Talk:Kansas Jayhawks football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Major changes[edit]

Wikipedia is not a blog, and parts of this article have been written as if it were a sports blog. I thus removed a section on 2007, which contained phrases such as "They take a week off before beginning Big 12 play at rival Kansas State on October 6". This could be restored, if put in a more WP-friendly format.

Also, the Records section ought to actually list records rather than list of highlights of the last three seasons. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_Chiefs_statistics StaticElectric 07:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Removal[edit]

Not sure how this sentence survived for so long, but I removed "This game The 40 points are the most by the Jayhawks against Nebraska. " because of the wording and because it simply isn't true anymore. Jklharris 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayhawks image[edit]

Just a heads up to those working on this and related articles. The Jayhawks logo must have a fair-use rationale for every article in which it is used (see the "File links" section on the here). Otherwise, it can be removed from the page. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus All-Americans[edit]

Even though the NCAA publication referenced doesn't list Anthony Collins as a consensus All-American, he meets what their stated definition of one is. The NCAA officially uses the AP, Football Writers Association of America, American Football Coaches Association, The Sporting News, and the Walter Camp Foundation to determine consensus All-Americans. Collins was an All-American by the AP, the FWAA, and the WCF. 3 out of 5 would be a consensus. They list Ryan Clady who only was on the AFCA and TSN lists, which is not a consensus. They also list Steve Justice as a consensus OL, but he was a center(the only O-line position seperated out on its own) and was only on the AP and AFCA lists. Again, not a consensus. What am I missing here?

Kmanblue (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no explanation here after 3 years? Collins meets the NCAA definition of a consensus All-American in being voted 1st team All-American to 3 of the 5 official organizations the NCAA recognizes in determining consensus All-Americans. He was voted 1st team All-American on more lists than any other OL(7) outside of Jake Long(12) in 2007. He was 1 of only 3 finalists for the Outland trophy for best lineman in the country, yet he's not listed as a consensus All-American. Why not? What gives here? Kmanblue (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Border Showdown[edit]

Wikipedia should try to be an accurate encyclopedia and not just an advertisement for certain things, like Sports programs. The rivalry is mutually beneficial for both schools because it helps sell tickets, like any rivalry, but it is not historically accurate. The University of Missouri was founded in 1839, and was located in the strongly Pro-Union town of Columbia. Indeed, the Pro-Confederate guerrillas that burned Lawrence to the ground also posed a threat to Columbia. "The Missouri Tigers" militia unit was formed to defend the town, which they did successfully with Union soldiers. Some of the "Jayhawkers" were freedom fighters, others were simply looters and thieves, the sort people that caused the guerrillas in Missouri to attack Lawrence in the first place. Furthermore, an apologist is a person who makes a detailed argument in defense of a doctrine, policy, etc., in literature or in a speech. "Apologists" is a weird choice, when it seems better to say guerrillas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.83.210 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about almost everything. However, it is an urban legend that Columbia was strongly Pro-Union. The best way to describe the political beliefs of Columbia and indeed all of Mid-Missouri at the time is to say that they were generally pro-slavery but only mildly pro-union. Missourians as a whole did not think that succession was the best choice, but also did not agree with the abolitionist sentiments of Lincoln. This is why MIssouri is unusual, in that it was a border state, union state, and slave state all at once. Columbia had nothing to do with Bleeding Kansas or the burning of Lawrence. Sorry for the history rant, it is a pet peeve that there are so many misconceptions out there. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I address your concerns. I agree that apologist is not really a historically accurate term. Both sides employed the same tactics, so if you're going to call one guerillas you have to call them both. I think it is a politically charged term so I removed it entirely in favor of something more neutral. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Kennedy[edit]

