Jump to content

Talk:Steve Spurrier

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

Bio?

[edit]

We might consider editing this article to at least include a short, general biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.4.7 (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Terms?

[edit]

To me, the line reading, "Spurrier was an exceptional, outstanding, and multi-talented athlete in high school starring not only in football but also baseball and basketball at Science Hill High School in Johnson City, Tennessee," seems a bit much, considering we don't get any statistics or awards or retired number info or anything like that. What made him exceptional and outstanding? YtseWolf (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' Ball Coach

[edit]

Why is Spurrier called the 'Ol Ball Coach, including in this article? 69.162.42.180 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Botagrox[reply]

I've always wondered that as well... never heard an origin for the name, but it is certainly a nickname associated closely with Spurrier. -FrYGuY 01:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can't find a source, Spurrier used to refer to himself as such. When told how great a coach he was, he would respond by saying that he was "Just an old ball coach." *botches a shooting star press* -- DomColosi 11:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He hates that nickname now, whether or not he used to like it. It should not be used in this article. 129.252.162.204 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? — BrotherFlounder 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter whether or not he likes it? The name is used quite often and it would make sense to point out its history if it is documented anywhere. Botag 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he prefers now to be called the "Head Ball Coach." The new Under Armor commerical references this when Spurrier answers the phone. --Cyrus Andiron 12:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article can't be complete unless the reference to being the Old/ol' ball coach is resored. It a famous nickname. --Bobak (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. Bobak, is the Washington Post article the reference the one you would like to use? If so, let's give everyone a few days to make comments, and then I will reintegrate the reference into an appropriate part of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Years later it's been removed again, but Old Ball Coach is definitely *a* nickname of his. 172.126.72.209 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://grantland.com/features/steve-spurrier-south-carolina-2014-national-championship-quest/
https://thewordwebzine.weebly.com/sports/old-ball-coach-abruptly-calls-it-quits
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/columnist/roth/2015/10/13/roth-ol-ball-coach-spurrier-sure-had-ball/73883178/
And if you do a search on any engine for "the old ball coach", you'll get pages and pages of nothing but Spurrier articles.
172.126.72.209 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Writer

[edit]

Whoever wrote this obviously HATES Spurrier or doesn't understand football, basically saying Marvin Lewis is great..... Honestly, what made the defense suffer was the fact that they had Marvin Lewis for only one year, so in effect they had 3 differant coordinators in 3 years, any young player (Arrington, Bailey) will regress with that kind of instability.

Don't really see how the writer of this "hates" spurrier. In my opinion it's really not biased. Zchris87v 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shutout record

[edit]

Anyone wanna add spurrier's record of going for however many years it was without being shut out? Just because I heard this, since the shutout to UGA a couple weeks ago, 17 or 18 years I think? Zchris87v 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Rumor

[edit]

I removed this due to zero credible evidence at this time. Alabama's coach was just fired and currently no source is credible enough to cite here for ANY possible replacement.

"Alabama Crimson Tide"

[edit]

On November 27, 2006, Steve Spurrier is expected to be announced as the new Head Football Coach at the University of Alabama by Bama Athletics Director Mal Moore.

Dispute tag added. --Streyeder 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rumor links have come from someone in Birmingham, AL and Tuscaloosa, AL. (According to ip-adress.com) and the vandalism comment was from someone in Columbia, SC, home of the University of South Carolina. The fun continues... --Streyeder 09:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They just announced it here on our radio station, Spurrier will be named today.

Firstly, please sign your comments on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Secondly, until there is an official confirmation either way, this should not be in the article, according to the standards of WP:BIO - biographies should not contain rumors. -- DiegoTehMexican 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for Alabama hiring Spurrier? Shouldn't it not be put it in here if it wasn't confirmed? Bobthemonkey3 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it should have been, and the only source I can find is Spurrier denying the rumors. [1] Any claims that he is going to either Miami or Alabama should be removed. -- DiegoTehMexican 00:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AGAIN wikipedia moderators! Alabama fans have WAY too much time on their hands. All sources have Spurrier denying that he is going anywhere.

