This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
Re: Boston College
Boston College and ND are indeed the only two Catholic schools that currently play Div.1-A football. However, BC and ND are generally not considered pure rivals--most Irish fans would consider Southern Cal, Michigan, Navy, and a few other univerisities rivals, but not BC. It is my opinion that the reference does not belong is this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorcal (talk) • contribs) 21:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I attended Notre Dame and I can assure you that BC is a Notre Dame rival. Aside from being the only two Catholic schools that play Division 1-A football, the victor of each game wins the Ireland Trophy, created in 1995 by the Notre Dame Student Government "as a token of goodwill, camaraderie, and friendly rivalry". Furthermore, the fact that the only time the Irish have worn their green jerseys in the past 20-something years in a game that was not against USC or in a bowl game occurred against BC in 2002 is not insignificant and testifies to the rivalry status of this series.--Brian Brockmeyer 22:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The amount of space devoted to the argument over whether BC is or is not an ND rival suggests ipso facto by the level of the passion here that if it isn't a "rivalry" it sure is something intense. The amount of energy expended to argue that the matchup is inconsequential inherently refutes the argument that it is inconsequential. BTW, ND alum Sec. of State Condi Rice used the "Holy War" moniker to refer to the BC-ND series during her commencement address at BC in 2006. Whatever it is, it is a hell of an annual matchup and it is unfortunate that thanks to the Big East - ACC machinations it may not continue past 2010.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.184.213 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As a current student at Notre Dame, I can assure you that BC is indeed NOT our rival for several reasons. USC is our major rival smart one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.78.83 (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC) First, a the term "rivalry game" implies that some level of increased anticipation exists on both opposing sides. Now, I can't speak for BC fans, but on campus this past year there was no more excitement for the BC game than there was for the Purdue game, the Washington game, or any other--it simply wasn't special for us. From the alums and sub-alums I've talked to, this opinion exists outside of campus also. If, as I and many others believe, the majority of Irish football fans feel BC is just a normal game on our schedule, then it cannot be termed a rivalry (rivalries just can't be unrequited). Second, ND and BC haven't matched up enough times for the game to be called a rivalry. The game hasn't been scheduled even semi-regularly until recently, a factor which, if changed, could indeed eventually make this game a true rivalry. Third (and this point relates back to the first), the actions of our former coach and ND Student Government do not necessarily correlate to the wills of the student body, the alumni, or the fan base at large. This same coach (Willingham) implied that fans should be satisfied with a 6-win "winning season", and the student government is constantly criticized for not enacting the wishes of the student body. More specifically, recent polls on campus regarding BC state that most see them as just another school. Ty and the student government simply didn't/don't represent what ND students and fans think most of the time. Fourth, ND and BC were not always the only Catholic schools playing D-1A football (or the highest level of football existing at the time). The fact that the two schools _are_ right now does not in itself create a rivalry--it's simply an attribute the schools share in common. Last, the green jerseys are not a gimmick, and they do not designate certain teams to be our rivals. We wore green numbers on white jerseys against Florida in the '92 Sugar Bowl--are they our rivals? Green jerseys were used throughout a good portion of Dan Devine's stay at ND--were all the teams we faced with those jerseys our rivals? Most ND fans I know wouldn't say that these or any other teams we wore green jerseys against (even recently) are our rivals, least of all BC. 69.108.74.58 02:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should go back and read the previous paragraph: I specifically stated that the only time we wore the green jerseys during the past 20+ years in a game that was not a bowl game or a USC game came against BC in 2002, rendering your invocation of the Devine Era and the 92 Sugar Bowl irrelevant. Let me rephrase that we wore green jerseys this year (2005) when we played USC. Point Proven. The fact of the matter is that since the switch back to the blue jerseys in 1982, we've worn "green" jerseys on six occassions, with 2 of those coming against archrival USC (83, 85), 3 in bowl games (92 Sugar, 95 Fiesta, 99 Gator), and the last in the 02 BC game. That the BC game was the only time the green jerseys were worn in a regular season game against an opponent other than USC over the past 22 years is not insignificant, and, combined with everything else (the shared Catholic identity, the strong Irish-American ties, the great games, the Ireland Trophy, the ND-BC rivalries in basketball, hockey, baseball, etc., the academic similarities between the institutions, etc.), cements the fact that this is a rivalry. I'm pretty active in the NDAA and attuned to the sentiments within the Association, and nearly everyone I've spoken to acknowledges that this, indeed, is a rivalry.--Brian Brockmeyer 03:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