KManBlue removed my "citation needed" tag for the statement Coach Kennedy was forced out as head coach. Considering his signficiant win record, it seems reasonble to have a citation for that assertion. I already cleaned up the cumbersome grammar of the statement, but the wording that suggests he was fired vs. made ineligble should have a citation. Anyone have a citation for it? Eodcarl (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy was not fired. His contract was not renewed as the conference had a meeting in the off-season in which they changed the rules to make it that coaches had to come from someone on the full time faculty, i.e. a professor. I see you're not on here trying to seek some sort of citation for why any of the other KU football coaches left and seeing as you're a missouri fan and have absolutely NO interest nor knowledge of this subject matter, and the only reason why you began looking at or editing this page at all is because you're wikihounding me in an attempt to be some sort of self-appointed overlord is extremely petty and quite harassing in its nature. Perhaps you should limit yourself to pages in which you are at least familiar with the topic at hand or just stop trying to follow me around everywhere I go on wikipedia. Do you seriously not have better things to do with your time than trying to harass people on wikipedia? Kmanblue (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your insults and erroneous assumptions about me aside, if he was not fired, and the dismissal was based on not meeting the new eligibility requirements, then my original edit of the cumbersome wording was correct. Either way, it needs a cite. Every fact on Wikipedia is supposed to have a citation. Why is anyone supposed to believe Coach Kennedy was let go because he wasn't on the faculty? Because you say so? It is one of the few with a note beyond the inclusive dates for each coach. BTW, you were already told this wikihounding accusation is unfounded, so how about we focus on making the articles better instead of bickering. Eodcarl (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting you, I'm labeling your actions and your actions speak for themselves. I edit a page, any page on wikipedia, and what do you know, YOU show up with a follow-up edit or a deletion of my edit. You've made several erroneous edits in your new found wikihounding role, because you don't know the subject matter at hand (example, your edit on "Live oak" and I bet you couldn't ID a live oak to save your life) or because you have a beef with me because I called you out on a lie in the border war talk page. Tell me, as a self proclaimed avid fan of the University of Missouri, are you now heavily invested or interested in KU football? Or how about Mark Mangino, 1 of KU's former football coaches? Or how about Lawrence, Kansas? Or is it that I've made recent edits to all of those pages and now you follow me along like some sort of lost puppy looking to create confrontation at every turn? If you want to stop bickering with me, then STOP wikihounding me. It's as simple as that. Kmanblue (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been diligently searching for a reference for the reason for Coach Kennedy's departure. I did find a reference to the new rule for coaches to also be faculty members, but not that it was the reason he departed. I did find the reason for his predecessor's departure, so I included that with a citation. Eodcarl (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you also been diligently looking up a reference for all of the other coaching changes listed, like George Sauer accepting the Navy job? Because you know, every fact on wikipedia is supposed to have a citation! I'll bet not. Kmanblue (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't fix all of Wikipedia all at once, KMan. My motives are both irrelevant and none of your business. However, I have improved the page by finding additional information on a KU football coach and citing it. Eodcarl (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're motives for being on this page and editing it are in bad faith and when your motivation is to wikihound me, then it is my business as it involves me. Nice job at getting at all of those citations for why the other coaches left so you could try and claim you weren't here in the first place merely wikihounding me. It only took you 5 minutes from my comment above to get at it. You really are obsessed aren't you? Kmanblue (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia authorities have already ruled, finding your accusations to be without merit. If you believe my edits made this article worse, you are welcome to make that case here. Leave it to you to ridicule my efficiency in correcting oversights of others on this article as obsessive. Why didn't you simply fix it yourself? It is still in question whether Coach Kennedy departed KU for the reason you claim. Either find a reference, or the "citation needed" tag goes back on. Eodcarl (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior on the border war page, the US Navy EOD page, now this page, as well as on a few others, and your wikihounding of me has all been obsessive. As to why I nor anyone else besides yourself "fixed" this page (or thought it needed that kind of "fixing") is because despite your claim otherwise, not every little fact on every wikipedia page is in need of a citation. Kmanblue (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of my motives is not relevant on Wikipedia. I made this article more accurate and more complete. If you don't think the additions are relevant you are free to discuss it here, but you are not free to revert my edits due only to your perception of my motives. I have just as much right to edit this or any Wikipedia page as you do (as you were already told by an administrator). You didn't have a legitimate complaint, as you were told, but if you continue to undo my edits based only on your erroneous perceptions about me and not the quality and accuracy of the content, you will be breaking ACTUAL Wikipedia guidelines. And yes, information that is not common knowledge does need a citation; Why should anyone believe it, otherwise? Eodcarl (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion of your bad-faith motives for being on this page are spot on, but my reversion of your edits had NOTHING to do with your bad-faith motives. You're corrupting the purpose of the list as it's main function is to list the identities of each coach to coach football at KU, not explain why every single one left. The only notes were for those not fired, and if more notes need to be made for non-fired coaches, so be it. That's not what you're doing though. You're trying to change the purpose of the list and indeed re-editing the title of the list to suit your need to add a note about a fired coach. Your attempted edits are cumbersome, unnecessary and detracting from the quality of the page. Not improving it. Kmanblue (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the arbiter of the purpose of the list. The purpose of any article is to inform the reader, and the information I've added is relevant. I found the new information of interest while I was doing your job for you, trying to find a reference for the information you added with properly sourcing it, ironically. Eodcarl (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the list is quite clear in the title. I did not create the list nor the title, so I am NOT being the arbiter, but rather backing up the original purpose of the original editor. You're making unnecessary arbitrary cumbersome edits which also is completely changing the purpose of the list. That's a significant change with no real cause. Kmanblue (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches list[edit]

