Talk:2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

Historic

This is a historic article and it should have it's own page. It's one of the biggest upsets in the history of college football.

Agreed. If any game deserves its own page, it's this game. EtriganZola 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider many games to be worthy of their own article. But a I-AA team beating the 5th-best team in the country, on the road? This game deserves its own page, no question about it. Trvsdrlng 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about whether or not this article should be deleted should occur at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Cogswobbletalk 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This game is certainly significant. Whether it is of encyclopedic significance is questionable.75.83.232.97 02:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The first instance of a Division I-AA team defeating a Division I-A team, that team being ranked 5th to boot? I've seen articles on people, places, things, and games far less significant than this. Skullfiend 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are very few regular-season college sports games that I would argue should have a stand-alone article. The Michigan State-Notre Dame football game of 1966 would be one, another would be the 1971 "Game of the Century" (Oklahoma vs. Nebraska). Basically, it has to be something that will be talked about by casual fans for years afterwards, which rarely happens in regular-season games. This was that type of game. Jsc1973 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources of games significance, from 4 major sources (not just AP article)

For the editors of this article, in addition to the AP article that is found everywhere:

• It made the front page of the New York Times (college football games do not do that, it's not USA TODAY), where it states Appy State pulled off one of the biggest upsets in college football history.
• From ESPN.com's Pat Forde: Remember the score: App. State 34, Michigan 32. We'll still be talking about it a few decades from now. Especially in the locker rooms of every huge underdog, where they'll say, "If Appalachian State can beat Michigan, why can't we shock the world, too?"
• From SI.com: Have no doubt, what the Mountaineers did Saturday in the Big House was a watershed moment for FCS teams and one of the biggest upsets in the game's history.
• The Los Angeles Times: Carr's legacy now will be as closely tied to Saturday's loss at the Big House as it will be to the 1998 Rose Bowl win over Washington State that made him Victor Valiant.

Please mine these articles (and more, several on each major sports website) for content --Bobak 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Is this article properly named? First thing I noticed was that it requires the reader to understand that when Michigan is used in reference to a US college it means University of Michigan and not the state. The next thing was the reference to the unambiguated "football", which may be an issue for obvious reasons. I'm also a little unconvinced that the year is necessary as it is pre-disambiguating something that is unlikely to be an ambiguous name for an article on Wikipedia. Couple of thoughts that come to mind are Appalachian State University vs. University of Michigan, 2007 Appalachian State University vs. University of Michigan, and the first two with either "American football game" or "(American football)" tacked on to the end. Of course, if I'm the only one that sees a problem, that's fine with me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I vote for 2007 Appalachian State University vs. University of Michigan football game. An alternate is Michigan Who? 34-32 which I also enjoy. X96lee15 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The current name is consistent with our naming convention for other unnamed regular season games. (See Category:College football games.) Some games have a name like the Bluegrass Miracle and in time, it's possible that one may come to be used for this one. But until such time as another game gains popular acceptance, I think the current name is consistent with everything else in our category. The alternate names (ones using "University" or with the year at the end) should probably be created as redirects. The weauxfing name (Michigan Who?) is obviously unencyclopedic and should not be used. --B 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with B. The name of this article is consistent with other articles, and reflects common usage. Cogswobbletalk 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Significance

Is there anything that can be said about the significance of this win for the Appalachian State team or the significance of the loss for the Michigan team? Obviously, it is a notable event, but are there also important consequences for the teams/players/coaches this season or next? Sancho 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ... Lloyd Carr is on the hottest of hot seats as a result of the game and Michigan is now unranked in both polls. But as far as any tangible direct consequences, no there isn't really anything. --B 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is significant in that it has cost Michigan any chance at the national title for this year. A number 5 team (which Michigan was previously) has a strong chance of making it into the top 2 if they win all their games. An unranked team (which Michigan is after the game) probably has no shot. I don't think there has ever been an unranked team has ever clawed there way back up to the championship picture.

