Talk:Choke at Doak

noteworthy?

This game definitely belongs in the "memorable games" section of the Florida – Florida State rivalry article, but is it worthy of its own separate entry? There were no national title implications, no national records set, nothing to make it memorable outside of the fan bases of the schools involved.

A couple seasons ago, there was a huge debate over the notability of the Appalachian State upset of Michigan, with many wikipedians arguing that even that game was not worthy of its own entry. (See here.) If there's an argument about an unquestionably historic contest like that, I don't see how the 94 UF/FSU game could meet the standards for inclusion.

(And before anybody accuses me of being a Gator homer, let me point out that I'd be making the same arguments re: every other meeting in this series (no matter who won) besides the 1996/7 Sugar Bowl, which was a national championship game.) Zeng8r (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there were national championship implications to the game. Had Florida State won, they would have had a shot at grabbing Miami's Orange Bowl berth and playing #1/#2 Nebraska for a possible piece of the pie. Florida may have also, as they were 4th heading into the game and the Bowl Coalition had a provision to release the SEC Champion from the traditional Sugar Bowl berth if it would create a "title game" (a win over FSU and in the SEC CG may have allowed them to leapfrog Miami to #3). Regardless, even if the Orange Bowl still opted to invite Miami over the UF-FSU winner, the winner (had there been one) would have still been in line to claim a share of the national championship if Penn State and Nebraska both lost (though Florida would have been in a stronger position to share a title in light of FSU's head-to-head loss to Miami).

Secondly, the analogy to the debate over the Michigan-Appalachian State article is seriously flawed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that (1) it involved a game that was contemporaneous with the article's creation (notability is significantly more difficult to assess and more contestable the more current the event is) and (2) the AfD was ultimately defeated anyway.

Third, the game involved the biggest fourth quarter comeback in NCAA I-A history, which itself makes it "unquestionably historic" (see: The Comeback).

Finally, the game is referenced and given prominent treatment by a number of online news articles (even though it predated the Internet Era by years), books, and video games, is frequently replayed on both ESPN Classic and Sun Sports as a "classic." and is an enduring and important part of college football lore, generally, and UF-FSU lore, specifically. There's no real notability issue here.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Individual regular season games don't need title implications to be notable (e.g. 1921 Centre vs. Harvard football game), and that precedent has been upheld at AFD (e.g. 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game). However, what makes you say there weren't title implications? Florida was the fourth-ranked team in the nation at the time. If they had beaten Florida State by a significant margin and finished with one loss there is a real possibility they would have been in contention for the national championship (for at least one selector). Also, since you mentioned the 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game, I should point out that it was not only kept, but speedy kept, and I have my doubts that it was "unquestionably historic". Although an upset, it was a season opener, so expectations were based solely upon (notoriously unreliable) preseason estimates. Second, it wasn't an upset by a large margin or a miraculous comeback. Third, Michigan turned out to be a fairly mediocre Division I-A team that season and Appalachian State was the best team in Division I-AA and won that division's championship through a playoff system.

With all that said, (and I'm an impartial observer) this game is clearly notable even using the WP:GNG while discounting game recaps. Here are some other non-recaps that mention this at least a year after the fact: "Gators Seek to Negate 15 Minutes of Shame Against Seminoles", The Washington Post; "100 things about 100 years of Gator football", St. Petersburg Times; "The Choke at Doak haunting memory for UF", Ocala Star-Banner; "Win One for Spurrier?", Miami Herald; "Eating Crow in Gainesville", Sarasota Herald Tribune; "UF, FSU hope game ranks among the best", News Herald (Panama City); "Gators Turn Victory into Certain Disaster", Ocala Star-Banner; and many more here.

However, even though the media widely calls it "Choke at Doak", the title may nevertheless have NPOV concerns. I propose renaming it 1994 Florida vs. Florida State football game with a redirect from Choke at Doak and any other colloquial names. Also, in the first line of the lead, something along the lines of: "The 1994 Florida vs. Florida State football game—often called the Choke at Doak, the Rally at Tallahassee, and the [whatever else]—was a regular season college football..." I will also post a message at the the college football project in order to solicit other people's input. Strikehold (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither team played for a national championship that year. Should every game in which one of the participants had a possibility of possibly playing in a championship game get its own article?