The current list provides caveat for explanation for coaches not fired, but several of the coaches left for retirement or other reasons, but KManblue is trying to prevent the reason for Coach Weeks departure from being posted for apparently personal reasons, even though it is relevant from an encyclopedic perspective. I suggest either explanations for all the coaches not fired be added, or the intro sentence be modified as I originally edited it. Eodcarl (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears User:Kmanblue is violating WP:3RR. He disagrees with the reason for Coach Weeks firing being relevant. I invite other editors to join the discussion, or for User:Kmanblue to explain why he would want to censor history as referenced from the KUHistory website. Eodcarl (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eodcarl is again violating WP:3RR. He is making arbitrary cumbersome edits to this page and editorializing the title of a section for personal reasons. I invite other editors to join the discussion or for User:Eodcarl to justify his edits and explain how they aren't cumbersome and unnecessary. Kmanblue (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, User:Kmanblue made the third and most recent revert. He also deleted my attempt to engage him on his talk page. I resisted reverting it again and I am going to WP:DISENGAGE until someone else engages the topic. He has no insight into my reasons for editing, and as I said, I found the historically relevant information while looking for something else. Eodcarl (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning for the edits is irrelevant to their cumbersome unnecessary nature. They add nothing of value to this article, but rather detract from it. Kmanblue (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I agree, but that list doesn't currently has a method for listing the circumstances of each coach's departure. Perhaps it should be added, but there is plenty of room for the information in both places. What do you think? Eodcarl (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text is always a welcome addition to a list. A second section with more full descriptions of the tenure of each coach can be added below the table. This will keep the sortable features of the table intact and keep it similar to other programs. I like the idea of adding the info.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the list on this page should just be removed and replaced with a brief description of the number of coaches over history and notable achievements or honors garnered by some while retitling the section "Head coaching history"? Of course, keep the link to the list of KU coaches page. That seems to be the norm on most college football pages. Kmanblue (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, but you could on this page add a few paragraphs about a few of the "key" coaches with a "for a complete list see..." header. Maybe even a photo or two of past coaches. I'm thinking that Hopkins, Hargiss, Kennedy, Outland, Mitchell, Mangino, and Weiss are all candidates for this action.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. Eodcarl (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed some cleanup but I like the new format.--Rockchalk717 21:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Bowen "Era" ?[edit]

Folks, I get that a new interim head coach is named and that calls for changes in this page and others. But surely a head coach has to be coaching for at least a game before the time period is called an "era" ??? Or at least be named the permanent head coach which hasn't happened yet?

I'm not ready to start a fight and boldly revert, but I think it is worthwhile to have some discussion about that section's removal and build a consensus on it. And just in case I'm not clear, I'm in favor of removing or at least re-naming the section "Clint Bowen Era"--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


What constitutes a Jayhawk[edit]

