I don't know if any other QB and both starting WRs have ever been recognized. The only problem, of course, is that there are so many highlights from 1995 and 1996 that it's hard to prioritize. The Spurrier years, like the Meyer years, would be the entire historical highlights for two-thirds of FBS programs, and most of these honors by necessity need to be pushed to the season articles. Remember: the main article is a survey, not a comprehensive history; most seasons will not be mentioned in the main article. (BTW, the 1996, 2006 and 2008 championship articles are a mess -- but that's another story.)

I hope you're still having fun with the article's history expansion. I'm waiting on you to reach a natural stopping point with your efforts, and then I will engage in some wordsmithing, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm at that point. I have some minor things I feel ambivalent about, like mentioning the horse Needles, but for quite a while I've just been sourcing and wordsmithing so that the sources don't add 5,000 more characters to the page's length. Thank you for providing cutoffs - for I do not want to neglect to mention Van Sickel, Mayberry, Ferguson, Spurrier, Marshall, and so forth; yet by the same criteria without regard to era it is difficult to choose which to leave out. Sammy Green being arguably the best of the black players mentioned in Dickey's article, and the walk-on status of Oliver, left me leaving those for the time being. I did my best to expand the 1995 article; maybe I can help '96 too once this is fixed up. Also curious if I need to mention the pennant which supposedly gave us the Gators nickname. Those aside, brushing up Spurrier's wall of text, the introductory paragraph to the "first national prominence," and a source for Buser's "promise" are my peeves. A picture of the modern stadium would be nice too. There was one from 2006 in Spurrier's section I purged for the Swamp picture since it made no sense, but if it fit elsewhere in context I would have kept it. Cake (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Chandler as a hall of fame inductee is one I consider the exception, unless we can talk of his return against Auburn or something and insert his All-American honors there. Cake (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely skip Needles' Homecoming appearance. LOL Including Sammy Green and Wes Chandler as representative highpoints of the Dickey years is probably a good idea. Remember that we do have a separate section on CFHOF members, and those players were usually inducted substantially more than a decade after their college playing careers ended. Trying to work their CFHOF inductions into the chronological history section may be awkward. Expanding the text of the CFHOF section is probably the easier solution; we can recite their college career stats and major honors in the text of that section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One can understand the wish to have a separate section for hall of famers and deal with it there; at the same time it seems silly to have a hall of famer whom contributed nothing worth mentioning in the history. Cake (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being chosen as a first-team All-American by a major selector is pretty much a prerequisite for HOF induction for players. We should be able to work all of them into the history narrative on that basis. Huerta would be an exception; he was inducted for his coaching for other programs, not his Gators playing career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: By this criteria, on what grounds does one fit Casares in? If he still fits, then does one mention the rest of the 52 backfield? Cake (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking out loud - is it time to split off the history section into a separate History of the Florida Gators football team article? The section is great, but it's extremely long for someone who is just looking for general information about the program. A separate article would allow the history to really stretch out, while a shorter summary here would suffice for general readers. If we really want to go crazy with it, we could follow the Michigan model and have an article for each era. (Steady, @MisterCake:, steady... :-). Anyway, thoughts? Zeng8r (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one who made the Michigan model brought up the same thing when the history section was even longer, and DL opposed it thinking the article could be trimmed down and has enough space to fill in the history. I must say I agree with him. That is to say, it could still be trimmed down further. I would have submitted it to the copyeditors guild if DL had not already signaled his wish to edit it some. Further, I'd rather the facts be covered in prose put in a historical context than be put in a table, and so would not place trimming down the history section as such a top priority. Cake (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A plan and a road map for the future?

Guys, contrary to the "Michigan model" -- which I believe is grotesque overkill for an encyclopedia -- I think about half of the main Florida Gators football article should be the program's history narrative. The Florida Gators football program is the sum of its history, and that's what most people are looking for in the main article. Beyond the history narrative, in some form or fashion, most of the present article relates to the historical high points of the program, whether it's a list of rivalries, conference and national championships, College Football Hall of Fame members, major national awards, etc. If we create a separate "history of" article, then the substantive core of the present article is gone, and what's left is a shell of trivia. I think that would be a mistake. I think the real trick is to include a reasonably detailed summary history of the program, at more or less the present length with some trimming at the margins, which hits the major high points in the program history without over-burdening it with trivia and minutiae. The current team and its coaches and players are supposed to be covered by the current season article. The under-utilized resources, of course, are the season and season-decade articles, which permit the inclusion of a greater level of detail regarding individual games, coaches, players and honors relevant to those seasons.