There could also be an impact on recruiting but that would be extremely hard to measure for sure. Johntex\^talk 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma was unranked in a lot of the preseason magazines in 2000 ... I don't remember where the AP/Coaches polls had them, though. --B 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's the fact that they're currently unranked which has cost them a chance for the National Championship. It's not hard to conceive of a team this is unranked at this point in the season finishing in the top 2. It's the fact that they lost to a I-AA team that has cost them a shot at the title, as some of the Michigan players have pointed out. In other words, voters (and the even the computer polls) are unlikely to forgive this loss and put them in the top 2 at the end of the season, even if they finished 11-1. Cogswobbletalk 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the more notable results is the AP changing its rules to allow D-IAA/FCS teams to be ranked in their poll. --Bobak 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD on 16 Sept 2007: explanation

• At 17:00, 16 September 2007 User:69.14.170.223 tagged this page for speedy delete as not notable. I saw this entry in the speedy-delete list, saw that there was discussion querying this, started to AfD it to get it discussed, then saw that it already had an AfD dated 4 Sept 2007 strongly keeping it. So I backed out and cancelled the speedy-delete tagging and the partial AfD-ing. Anthony Appleyard 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. Johntex\^talk 18:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other name

Does this game have any other name? "2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game" is terribly long and I dunno if anyone will reach this article via search. --Howard the Duck 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the game referred to by many names, but none really caught on and most are pretty vague. Names like "Michigan Upset" or "Michigan Miracle" aren't nearly specific enough, considering Michigan's sporting history. I think "Appalachian State Miracle" is the best and most fitting name for the game, though it's a bit misleading as it seems to suggest that the game took place in NC, not MI. I think the page should stay where it is, since no single widely-used nickname emerged following the game; however some redirects might be helpful. I'll go ahead and redirect "Appalachian State Miracle" to the article. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oregon

I added a bit of information about the Oregon game, where Michigan lost 39-7, which led many to believe that the Wolverines really had fallen to the bottom of Division I-A. But I added it in an encyclopediac way, but the cite might need cleanup. I added this because there is a lot of info about Appalachian State's future but none about Michigan. The loss to Oregon is a signifficant part of the story. MVillani1985 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Point spread

What was the point spread for this game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.66.50 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no point spread because Vegas doesn't offer betting lines on games between FCS and FBS teams. Cogswobbletalk 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Score, contradiction?

The article says 34-32 but the infobox says 33-22. I don't like editing FA's unless they are in an area of my expertise: can someone fix this please. Tigerboy1966  10:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Doormat games

Should there be a mention of the tendency of "big time" college teams to schedule one or two early-season games against "doormat" teams to (1) run up their records and stats and (2) have another game they can sell tickets to, while not risking disappointing the fans with a loss? Or a link to an article on that subject (which I didn't find)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article on Michigan players getting high before game, not taking it seriously

I found an [article] with an anonymous former Michigan player talking about the players having partied a lot in the week before the game. He even claimed that several starters smoked marijuana just before the game. I'm thinking some of the things in this article could serve as a paragraph in the Michigan pre-game session. I think the information is notable, but I'm wondering if it is a reliable soruce. Thoughts? Wall Screamer (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Nope, all information is accurate as far as i could tell. Lukecausby (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Luke Causby

Maybe the grafics of some important plays are missing. I made a few while writing the german article to this topic.--JTCEPB (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Much editorializing

@Toa Nidhiki05 I would love for you to indulge here how my edit is not useful? The content was not encyclopedic in nature and contained a significant lack of neutrality and perfectly preserves essential knowledge. Imorvit (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be very, very new here, but the content is all in the body of the article and is, in fact, encyclopedic. I frankly am not sure why you seem so convinced this is not the case - this is a featured article that passed extensive peer review, and the content in the lead is substantially similar from a decade ago. As it stands, you removed crucial background on the nature of FBS/FCS games. Your other prose edits are not improvements. Toa Nidhiki05 03:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

While it is true that I am new here, that does not exclude my insight or knowledge of the various English writing styles. The language used in this article does not match what is to be expected for a reference work as important as the internet encyclopedia. The current text is far too informal and sensationalized for a work that should be objective. While you are correct in identifying that this is a featured article, that doesn't preclude the necessity to improve its language and tone, nor does it necessarily prove your point. My edits aim to make the article more neutral and concise, which better fits the standards maintained here. I'm willing to discuss adding more "crucial background" information, but allowing the language to stand as is would be a mistake. I have no intentions of starting a so-called "edit war," however, I will continue to revert changes that you, for some odd reason, deem appropriate.