BC's a rival, through and through. The only ones who consider otherwise are the subway alums (i.e. people with no connection to the University itself) who have grown weary of the game due to BC's recent four-in-a-row success. Most alums and students, myself included, consider the game a rivalry game. I was a student for the Foley game, which basically gave rise to the rivalry, as well as for StudGov's decision to create the Ireland Trophy, which WAS well received by the student body. Notre Dame and Boston College have much in common, including their Catholic affiliations, strong ties to the Irish-American community, and a certain College HOF head coach, that served to cement the bond between the two schools. Additionally, if you truly are a Notre Dame student, as you say you are, then I shouldn't have to point out to you the staggering number of Boston-Irish-Catholics in the Notre Dame community, or the high number of BC students that matriculate in ND graduate programs. These various frictions and ties are exactly what make a rivalry a rivalry. To deny the existence of the ND-BC rivalry is to play the elitist card and betray an ignorance of all things Notre Dame. The topic was also broached over at the University of Notre Dame Talk Page and the same conclusion was reached without dissent. Bottom line: It's a rivalry.Juicedpalmeiro 02:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
BC is not a rival. Though it is true that Notre Dame and Boston College share many of the same demographics that is not enough for a rivalry. ND and BC have only played each other 16 times and every year only since 1992. By contrast, Notre Dame and USC have squared off 76 times, interrupted only by WWII. Other rivals worth consideration are Michigan (17 games since 1978 where both are ranked, as well as the opponent of ND's first football game), Michigan State (68 games), Purdue (76 games), Pittsburgh (62 games), Navy (78 games). We've even played Army 48 times, though they haven't been a rival since the 50s. Any dislike of BC comes from them beating us in '93 and because BC serves as a reminder of Davie and Willingham's failure as coaches, only managing to go 3-5 against BC, which leaves the same bad taste in one's mouth as if we had gone 3-5 against IU.
A rivalry, however, would either entitle a) Mutual respect in that we wish each other well in every other game of the season but just not when we play each other. Notre Dame has such a rivalry with USC, where I would say we would like USC to finish #2 to ND's #1. That makes lording it over them all the more enjoyable as well. It may even be concievable under this definition to consider Navy a rival, as most fans respect the team and the school, hope they get their win againt ND one day because they really do deserve it, but always hope that the one day is not one day this year. The inter-academy rivalries also display this form of rivalry.
Another way to be a rival is b) to hate each other with every fiber of your being, hope they lose every game and are ultimately destroyed by a meteor. This is the way we feel about Michigan, and more like the hatred Auburn and Alabama hold for one another. When the Boston College game rolls around, we expect to win, but we do not care what happens to BC apart from us beating them. Thus, not a rivalry. (Source: http://www.georgemacor.com/NDfootball.html) Tewdrig 07:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you don't care, but pretty much every ND alum I have come across cares. BC has cleaned ND's clock for five of the last six meetings. They are the only other serious Catholic football playing school and they are now in one of the nation's top conferences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.184.213 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL...I don't give much stock to the opinion of a site that claims we like to see USC finish second. I'd also like to point out the silliness of the notion that the length of a series determines whether or not it counts as a rivalry. Miami was always considered a rival throughout the 80s, even though the series was young. Likewise Penn State (17 games) and Stanford (19 games). The Observer even recognizes the BC series as a rivalry. Pretty much everyone does except for a few self-appointed subway alums who spend way too much time on BGI. It's a settled issue.--Brian Brockmeyer 07:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but of the games from 1980-1990, seven times were both teams ranked, and twice were one of them ranked #1 (#1 Miami at #4 Notre Dame, 1988, and #1 Notre Dame at #7 Miami, 1989). What significance does the Notre Dame BC game have other than the '93 game? Moreover, how can a rivalry exist when one school does not consider the other a rival? Certainly, a rivalry requires reciprocity, and that simply does not exist. It could be elitism on Notre Dame's part, and BC-ND could very well become a new rivalry, but until the majority of students, fans, and alumni consider it a rivalry, how could it possibly be one?