Why is it that a player who spends 4 years of their life at KU, gets their diploma from KU, plays 3 of their 4 years of eligibility at KU is now suddenly not considered a Jayhawk? It seems to revolve around Tyler Patmon and Andrew Turzilli currently. I know for a fact that at least 1 of them left KU against their will if that made any difference, but I don't think it should. If a player played at KU, then I think that makes them a Jayhawk even if it was only 1 year, but especially so if it was 4 years with 1 obviously being a redshirt year since they did play 1 year somewhere else. Heck, even players like Troy Aikman are claimed as alumni by Oklahoma in the NFL Hall of Fame and he only played 2 years there. Please explain the attempted black listing of such players from the Jayhawks in the NFL list on this page. Kmanblue (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a player played a single down at Kansas and made it into the NFL they constitute a Jayhawk in the NFL. If the player is part of Category:Kansas Jayhawks football players then they stand to reason to fit in this list. The only exception to this would be if this was List of Kansas Jayhawks in the NFL Draft if they were drafted as members of other schools, e.g. Oklahoma's draft list doesn't include Marcus Dupree, or Troy Aikman.
I agree with the anonymous? (I thought wikipedia auto-signed unsigned posts?) editor above me. The list clearly is not solely for players who were drafted as there's a separate page for that list. It's for players who played at KU at some point in their career who are now in the NFL. At least that's how it reads to me. I believe we've come to a consensus on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football page about this now. Kmanblue (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kansas Jayhawks 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Honor members[edit]

@Rockchalk717:

  • You state[1] "Previous order was be order of induction (will be easier to cite future additions this way) and you obviously didn’t pay very good attention to the source because it mentions Larry Brown being inducted this season, but you removed him"
  • Your citation states[2] Players are listed in order of their time at KU. Also, "order of induction" is not present in either your citation or the section's table. So perhaps I did read the offered citation and chose to address the unsourced/NOR issue by reflecting what is clearly stated in the citation. And Larry Brown was not removed as you later noted.


  • You state[3] "and on year ranges you do not include “19” or “20” before both years"
  • MOS:DATERANGE (a guideline, not a policy) states since July 2016:
A simple year–year range is written using an en dash (– or {{ndash}}) not an em dash, hyphen or slash; this dash is unspaced (that is, with no space on either side); and the range's end year is usually given in full:
1881–1886;  1881–1992 (not 1881–86;  1881 – 1992)

I also paired the citation to the section introduction for context, then added both |author and |date paramaters to the citation -which you also removed. You're welcome to correct any of these issues. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Streak[edit]

This statement, "The Jayhawks had an active streak of 44 consecutive losses to teams ranked in the AP poll that has stood since a loss to 24th ranked Oklahoma in 2009," doesn't appear to me to be correct, as they apparently beat Georgia Tech in 2010 (ranked #15 at the time). Blwhite (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule[edit]

Hey all,

Why are we removing games that have a valid source? FBS Schedules.com is authoritative on this. Let's not have an edit war. @Rockchalk717:

Esb5415 (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockchalk717, please respond here. Why are you reverting edits that have press releases? This is what you wanted! Let us talk this out, rather than having an edit war.
Esb5415 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esb5415: Relax, I saw the press releases, which I missed when initially looking at your edit. They have been added back. I explained why I reverted however. Most of what we do on Wikipedia is based on official announcements, FBS Scheudles (which I don't believe has had a consensus for use) has the same games that Kansas has officially announced, so their existence and reliability is irrelevant.--Rockchalk717 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockchalk717: I was taking the consensus as every other CFB page. Northern Illinois, Illinois, North Texas, Florida Atlantic, UCF, Clemson all have them, just from simple googling. If there isn't a consensus, we should try to get one to get these pages standardized. Whether that is FBS schedules, ESPN, CBS sports, or just the schools themselves. I personally don't care if we use FBS Schedules or not, but if all the other CFB pages use it, then this one should as well.
Esb5415 (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esb5415: Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, just because something exists in other articles doesn't make it. More so than about any other type of article I've noticed, college football related articles are frequently edited in IP addresses and inexperienced editors. Not necessarily saying there isn't a consensus for its usage, just that I'm not aware of one and it being used as a source elsewhere doesn't mean there is one either. Thank you for adding the press releases though. I must have missed those when KU announced it. If you're wanting a consensus, you can try WT:CFB. Just for full disclosure, me questioning the reliability doesn't mean I think the information is inaccurate, just that may potentially not fit Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source.--Rockchalk717 17:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockchalk717: Makes perfect sense. I'll check out the CFB project. Thank you!
Esb5415 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kansas_Jayhawks_football&oldid=1207909001"