Consider phrases such as "was not expected to be an exception" and "dropped out of the top 25 of the AP Poll entirely." These are dramatized, and invest the reader in the story, which should not be the goal of Wikipedia. There is no reason to sensationalize information in this context. Imorvit (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

None of this makes sense because your edits are not an improvement. You are actively making the article worse, and removing crucial context - and at this point you seem actively aware you are edit warring, and you're going to need to stop. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am cognizant of the potential for this to devolve into a so-called "edit war." I have reverted your actions, which I believe stem from a malformed thought process, on three occasions now; I do not plan to do this further. While I am fully aware of the detrimental effects of edit warring, particularly on the clarity of a page's revision history, I maintain that my position is entirely justified. Therefore, I find it pertinent to escalate this to whichever body would handle matters such as this, as I don't believe I have any chance of changing your mind.

Your objections appear to be twofold: firstly, that this is a featured article (from nearly a decade ago), and secondly, that I am "removing crucial context." I submit that the first point is fallacy in nature, and the second has been presented without substantiation or specific reference to the content in question.

The only information I believe was actually lost, which you may consider essential context, pertains to Las Vegas not establishing a betting line for this event. I contend that this detail is both superfluous and potentially misleading, as it fails to elucidate the underlying reasons for this (including, but not limited to, the fact that there is no precedent for a betting line on FCS and FBS games).

I welcome constructive suggestions to enhance my edit. However, I firmly believe that the revised text offers superior accuracy compared to the previous version. I am open to further discussion to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution.

And, on a side note, I am unappreciative of your verbiage that I feel talks down to me. All I request of you is conversation based on the objectives of what I have written, and you have defaulted to fallacy. Imorvit (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This has already devolved into an edit war. You've edited four times to force this onto the page, three of which were reverts. You seem to be aware of what an edit war is; you should understand what it means to revert three times on the same page.

Your edit also did far more than what you said. You completely removed from the lead the fundamentally important explanation that games between FBS and FCS teams are lopsided and almost always favor the FBS team. You removed the betting line, which is cited in the body. In the body, you removed the fact that Appalachian State entered the game as substantial underdogs. What you have done here is not trimming, it's not revising - it's just making the page worse by removing information that's cited for a nebulous claim it's "unencyclopedic". This doesn't make any sense at all. Your actual prose changes aren't objective improvements either - as best as I can tell, the ones that aren't connected to removing content are lateral changes.

As it stands, you are claiming to not be edit warring and open to some other solution, but your actions speak otherwise. If you're actually interested in discussion, a good first step would be to self-revert and follow bold, revert, discuss, which is to discuss things after you've been reverted rather than try and force through changes through an edit war. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am elated that you have finally provided some semblance of constructive criticism. Regarding the matter of an edit war, I acknowledge my lack of familiarity with this three-revert rule. However, at this juncture, such minutiae are inconsequential. I had presumed that the statement "Appalachian State became the first FCS team to defeat a ranked FBS team" sufficiently conveyed the point. Notwithstanding, rather than outright removal, the original text warrants revision.

Since yesterday, I have endeavored to elicit even the slightest amount of feedback, and it is both surprising and disappointing that it has taken this long to materialize, especially given your professed concern about an edit war. To clarify, I never explicitly claimed to be participating or not participating in warring, and if my actions are defined as such, I extend my deepest apologies to any lurking administrators. I implore you to assist me in finding a way to revise this edit constructively, rather than perpetuating a fruitless argument over the semantics of what constitutes warring. I have presented my entire argument, yet you seem fixed on identifying the most trivial flaws in my statements. Imorvit (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not, in fact, inconsequential, at this point. You claim to be unaware of policy, and yet at the same time insist you have a better idea of what is encyclopedic than peer-reviewed material on an article classified in, quite literally, the top 0.1% of articles. What I'm less than elated by is your failure to respond to... any, criticism, of your edit whatsoever. You've acknowledged it, but you haven't actually offered a response to how removing reliably-sourced content actually improves an article.

I will be reverting back to the status quo; per BRD, I'd encourage you to continue to discuss changes here, rather than bludegon them in an edit war. Toa Nidhiki05 05:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Once I am complete with my studies, I will commit a change that will address your criticisms. As I have stated previously, it is but fallacy to interpret a page being reviewed and featured many years ago an excuse to neglect modifications. If you will go back to the commit prior to the featuring of this article, you may find as well that it contained many errors, even in its featured state. In fact, it was modified many times immediately after being featured as it was so lacking.