Also, why the hostility towards subway alumni? Though they did not graduate from the university, Notre Dame has nonetheless generated a large following over the last century in the Catholic community starting in a time when you couldn't be Catholic and American at the same time. It was Notre Dame students who fought the KKK in the streets of South Bend, and it was the Notre Dame football team who gave Catholic Americans a sense of pride by beating Michigan, Army, and everyone else despite being a small, midwestern, Catholic school. ND has meant a lot to Catholics over the years, who were often viewed as outsiders in a WASP America, whether they went to the university or not.
The source linked was where I got the number of games versus each school. The feeling that USC should finish second to ND came from my time as a student (class of 05) and fan, as well as from talking with others.
Furthermore, if you disagree that most people would like to see USC finish with 1 loss to Notre Dame, then surely you would agree to the statement that most would like to see them lose every game. The claim still applies that for it to be a rivalry, Notre Dame fans must care how BC does in weeks ND and BC aren't playing, whether hoping they win or lose. Tewdrig 08:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I can't argue with you about most of us wanting to see USC lose every game, but, in my experience, BC falls into that same category, too. There is a lot of bitterness that remains from the Foley game, as well as the sod incident in 2002 and the BC student body's gold 'Superfan' t-shirts, which are a blatant wannabe/knockoff of 'The Shirt'. I don't think I've ever seen a Notre Dame Stadium crowd as angry as it was exiting NDS after last year's loss to BC. Most alums I know, even the few who wouldn't categorize BC as a "rival," nevertheless like to see them lose every Saturday. While the height of enjoyment derived from a BC loss might not quite rise to the level of a USC or Michigan loss, I still think it surpasses that felt over a loss by traditional rival Michigan State, and is at least equal to one by traditional rival Purdue. It's certainly a newer rivalry and its intensity, from our side, is not on the level of the USC or Michigan rivalries, but it is nonetheless a rivalry. I think when some deny the existence of the rivalry they are really just trying to heal the wounds created by BC's recent success in the series by dismissing BC as a program that is "not on our level" or somehow beneath us giving a darn about-the elitist card. In reality, with the exception of USC and Michigan, I don't think any loss angers the greater ND community more than a loss to BC.--Brian Brockmeyer 02:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There are two more sections on this page below this one where the consensus AND the ground rules for adding a rival are made crystal clear. In addition, if you click on Juicedpalmeiro and Brian Brockmeyer, who argue for BC as a rival, you'll see that Wiki believes them to be one and the same person and a sockpuppet to boot. RVing now; if you like we can get an administrator in on this, though the more frequent editor/writers of the article will likely have some comments as well. Sensei48 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
ND's Colors
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I'm reverting the edit that reverted my edit about ND's colors. This recent edit was done by an editor who claims the University of Miami as his/her school and might well not be aware of this element of Notre Dame lore - as apparently are some younger Domers as well.
Notre Dame's colors have been and have been described as "Gold and Navy Blue" since the school's inception.
They were selected according to all documentary evidence available by founder Fr. Edward Sorin himself. They are reflected in the words of the Alma Mater -
"Notre Dame Our Mother, tender strong and true -
Proudly in the Heavens Gleams thy gold and blue"
The addition of Navy to the blue was an apparent concession in later years to the most easily available color for athletic uniforms.
NEVER have ND's colors been identified as Blue and Gold.
The official colors....