What I think we need to do is create an outline of what content goes where, without unnecessary repetition/duplication of content, for each of the following:

1. the main Florida Gators athletic program article;
2. the main Florida Gators football article;
3. the football season and season-decade articles;
4. the bowl game articles;
5. the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2006, 2008 and 2015 SEC Championship Game articles;
6. the 1996 Sugar Bowl and 2006 and 2008 national championship articles;
7. football head coach bio articles;
8. football player bio articles; and
9. the stadium article.

I might add that we also have list articles for Florida Gators football All-Americans, Florida Gators football head coaches, Florida Gators football seasons, and University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members -- and we probably should have a list for Florida Gators bowl games spun out from the main article.

For the main football article, the key is striking the proper balance between reciting historical firsts and other high points and pushing lesser details into the articles for seasons, bowl games, championships, and personnel bios. The goal should not be to write the equivalent of 800-page history of the Florida Gators, but to provide a detailed summary of the program history, and its notable coaches, players, seasons and major games. We should not expect to do that in a single article, but to allocate the content and details to the most relevant individual articles within the family of Florida Gators football articles. Some duplication and redundancy is unavoidable, but, as an example, that does not mean we should list the individual all-conference honors for 1984 in the main article's history narrative; those details are more appropriately allocated to the 1984 season article and individual player bios.

One of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is the weirdly organic way in which its articles grow without any planning or editorial oversight. Verified content is often added, rarely removed, and its direct relevance to the particular topic is almost never evaluated. In a nutshell, trivia often overwhelms relevant details. Article topics to which Britannica would allocate, say, 750 words become 150,000-byte monstrosities on Wikipedia because an individual editor or two filled it with trivia and a level of minutiae that has taken an encyclopedia article, with an appropriate level of detail for a general interest encyclopedia, and turned it into what is effectively an amateur fansite shrine for their favorite team. Wikipedia does not yet have an answer to this problem, but it is one that the community is eventually going to have to face in coming years as the expectations for article quality begin to catch up with the amateur ethic of "anyone can contribute." It's a sad truth that some topics and articles suffer from too much attention, and any effort to pare existing articles to an appropriate narrative and level of detail is overwhelmed by fanboy additions.

So what am I suggesting? Let's create a list of details appropriate for each of the articles and article categories listed above. Let's thrash that out, and let's stick with it. As core members of WP:GATORS, let's have an outline/plan for Florida Gators football to which we can point. Let's have a road map for where we want to go. That way, we'll always know where we are on that map, and one day we'll know when we get to the destination. And beyond Gators football, I am painfully aware of the great Gators championship teams for women's soccer, women's volleyball, men's basketball, women's gymnastics, baseball, men's and women's golf, women's lacrosse, softball, women's tennis, men's and women's swimming, and men's and women's track & field, which have been neglected and nearly ignored in some cases. We should have a plan for them, too.

Please think on it, fellas, and ping me back with your thoughts. And perhaps we should move this discussion to the WP:GATORS talk page going forward. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ufl.edu/history/1906.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Florida Gators football/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 01:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm claiming this review, which I should get around to either tomorrow (May 5) or, because of lack of time, Sunday or Monday (May 8 or 9).

Not well written (particularly layout issues, GA criteria 1b)

As an initial matter, the lead does not adequately cover the entire article (see

The notes in the "Conference division championships" section are not formatted properly. Either include those notes in the main notes section or use a separate notelist at the bottom of the table.