Addressing your qualm with my "failure to respond," all I feel I can do is acknowledge your criticisms. I have found you to be completely incompetent of providing sound reasoning as to why my edit is so problematic as you don't help to find common ground for a further revision. Instead, you mention a purely optional strategy and implement only the first step of it, which only serves to benefit yourself and not resolve this conflict. Imorvit (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not against changes to the page. I'm against changes to any article that remove reliably-sourced content for good no reason, while casting such changes as an improvement. You have yet to provide any compelling reasons as to why this content needs to be removed, other than a vague comment about it being "unencyclopedic"; but I don't think you actually understand what that means in a Wikipedia context. Toa Nidhiki05 15:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the goal of Wikipedia to summarize the entirety of your sources, or to provide base level knowledge on any given topic? Just because a source mentions something does not mean it is pertinent to include. And in cases like the gambling paragraph (which I removed), it is knowledge that is already presented later in the article, in a space where more in depth knowledge may be more standard. I have added back the primary sentence that you contend in a more objective manner, and hope this works more to your liking. Imorvit (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The goal of a lead is to summarize the article. The fact you don’t understand this concept while trying to effectively copyedit a lead actually explains a lot here - I’d encourage you to look up and become more familiar with Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:LEAD, to get a better idea of what belongs and doesn't belong there. Toa Nidhiki05

As to your most recent edit here:

• The addition of "meanwhile" doesn't make a lot of grammatical sense here.
• The additional wording about the expected victory doesn't appear to be better; you also cut the bit about the Las Vegas sports book, which is cited in the article (again, removing content without explaining why)
• Game summary details aren't a clear improvement.
• Changes to the AP section aren't improvements, and actually remove detail.
• Changes to the bit on the second game seem okay.

Not all of this is bad, but I think broadly there's a big issue here with removing details in the body, and much of the other changes are either a wash or not improvements to the existing content. Toa Nidhiki05 17:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

As Toa Nidhiki05 pointed out, this is a featured article which means this article has passed through an extensive review on content and writing. Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. That doesn't mean the article is immune to changes, but if a change is challenged the onus on the editor making the change to find consensus for that change. So far Imorvit has not found consensus for the sweeping number of changes made to this article. I'm going to roll back to the status quo. Please find support for changes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Nemov (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I recognize that I haven't always been clear in my explanations, so I'd like to take this opportunity to start fresh.

Regarding the article's featured status, if you look at the last edit before it was added as a featured article, you'll notice a considerable number of grammatical errors. This isn't meant as an indictment of the reviewers, but it does challenge the notion I've faced that the article should be resistant to changes simply because it holds that status.

To explain why I initially sought to make commit changes: when I first read the article (after the thrilling victory at Vanderbilt—ANCHOR DOWN!), I felt much of the writing was strange or "unencyclopedic." Originally, I thought it was too editorialized, but a more accurate description would be dramatized. I wanted an objective account of the event, not any narrative.

Addressing Toa Nidhiki05's previous points (with each bullet corresponding to the original):

• Because Appalachian State and Michigan are so disparate in terms of competition and subdivision, I felt it necessary to separate them. However, if you're entirely against this change, I'm open to compromise. That said, I'm not aware of any grammatical reason why this adjustment would be incorrect.
• On the Las Vegas sportsbook: as I mentioned earlier, in 2007, major sportsbooks generally didn’t offer betting lines for FCS vs. FBS games. These matchups were considered too unpredictable due to talent disparities. Including this information implies that this game was different from others of its kind, which I believe is misleading. Moreover, it's already mentioned twice elsewhere in the article, so including it in the lead feels redundant. As for the wording on expected victory, I find my version more neutral and aligned with Wikipedia’s principles of concise writing.
• I view this change as an improvement. Could you clarify how it would actively detract from the quality of the article?
• Again, I don't see how this would reduce detail... It seems to convey the same information while being more succinct and easier to follow.

I hope this clarifies my position. I'm not deeply invested in this matter as this is my first real engagement with Wikipedia editing, so I'm open to whichever approach works best. However, upon my first read-through, this article stood out as particularly problematic, and I suspect others might feel similarly. Imorvit (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"Meanwhile" just doesn't make sense there.

Again, I don't think you understand what the point of a lead is - it's to summarize the article. Of course content in the lead is going to be mentioned elsewhere in the article - in fact, it has to be. What you are arguing here doesn't make sense and contravenes policy.