"Gold and blue." Obamafan70 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
More on colors papal gold and Madonna blue are absolutely incorrect. There is a problem with the sourcing for the university's colors, newly listed in the infobox as "Madonna blue and papal gold." The reference supporting this, however, is to the university's "visual identity" handbook, essentially a style sheet for publications and media. Visual ID .pdf That document states "The official colors of the visual identity are Madonna blue and papal gold" - not those of the school itself. The athletic department correctly identifies and explains that the sports teams wear gold and blue, and in that order - UND Athletics. Now, the heraldry of the coat of armsThe Coat of Arms of the university indeed features Madonna blue and papal gold - those are the colors depicted here. However - the SEAL of the university, included in the infobox, - University Seal||right|150 px|thumb - is the standard gold and blue, neither papal nor Madonna. The visual identity is not representative of the actual colors - the "Madonna blue" has never been worn as athletic colors, nor featured on pennants, nor on diplomas, nor anywhere else I can find or recall except for post-2009 publications. The sports monogram itself - - is the traditional blue, far closer to navy than Madonna.Sensei48 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Current NFL players
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section should have the players current teams removed so that someone does not need to constantly update it. We should tend to stay away from current status' anyways.
DMC511 (talk)
I am the editor who originally created this section and I agree. NFL rosters are too fluid for this to be reasonably maintained. Tedmoseby (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Notre Dame schedules deletion discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Notre Dame has 8 APs titles which has been awarded since 1936, which no other school does. In the years where the coaches poll existed (1950-), only one of those titles was a split with the coaches. That year was 1973 in which Alabama was awarded the UPI title…before losing their the bowl game to Notre Dame.
Notre Dame has 3 consensus titles from before then. No other current Div 1-A school has 11 consensus titles.
Notre Dame was declared the national champion by some organization a total of 21 times, the most of any current Div 1A school. Alabama and USC are tied for second with 17.
Though no-longer Div 1A, Yale actually still has the most titles with 24.
What's with the fuzzy math? 8 wire champs, and they claim 3 more, for a total of 13? Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey get with the program. Alabama now claims 13 National Championships, thus tying with Notre Dame for the most. If you want to count all the other awarded then Alabama has an total of 18. Notre Dame has 8 AP. Alabama and Oklahoma have 7 AP. But Alabama and Notre Dame are tied durning the poll era with 8 total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamaboy929292 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
"Get with the Program" indicates to this editor that Alabama fans are trying to tout Alabama football on the Notre Dame football page. I think the better question is why there is a need to insert Alabama's accomplishments onto the Notre Dame football page. It shows clear bias to start rewriting the prose of the page with Alabama references. If people want to know how many titles Alabama has, they are free to go to that wiki-page. Even if your claim is correct that Alabama is tied with Notre Dame, it doesn't belong on this page. I removed "The Fighting Irish have been awarded the most consensus national championships and produced more All-Americans than any other Football Bowl Subdivision school" and replaced "the most" with "11". Please refrain further from inserting Alabama references on a Notre Dame football page. Regards. Tedmoseby (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Can some explain to me why the 2012 Harris poll is included as an "unclaimed" championship? Over at the Harris Poll page it specifically states that it does not crown a national champion as the last poll comes out before any bowls. Seems ridiculous to include it.174.69.100.244 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC
Certainly. The problem is listing Harris as a source. The actual source for this is the other one - The Colley Matrix, which awarded ND the #1 ranking even after the Alabama thumping. Colley claims to be the most "scientific" of the computer polls, and for better or worse, it has been one of the four computer rankings used by the BCS as part of its own ranking formula. Colley's final ranking is intended by them to be a NC award, though it clearly does not receive the same attention as the polls. In 2011, for example, Colley named Oklahoma State its NC, with perhaps more of a rationale since both OSU and Alabama had one loss that year - and Colley's computers told them that OSU was better. The question of how many claimed and unclaimed NCs any school has is moot. However, the standard for modern computation seems to have been set by Alabama, which in the 1980s used a vacuum cleaner to suck up every NC claim it could, including several (1941 and 1973 most egregiously but not solely) to which it has no more of a claim than ND would for 2012. The long and short of it is that a major selector named ND for 2012, and while the university has too much sense to claim it - it's there. And here BTW is Colley's final ranking: [1]Sensei48 (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That makes a little more sense. I see that link there now, whereas it was just the Harris before. I obviously think it's a little silly after losing a head to head matchup, but then so does ND so that's fine. The Bama shenanigans are a different story ...174.69.100.244 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the reference for Harris as a 2012 National Championship selector for the reason that it doesn't. I suppose this has probably been done before and ND fans add it back.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"Since 1950"