I think that there are far too many notes. It's hard to go through the entire list and explain which ones should be incorporated into the prose, but overall the notes section is way too long. Examples:

• "Beginning in 1972 freshmen were now allowed to play on southeastern teams" + Note 41: "For the first time since 1921" is poor quality prose (first GA criteria)...could be "Beginning in 1972, for the first time since 1921, freshmen were permitted to play on southeastern teams..."
• "Most of Florida's 1996 offensive players were returning upperclassmen, who set dozens of team scoring records as they began the season with a 10–0 record." + note 46 "During this stretch, Spurrier became the Gators' all-time winningest coach, surpassing Ray Graves' 70 career wins." Why place this statement in the notes section?? It is much more appropriate in the prose.

In my view, the excessive number of notes reflects poor quality prose (GA criteria #1...it's not concise).

Images (GA criteria 6a)

There are many photographs which probably are still copyrighted:

• File:Fleming Field 1920s.jpg - Florida state law allows universities to hold copyright; "University of Florida Archives, Special Collections, George A. Smathers Libraries" is the source of the image, not the author
• File:Defensive back Richard Fain.jpg - I nominated this image for deletion on Commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Defensive back Richard Fain.jpg. The Florida Memory page states: "Additional Corporate Creator: Associated Press" and that the photo is part of the Mark Foley collection. The information page about the collection does not say anything to suggest that copyright has been relinquished. It says "Foley retired from the Associated Press in 2002". The AP (as his probable employer) almost certainly holds the copyright in this photo.

The following images have the copyright statement: "Copyright expired because the work was published without a copyright notice." It is very unlikely that the yearbook was published without a copyright notice. The notice can be anywhere in the yearbook (most likely in the first few pages or near the end); it doesn't have to be beside the photo.

• File:Edgar Charles Jones (Florida).png
• File:Raymond "Bear" Wolf.png
• File:Bob Woodruff (1951 Seminole).png
• File:Victorious "Gator Ray" Graves.png
• File:Steve Spurrier vs. Georgia.png
• File:Carlos Alvarez (1971 Seminole).png
• File:Doug Dickey (1971).png

The following images do not have complete fair use rationales

• File:Dale Van Sickel.png
• File:Gatorsfergie.jpg
• File:1984Gatorsceremony.jpg

This image does not have correct copyright info. Either it is the official logo of UF athletics and thus copyrighted by the school or it is made up by the uploader:

• File:Florida Athletic Logo.jpg

This image is suspicious, but I can't prove that it is a copyright violation using a reverse image search. It is the only file ever uploaded by the uploader "Hungry McGrouchypants" and was taken with a decent camera:

• File:Percy harvin.jpg

Inline citations (Verifiability, GA criteria 2)

There are many sentences that lack an inline citation (GA criteria #2), eg.:

• "The 1905 football season was a lost one, since university president Andrew Sledd ruled several players ineligible for academic reasons.[note 5] The state university's football team began varsity play when the Gainesville campus opened in September 1906.[note 6]"
• "Florida finished the see-saw season with a 4–3 record, and Pyle left to become athletic director of West Virginia."
• "Kline's first year saw an improved, 6–3 overall record but a 1–3 conference record. He upgraded the team for his second season, bringing in five players "from the University of Oklahoma and the western states."[note 12]"
• " The 1928 team was considered the best Florida football team until at least the 1960s by many sports commentators. After the 1932 season, the Gators joined other prominent southern programs to establish the Southeastern Conference."
• "The 1930s and 1940s were difficult for the Gators. After posting a six-win season in 1934, Florida did not win more than five games in a season until 1952."
• "Lieb's best season was probably his first, in 1940, when the Gators defeated Georgia, Georgia Tech and Miami."
• "As a former Tennessee football player and disciple of Volunteers coach Robert Neyland, he emphasized defense, field position and the kicking game over an open offense; however, during Woodruff's first season in 1950 the Gator offense posted record numbers.[note 31] With victories over Auburn and Vanderbilt, it was the Gators' first season since 1940 with two SEC victories. The 1951 Gators again won two SEC games (against Vanderbilt and Alabama in Tuscaloosa), in addition to inter-sectional victories against the Wyoming Cowboys (13–0) and Loyola Lions (40–7)."
• "The Gators won the Gator Bowl again in 1962, upsetting ninth-ranked Penn State.[note 37] Florida began its 1963 season with a 1–1–1 record.[note 38] The season highlight followed: a 10–6 upset of the Joe Namath-quarterbacked, third-ranked Crimson Tide in Tuscaloosa, one of only two home losses in Denny Stadium during Bear Bryant's twenty-five years at Alabama.[note 39] The Gators won their last three games—against Georgia (21–14), Miami (27–21) and FSU (7–0)—to finish with a 6–3–1 record."
• "and Florida quickly integrated black players into the team."
• "Although he helped build Florida's football program, a public scandal and NCAA sanctions crippled it after his departure."
• "Georgia radio announcer Larry Munson's call of the play gave the game its nickname: "Run Lindsay Run.""
• "The greatest player during Hall's tenure was All-American running back Emmitt Smith, who set school and conference rushing records from 1987 to 1989.[note 44] The Gators began the 1988 season with a 5–0 record, and were ranked as high as 14th. During an October game against the Memphis State Tigers, Smith injured his knee and was unable to play for a month. Florida lost that game and the next three, with the Gator offense unable to score a touchdown while Smith was sidelined."
• "The 1992 Gators won the first of five consecutive SEC Eastern Division titles. They lost the first SEC Championship Game to eventual national champion Alabama, 28–21."
• "and Oklahoma Sooners head coach Bob Stoops. After both turned him down, Foley decided on New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator and former Gator assistant Ron Zook as Spurrier's replacement."
• "They defeated Georgia (its only loss of 2002) and upset LSU in 2003 on its way to the BCS Championship, but lost to both SEC Mississippi schools and twice to Miami. The Gators lost six games at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, one more than they had in 12 years under Spurrier."
• "the first African-American head coach at Florida and the second in SEC history."
• "and a number-13 final ranking, but Tebow's record-setting season earned him the Heisman Trophy; he was the first sophomore to receive the honor."
• "'Meyer finished his six years at Florida with two BCS national championships, two SEC championships, a 5–1 bowl record (.8333), and an overall win-loss record of 65–15 (.8125)."
• "Florida finished with a top-10 ranking."
• "McElwain, the first Gator coach to win more than nine games in his first year at Florida, finished his first regular season with a 10–2 record."
• The "Jerseys" section has just one reference in the middle. The entire section needs inline references.
• The "Rivalries" section needs references. Just because there's a separate article does not mean that these sections are excluded from the verification section.
• The "Conference affiliations" section has no citations
• The "Bowl games" section has no references in the table (ref after sentence at top of section does not support the content of the table).
• Several issues in the "Individual award winners" section. I added relevant cleanup tags in this section.
• Lots of notes lack an inline citation.

Length (GA criteria 3b)

The article is currently 70kb "readable prose size", which is quite long. See

AHeneen (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the criticism Heneen. Harsh but necessary. I am trying to clean up the notes section right now, and will start to fix the sourcing issues at least in the history section in the coming days and weeks. Cake (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the prior discussion as to whether the history section should be split into a separate article: Talk:Florida Gators football#Article size. Cbl62 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 58 external links on Florida Gators football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005074622/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1991-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1991-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110620182251/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/schools/florida/1993-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1993-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622174441/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/schools/florida/1994-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1994-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005074348/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1995-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1995-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003183458/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1996-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1996-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003185727/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2000-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2000-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003184140/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2006-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2006-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003190416/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2008-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2008-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003183250/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1992-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1992-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003180341/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2003-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2003-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075600/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2012-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2012-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422083243/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/schools/florida/2015-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2015-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003175429/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1912-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1912-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075032/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1952-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1952-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003180605/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1958-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1958-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003180142/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1960-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1960-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160924202407/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1962-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1962-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404073118/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1965-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1965-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102050513/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1966-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1966-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003183341/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1969-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1969-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003181026/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1973-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1973-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003185300/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1974-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1974-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005075537/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1975-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1975-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003182048/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1976-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1976-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003181248/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1980-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1980-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160406124704/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1981-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1981-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005074845/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1982-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1982-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003184636/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1983-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1983-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003184323/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1987-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1987-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160402201209/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1988-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1988-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003182256/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1989-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1989-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003175546/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1997-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1997-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003185610/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1998-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1998-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003191123/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1999-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/1999-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003191213/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2001-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2001-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003183738/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2002-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2002-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003185934/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2004-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2004-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003190810/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2005-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2005-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003175946/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2007-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2007-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005074716/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2009-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2009-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003180832/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2010-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2010-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161003182351/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2011-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2011-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160410035613/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2014-schedule.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2014-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004235839/http://www.heisman.com/winners/s-spurrier66.php to http://www.heisman.com/winners/s-spurrier66.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510053905/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/awards/maxwell.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/maxwell.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510062528/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/awards/camp-poy.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/camp-poy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520114012/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/awards/baugh.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/baugh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605033207/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/awards/obrien.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/obrien.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616232618/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/rimington.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/rimington.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160425032625/http://www.sports-reference.com:80/cfb/awards/guy.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/guy.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812173940/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/thorpe.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/thorpe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160826190018/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/unitas.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/unitas.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160403022720/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/groza.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/groza.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812183224/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/mackey.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/mackey.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160405021430/http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/manning.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/awards/manning.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402035222/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2011/media_guide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004235839/http://www.heisman.com/winners/s-spurrier66.php to http://www.heisman.com/winners/s-spurrier66.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208143532/http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2015/media_guide.pdf to http://web.gatorzone.com/football/media/2015/media_guide.pdf