Your game changes simply do not look like demonstrable improvements to me. I don't think it makes it "more neutral" - it just makes it a worse version of the current text. This is my opinion, but it's kind of important given this is a featured article, so making the prose worse doesn't help anything.

Again, I don't think your removal of details improves anything. I'm not sure why you seem so concerned with length here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The sportsbook argument is irrelevant and blatantly misleading. Its inclusion distorts the facts. The notion that Vegas was "so confident" is absurd; their only certainty was that offering a betting line would result in financial loss. The issue isn't that everyone expected Michigan to win, but that sportsbooks knew no one would bet on the FCS team, so they avoided posting a line altogether. Before this, Vegas had no precedent for offering lines on such mismatched FBS vs. FCS games because they would hemorrhage money. To suggest otherwise implies this game was treated differently from any other, which is false. If all bets were on Michigan, sportsbooks were bound to lose—plain and simple. Imorvit (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The reliable source we cite doesn't indicate what you're suggesting. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Something blatantly misleading should not be included in the article simply because it is reliably sourced. And again I ask, is every of the 69 sources in this article divulged into fully with each point included in the lead? No, it isn't. There comes a time when you need to strike certain information, and the sportsbook sentence is absolutely one of them. Imorvit (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think it's misleading? Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained why the inclusion is misleading. The language in the article is factually incorrect in the context of why sportsbooks didn't set betting lines for games like this. The claim that they were "so confident" in Michigan's chances is false. Sportsbooks were only confident they'd lose money by setting a line, since no one would bet against Michigan. If Las Vegas could profit, they would. The reason they didn't set a line wasn't confidence in Michigan winning, but the lack of viable bets. This information is absolutely and completely misleading—why is that so difficult to grasp? Imorvit (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@ImorvitPlease quit changing the article until someone else supports your changes. Nemov (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We've been at this for days, and it’s clear no agreement will be reached. I've given all my reasons for the changes, yet instead of discussion, I’m repeatedly asked the same question I've already answered. How can I wait for consensus with someone who ignores my responses? Imorvit (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Step away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for warring, but can you not see how absurd this debate has been? Nemov, do you truly not grasp the flaws in this argument? It’s incredibly frustrating to try to improve an article that clearly needs it, only to be met with fallacies and a fundamental misunderstanding of the points I’ve raised. I’ve tried to remain formal, precise, and respectful throughout this exchange. I’ve spent hours at this point carefully crafting arguments for my proposed changes, only to be met with responses that suggest my points weren’t even read or considered. To say this debate has come to a 'natural end' is premature; key issues have not been addressed, and it feels like we’re avoiding real engagement with the substance of the argument. Dropping it now would leave the article in a state that does a disservice to readers and misrepresents the subject. I am at a loss for how something so trivial has made it this far. Imorvit (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You said above that I'm not deeply invested in this matter. This doesn't appear to be the case based on your refusal to move on. Nemov (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

At the time of that comment, I hadn't yet realized that my contributions were being entirely disregarded. It became clear when I was asked, "Why do you think it's misleading?" immediately after I had written an entire paragraph explaining exactly that. Perhaps I've now reached the point of a sunk cost fallacy. Plain and simple, it is misleading to include a statement that has already been acknowledged as such, and I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that inaccuracies are removed rather than perpetuated. This topic should not simply be dropped; there is no "natural end" here—the only appropriate "end" is the removal of that content. Imorvit (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says otherwise from what you said. Why is what you said more worthwhile than the source? That's what I'm asking. Toa Nidhiki05 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The Internet Archive's recent technical issues prevent verification of the source. However, if it indeed states that Vegas's confidence in Michigan's victory was due to the absence of a betting line, this assertion warrants serious scrutiny. While no line was offered, attributing this to Michigan's perceived inevitability is factually inaccurate and misrepresents standard sportsbook practices for FBS vs. FCS matchups. Imorvit (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The source is Dan Wetzel, a noted sports reporter, at Yahoo Sports, a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source that says otherwise? I wouldn't necessarily object to shortening it to "Las Vegas sportsbooks did not place a betting line on the game", but I don't see your specific claims here being backed up by sources so far. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's my understanding that even though betting was not widely available for FCS games, some sportsbooks in Vegas still put up a betting lines for those games. Need something better than WP:OR since there's a source being used here. Nemov (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)