I am removing the arbitrary date of 1950 from this page in reference to Notre Dame vs Alabama national titles. What's the point in awarding any national titles at any point in history if we just start placing arbitrary dates to extol a school's accomplishment's? For example, why not write "Since 2009, Alabama has won more consensus national titles that any school in the country, including Notre Dame." This revisionism is academically dishonest. Plus, the wiki page for national championships already shows the different methods of awarding titles and is very comprehensive. In the absence of a clear playoff system, this is a pointless exercise. Any school can manipulate the data to tout their own accomplishments. Schools administrations have even co-opted national titles (see USC 1939) from other schools. Thus, this is why I am removing references to other schools with regard to national titles.Tedmoseby (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
An addendum: I realize that 1950 is the first year in which both AP and Coaches polls were used, but I still believe this arbitrary. One could easily argue that only titles since the Harris Poll and inception of the BCS should be counted using this line of reasoning.Tedmoseby (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
In addition, as I mentioned to an editor who earlier tried to use 1950 as the start date for NCs - "User:Tedmoseby pointed out in reverting your last edit that virtually all FBS teams claim pre-1950 championships - including USC Trojans football, an article ....in which you did not attempt to edit out their claims to pre-1950 championships. Such championships are nearly universally recognized, including by Wikipedia as indicated in College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS. To validate your edit to ND football, you would have to go into the articles of every one of the 112 FBS schools that claim an NC and establish consensus with the editors there to eliminate pre-1950 NCs - and such consensus is a virtual impossibility. You might want to start with Alabama Crimson Tide football, both alphabetically and because they claim even more NCs than Notre Dame. And don't forget to revert USC's four pre-1950 titles, as well as those of about thirty other schools. Alternatively, you could work within the rubrics of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football to make constructive additions to resolving this difficult question. Sensei48 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)" Sensei48 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism June 2008
There has been some pretty blatant vandalism this month, including someone who added a lot of information about Michigan Football into the article and someone who has three times edited the uniforms and traditions sections. These edits have all been done by unregistered users from separate IP addresses. I am asking that an admin semi protect the page from IP addresses and newly registered users. Several editors here have had to clean up messes made by anonymous vandals. Thanks!Tedmoseby (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
One of those editors was I, Ted. I placed two vandalism warnings on a discussion page for 64.123.185.12; the same vandalism edits are being made by someone under the IP of 76.187.232.200(suggesting possible sock puppetry), and currently the 'self-importance" line still starts the section on tradition. Unfortunately, ZimZalaBim is on hiatus and likely can't help now. I'm looking for another administrator to put a block on those two IPs and semi-protect the page. Places to look:
Under the list of participants (including you) are listed administrators -
[:[Wikipedia:WikiProject College football]]
I was looking at Dale Arnett (I think it was) as a possibility.
These are persistent vandals whose actions are ill-intended and completely un-constructive; I would hope a long-term or permanent block would be in order or we'll be doing this every day. Regards Sensei48 (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative on this Sensei. There has been a lot of vandalism lately and I don't see it dropping anytime soon. Even if this person gets tired of it, there are still people like the person who added all the irrelevant Michigan info. I hope you can get a permanent block. Tedmoseby (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Golden Dome
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
My dad has always said that the gold that is spray-painted onto the helmets is actually flakes from the Golden Dome. Is this true; and if so, should it be included in this article? Hans404 06:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It could be added if you found a reliable reference. Though, I have a strong feeling that is not an entirely correct statement; what is true is that the helmet paint does contain real a smidgen of gold. -- KelleyCook 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
While there is gold flake on the Golden Dome and the helmets of the Fighting Irish, they are not the same gold. -192.28.2.6 17:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Gold paint is typically mica flake.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Current National Championship Discussion, 2012
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
A number of editors have dropped by here and tried to change the lede regarding number of national championships of Notre Dame vs. Alabama in the wake of the 2012 BCS championship game won by the Tide. Over on the Alabama Crimson Tide football page, our fellow editors are now claiming fourteen NCs for ALA. Pretty much only Alabama itself makes so extravagant a claim; the sources cited in the article's lede are mostly from the school's own department of athletics.
