Talk:2015–16 NCAA football bowl games

Notre Dame in the Sun Bowl?

What is the basis for pre-filling Notre Dame in the Sun Bowl? I can't find any basis for believing that they would go to the Sun Bowl vs any other ACC-affiliated bowl. And even if there was a contract calling for them to automatically go to the Sun Bowl this year, they could still get a BCS (or whatever we're calling it now) bid (unlike Army, who is bound for the Poinsettia Bowl even if they go undefeated). But everything I have found lists all of the ACC tie-ins as "ACC/Notre Dame" - I can't find any basis for believing the Notre Dame is pre-slotted for the Sun Bowl. --B (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@B: The article references "2015–16 College Football Bowl Schedule – 2016 Playoff" at FBSchedules. That page lists the teams for the Sun Bowl as "ACC/Notre Dame vs. Pac-12". I interpreted that to mean that Notre Dame will play there if eligible and otherwise an ACC team will play. Also on the "2015 Game Day" page of the Sun Bowl website, it says, "The game features selections from the ACC and Pac-12 conferences," but it lists Notre Dame's record under the ACC standings. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mudwater: Okay, I see. Notre Dame can take any of the ACC's non-BCS slots. Essentially, for bowl purposes (other than the BCS bowls), Notre Dame is an ACC team. If you look at that fbschedules list, it says "ACC/Notre Dame" for the Pinstripe Bowl, Quick Lane Bowl, TaxSlayer Bowl, etc. The rule is that the bowl can pick Notre Dame if they are within two overall wins of the next available ACC team. So if FSU finishes 13-0 and plays in the MNC, VT finishes 11-2 and plays in the Orange Bowl, and Clemson is the next best team at 10-2, the Russell Athletic Bowl (which gets first pick after the bowls formerly known as BCS) could take a 9-3 Notre Dame over Clemson, but they could not take an 8-4 Notre Dame over Clemson. So say 10-2 Clemson goes to the Russell Athletic Bowl and the next best team is a 9-3 Georgia Tech. The TaxSlayer Bowl could take an 8-4 Notre Dame over Georgia Tech, but could not take a 7-5 Notre Dame over Georgia Tech. --B (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@B: That makes sense. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Illinois Huskies vs. NIU Huskies

There's been some recent back and forth over whether the team should be listed in this article as the "Northern Illinois Huskies" or the "NIU Huskies". I thought I remembered seeing a more general discussion about when to use abbreviations for school names, but I can't find it now. I see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Master team table, where it says "Northern Illinois Huskies". Is that list considered a guideline? When should abbreviations like "BYU Cougars" be used? Is there a WikiProject College Football guideline for this question? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Celebration Bowl

From the introduction: "The 2015–16 NCAA football bowl games are a series of college football bowl games. They will complete the 2015 NCAA Division I FBS football season."^{[emphasis added]}

The Celebration Bowl is, therefore, outside the scope of the article, because it is contested between two FCS teams. To prevent scope creep, I've removed it from the main article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The lead paragraph does refer to the FBS, but the name of the article is "2015–16 NCAA football bowl games". So I'd favor including the Celebration Bowl, as it was here. It doesn't improve the article to leave it out. On the contrary, our readers may be looking for it here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's why I listed it at See also. My point is, if we're expanding the scope, how far do we go? Stagg Bowl would be the next logical inclusion; it's the D-III championship. —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem of "where do we draw the line" here. Besides the Stagg Bowl, what other non-FBS bowl games are there? I'm not asking this rhetorically, I'm trying to figure out what other NCAA bowl games exist, to either list in the article or not. Both Celebration and Stagg could be included in a "Non-FBS bowl games" section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2016

Ohio State is NOT Big Ten East co-champions. Michigan State was the sole Big Ten East champion and Big Ten Conference champion. The line should state Big Ten East 2nd place. 67.149.152.148 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Michigan State and Ohio State both finished with conference records of 7–1 and so are considered the co-champions of the East Division. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many CFP games listed

Why are the Peach, Fiesta, Sugar, and Rose Bowls listed under the CFP section. They are not playoff games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.8.212 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

They're listed that way because there are six bowl games, the "New Years Six", that rotate in three-year cycles to host the CFP semi-final games -- Rose and Sugar, Orange and Cotton, and Peach and Fiesta. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But they are not all playoff games this year. If the title of the section were New Years Six, that would make sense, but it is not.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015–16 NCAA football bowl games. 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/20150318155441/http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/college-football-bowl-schedule.php to http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/college-football-bowl-schedule.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)