Actually, many of the same arguments could be made for including about 90% of the games in Florida - Florida State rivalry. Also, most of the games listed in The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party and Miami – Florida State rivalry. Also, most of the games mentioned in articles about any other college rivalry. Also, pretty much any contest between any semi-successful pro or amateur teams in any sport that garnered some press coverage.

Looks like we have several hundred more articles to write, at least. Better get started. Zeng8r (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is quite an exaggeration to say "pretty much any contest between any semi-successful pro or amateur teams in any sport that garnered some press coverage" meets WP:GNG. None of the above cited sources are simple game recaps, which is the extent of media coverage garnered by most games without much larger significance. Also, that neither team actually played in a national championship (which didn't even exist at the time) does not mean there were not national title implications. You were, after all, the one who first stated that "[t]here were no national title implications" with this game. Of course there are a lot more articles to write, in this field, and in many many others. The non-existence of one article isn't a good reason to preclude the existence of another similar one. After all, at one point, there weren't articles on gastroenterology, Vladimir Bukovsky, or scalar field. Strikehold (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

90% of the games in the Florida – Florida State rivalry or Georgia–Florida rivalry or "any other college rivalry" haven't been ties that were the result of the largest fourth quarter comeback in NCAA history. And one of the major reasons why "[n]either team played for a national championship that year" was because of the outcome of this game (not that national championship implications are a sine qua non for a single game article, anyway: see, for example, Hail Flutie, Bluegrass Miracle, or 2001 Michigan vs. Michigan State football game). This wasn't just another game among many. While "pretty much any contest between semi-successful pro or amateur teams" may garner "some press coverage," few continue to receive coverage years after the fact. You're making blatant straw man arguments.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is notable, but the name is definitely a NPOV issue. It may have it's own nickname, but it shouldn't be the article of the title. There are others in different sports in a similar category. For example, Maradona's famous goal at the 1986 FIFA World Cup, commonly known as the "Hand of God" is a redirect to an article about the game titled "Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final)". Just look at the names of the redirects to the article.[1] "Hand of God goal", "The Hand of the Devil", "Goal of the Century", etc. Opinion or bias shouldn't shape the title of an encyclopedia article. I concur with Strikehold that a good title would be 1994 Florida vs. Florida State football game or something similar. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The WikiProject College Football convention is clear that "Where available, single-game articles should be named with the most common nickname or name assigned to the game." Hence, article titles like Bluegrass Miracle, Miracle at Michigan, Punt Bama Punt, Catholics vs. Convicts, etc. Unlike the dry and unhelpful "[Year] [Visiting team] vs. [Home team] football game" format, nicknames actually indicate to the reader why the game is important/notable (i.e., what makes it stand out from any other game), which is why they are given precedence by the Project.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm ambivalent about a rename upon further investigation. It does appear that "Choke at Doak" (~100,000 ghits), at least compared with "Rally at Tallahassee" (7 ghits), is far and away the more popular nickname. NPOV concerns remain, but I'm not sure they override common usage. I suggested the change based upon a Sports Illustrated article which said "Depending on your allegiance, that game is known as "The Choke at Doak" or "The Rally at Tallahassee.""^[2], and a book that also called it the "Rally at Tallahassee".^[3] As to address the concern that a rename would be "dry and unhelpful": my suggestion included using redirects from any nicknames and a clear listing of them in the very first line. That would alleviate your concerns, at least in that respect. Here is, I believe, an important question: Is it true, as asserted by Sports Illustrated, that one fanbase calls it "Choke at Doak", and the other calls it "Rally at Tallahassee" or some other dissimilar nickname? Strikehold (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty well-versed on college football and I must admit that's the first reference I've come across, in print or conversation, to "The Rally at Tallahassee." Perhaps there is a segment that uses that moniker instead, but a mere 7 ghits argues—convincingly, IMO—that it is not a common or mainstream usage. What's more, of those 7 ghits, only one (the one from the book you cited above) actually has to do with the Florida–Florida State game: the other 6 simply involve political rallies held in Tallahassee.PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

comment we've done some work on this at WP:CFBGAMES if you'd like to read more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read. From the standards mentioned, the only legitimate argument in favor of retaining this article is the historical nature of the comeback. However, it has been surpassed at least twice since then. (See this link)

I stand by my original argument - this game warrants a summary in the both teams' respective season articles and in the UF/FSU rivalry article, but it does not meet the notablility standard for a stand-alone entry. Zeng8r (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)