The source I have cited in the lede of this article ([2]), the College Football Data Warehouse, is a recognized WP:RS with no axe to grind in the matter. It has not been updated yet to reflect 2012, but even doing so allows Alabama only the claim of a tie with ND, as the Tide does in AP championships ([3].
General CFB practice at Wikipedia is to allow knowledgeable editors to construct college football articles as they wish, with sourcing of their own choosing. The questionable nature of the sourcing of Alabama's claims (outlined here [4] in an article cited on the Tide page) is not a concern to me, and in the spirit of genial cooperation, I have no desire to edit that page to a more objective and verifiable standard. However - because this page uses sources not attached to the university, please do not try to change the lede or NC section to conform to questionable sources employed by other articles. Sensei48 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a note about the 1947 dispute to the championship section, without changing the title numbers. The addition links to the 1947 season page which has a more thorough discussion of the 1947 AP controversy, and provides a reference to Kryk's book where the controversy is discussed in even greater detail. This should hopefully put an end to discussion over the number of championships claimed, while clarifying why it is that some fans challenge the '47 championship.76.231.86.189 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Why have you added this snippet HERE and not on the Michigan Wolverines football page where it properly belongs as well? On THIS page, we discuss major changes before making them and we vet sources. The larger problem with this edit and the primary reason it should not be included is that virtually every year the CFB championship has been in dispute, with multiple schools claiming NC recognition and receiving it in the pre-BCS era(and even after - see the USC controversy of a few years back). The 1973 NC presents a nearly identical situation, with Alabama still claiming the NC it was awarded by UPI at the end of the regular season (the last time a major selector did not wait til after the bowls) but ND awarded the AP and a large majority of other post-bowl selectors. Until and unless a Wiki policy emerges dealing with these claims, editors of each CFB team must decide collaboratively what information on what years should be included. Any change made to this page regarding 1947 must also be made on the Michigan page and accepted by editors there. Sensei48 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I considered that this was the first example of a post-bowl AP poll, which presented a clear delineation between an archaic precedent and a modern one. The Alabama situation differs in that Notre Dame had all of established precedent behind them in 1947, while the (largely considered bogus even in its time) 1975 claim was against the established precedent of its day. Considering the context--all precedent at the time of the 1947 championship backed Notre Dame, but long-established modern precedent favors the Wolverines' claim--I think this is a case example of a disputed National Championship in which both parties have equally strong claims. I believe you are correct in that it should be included as well on the Michigan Wolverines page, and am happy to discuss this with you and others further before making both changes. I am the Associate Editor of the major sports blog for Michigan and am in personal contact with many of the sources who could help verify the claims and context, including the referenced John Kryk who recently wrote an article for our annual publication.12.170.92.97 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and explanation. About a dozen editors work on this page with some regularity, and I'll send a note around to ask for comment and discussion here. The Kryk book would be more than sufficient sourcing, and that wasn't the problem that I had with the edit (and as you may know, personal contacts are not permitted by Wiki policy as WP:OR). The problem is that the ND NC chart as currently configured in this article is simply a list of those years in which the university recognizes a claim of a national championship, without further commentary or explanation - except for the reasons that the university does not claim the 2 additional championships with which most other sources credit them. 1947 may indeed be a disputed championship, but so are 1953 (which ND does not claim) and 1973 (which the university does).