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.

• 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) 23:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Florida Gators football. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/florida/2015-schedule.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327063047/http://www.heisman.com/winners/d-wuerffel96.php to http://www.heisman.com/winners/d-wuerffel96.php

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.

• 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) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Florida Gators football. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715001359/http://www.gatorsports.com/article/20081128/NEWS/811280285/1130?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar to http://www.gatorsports.com/article/20081128/NEWS/811280285/1130?p=all&tc=pgall&tc=ar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202151237/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/07/070044/cb-war-canoe-trophy-once-again-has-meaning/sports/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/07/070044/cb-war-canoe-trophy-once-again-has-meaning/sports/

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.

• 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) 17:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

I disagree with your view on the relative importance of helmet logos, pant colors, and the current "Director of Strength & Conditioning" over the team's Rivalries, National championships, and similar sections within this article. Also to part of your point, some of the prose ala History of Florida Gators football should be included in this article's sparse History section. I've invited other editors to comment. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football about whether current coaching staff section should even be included at all on main program articles. Probably worth having a general discussion there about order of topics for main program articles, such as this one. The issues at stake here are not unique to the Florida Gators. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Division Championships tab it has 2020 listed as Co-Champions with a tiebreaker, but after Georgia's Game with Vanderbilt was canceled they finish at 7-2 and Florida finishes at 8-2. The Source^[1] provided for that, in the article, claims that special rules treat them like they have the same record, however, no where in the source does it say that. The part I think that it is referring to is "Should a team be ready and able to play a game, but the opposing team not be able to play, then the team that was ready to play may add one game to its total number of games played for the purpose of meeting the minimum number of games to be played (for clarity, the addition of a game to the total number of games played will not count in the final standings but will only be included to meet the minimum number of games if that team has competed in fewer than the required minimum number of games needed to be eligible for the SEC Football Championship game or to be considered in a tiebreaker). The source says that any additional games wouldn't be counted towards the standings, so by that Georgia couldn't possibly be Co-Champions without rescheduling Vanderbilt. The source doesn't at any point say that they would be treated as though they are at the same record as it claims in the article. It only at one point states that if a team were 9-1 and another were 8-1 and 8-1 won the Head to Head they would represent the Division in the Championship Game. The criteria the source gives for division champions says "The team in each division with the highest winning percentage during the ten-game Conference schedule (using both divisional and cross-divisional games) will be declared division champion. If two or more teams are tied with the highest winning percentage, they will be declared division co-champions." Florida's win percentage is 80% at 8-2. Georgia's win percentage is 77.78% at 7-2, so shouldn't 2020 not be considered as a Co-Championship unless the Conference were to officially declare it, which to my knowledge they haven't. 2020SecEastChamps (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the sourcing needs to reflect the application of the 2020 rule, not just link to a document which contains the rules. I did not flag or revert, yesterday. Good catch. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]