Alabama is another part of the problem but also potentially a part of the solution on Wikipedia. As you may know, in the mid-1980s the Alabama SID upped the Crimson Tide's claims by 5, including one season (1941) that is recognized by virtually no one else except UA/SEC shills in the major media. Alabama also claims several seasons (1964, 1973, 1978) in which the majority of selectors chose another school (Arkansas, Notre Dame, USC respectively) to which Alabama lost or which won a bowl when Alabama lost or both. This is all problematic and simply messes up the whole NC conversation even more than it already is. However, to their credit IMHO, the editors who work on the Alabama Crimson Tide football page recognize this and present the foregoing and much more in detail in this section [[5]]. They have provided a brief and generally complete explanation year by year of their claims, including controversies. I would favor such an addition to this page, and in that context your comments would fit well. Without such a context, however, and given my point above about the nature of the table as it now exists, such an addition might well be regarded rather more as an attempt to demean ND than as a valuable addition. Notre Dame's claims are just that, and they as currently stated are not dependent on what other universities claim. More to come, I'm sure. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Well one thing is clear.... ND won't be adding to it's number this year....while Bama will...... 2 Minutes to half-time: Bama 21 Notre Dame: only one trip past the 50...... :-) Revmqo (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
But you never considered that the editors here would list an unclaimed national championship based on the Colley Matrix and the pre-bowl Harris poll.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Media section needs updated
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Irish played an away game vs Air Force which broadcast on the CBS Sports Network just last weekend. Kap 7 (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Current Overall Record
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been doing some research on the overall record and I made an update to the numbers listed. Every site that I can find lists Nd's official record as 865-301-42 and not 865-302-42 (as was listed on this page). Notre Dame's official media guide before the 2012 season showed their record as 853-300-42. After going 12-1, that would make them 865-301-42. I'm not sure where the extra loss was coming from, but unless someone knows why/where the difference is coming from, I would assume that we should stick with the official Notre Dame tally. For proof of this record, please reference page 156 of the Notre Dame 2012 media guide. This can be found here. [1]
2013: The Irish finished the season at 9-4 (including New Era pinstripe bowl). This makes our new overall record 874-305-42.
2014: Following the 2014 season and music city bowl, the Irish went 8-5. The new all time record is 882-310-42.
Tonyvolo (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't mean to suggest that the article is incorrect, but one of the links is dead, one of them just describes new uniforms, and the other two mention nothing of the "academic lectures" or other activities listed in the article. Does anyone have sources that actually back those specific claims up?
2601:19B:B00:C7B2:D7:4AC2:CD1A:81DD (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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:
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. 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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:
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. 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Notre Dame Fighting Irish 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:
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. 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why isn't the 2021 schedule on here? 1Luca2 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I would answer that the 2021 schedule is now the current schedule rather than a "future" schedule. Raddok (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional game scheduled for 2022 season
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not sure how to make the changes both in the 2022 schedule as well as in the list of Shamrock Series games, so anyone with interest and inclination may want to add Brigham Young University as an opponent at a date TBA, to be played in Las Vegas NV as a game in the Shamrock Series.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@EvergreenFir: It appears that the cause for all the inappropriate edits has ended as the coach has been officially named. Please remove the page protection. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Proposal For An Edit: Future Schedules
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The lede of this article correctly identifies the location of the university as Notre Dame, Indiana and appends the phrase "north of the city of South Bend." The "Future Schedules" tables, however, identify the sites for all home games as South Bend. The stadium is now and has always been on campus and hence located in Notre Dame, IN and not South Bend. I fully subscribe to our Wiki dictum to "Be bold," and changing the locale of "Future Schedules" to ND, IN shouldn't be a big thing, but with cordial respect for Wiki processes and for others who have also worked on the article, I thought I'd stop by here before taking the simple step of making the change. I'll wait a day or two before making the edit just in case anyone has a good reason not to do so.
regards,
Sensei48 (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Since there were no objections, I have changed the locale for home games to the legal and correct designation of Notre Dame, Indiana. Sensei48 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