Keep up the good work!!!

For the record, many Alabama fans worked to keep this article accurate as well. Ponzu 12:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Table

[edit]

I added a college coaching table for Spurrier. I filled in as much information as I could find (much of it from elsewhere on wikipedia). There are still some missing pieces of info though, notably - Coaches Poll rankings for some of the Florida years, and did SC go to a bowl in 2005? Cogswobble 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the bowl info for SC in 2005. Still missing Coaches poll rankings though. Cogswobble 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Spurrier's (as well as any other SEC coaches) wins in the SEC Championship game count as conference wins? The dont currently, just wondering why that doesn't count as a conference game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.209 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little nonsensical, but it's official SEC policy so that's what wikipedia goes with. Zeng8r (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be a good item for the article?

[edit]

Spurrier surprised a lot of people by publicly voicing a strong opinion against the Confederate Flag being displayed at the S.C. capitol. --Bobak 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the above story does mean that he is not a terrible human being, I still am one for not liking the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.102.75 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for Duke in Pre-Season Coaches Poll

[edit]
Resolved

Under the Early coaching career section. My understanding is that he gives Duke his 25th place vote and not a number 1 vote.192.88.165.35 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've fixed it. Probably whoever wrote that meant that he gives Duke one vote (meaning, a single vote), rather than he gives them the #1 vote. --B 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing for Grammar, Punctuation & Style

[edit]

I hope you South Carolina boys don't mind if I do a little clean-up on the Evil Genius' Wiki article. I've been a huge fan of SOS since I was a little kid, and, as a 3-time Gator alumnus, I think he deserves a better written article. I'm not altering anyone's substance, but I am on a crusade to eliminate the wordiness, passive tense and over-use of sports cliches. The article clearly suffers from too many ad hoc edits, and the lack of a single editor. (Of course, you could say the same thing about 99% of all Wikipedia articles, but I digress.) Feel free to give me hell about it, if you disagree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Career Box Template

[edit]

I have consolidated the information provided in the college coaching box with the information in the NFL player box. It was highly redundant to have both info boxes, and having two Wiki template boxes was screwing up photo placement, etc. I hope everyone approves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism edits

[edit]

We have a problem with vandalism edits by anonymous user 68.58.213.54. I have reverted the deletions twice, and the anonymous user continues to delete passages from the Spurrier article and has attempted to insert unsourced pro-Clemson edits in the past.

We need some {{help}}. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ip is removing unreferenced information, and there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, by adding the information back, you are violating policy yourself. WP:V states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", and "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed".

Please do not continue to insert information without a source. If you can provide a reference though, it would be fine to add it back.

Whatever you do, do not edit war over it. Instead, you should be starting a discussion here, and asking the ip (on their talk page) to look in on the discussion. I am not 'taking sides' here, I remain impartial - I'm just pointing out that you have already violated the 3 revert rule, and if you are not very careful, your account may be blocked.  Chzz  ►  15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was my second revert with regard to the specific deletion, not the third. That's why I requested help. This same anonymous user has attempted anonymous, unsourced inserts, too. Please review the edit history again.
I'm part of the University of Florida project, and we have been allowing South Carolina-associated editors to take the lead cooperatively on those sections of the article that pertain the University of South Carolina. But, if it means avoiding bad faith edits by anonymous users, I will source the South Carolina material immediately. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, only 2 of your reverts were about that - fine.
If you can source it, that'd be great - if the editor was removing sourced info, we could certainly take more action.
I did see their other edit, about the 'drubbing' - but I wouldn't call it vandalism; I'd assume good faith and put it down to lack of understanding of the need for neutrality.
If the problem continues when it's sourced, please give us another shout with a helpme, and we'll get something done about it. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chzz. I just added source footnotes from the USC student newspaper on-line archives. I will let you know if our anonymous IP user re-appears. Frankly, I hate this kind of crap; that's why I asked for help. = ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems with that at all; if everyone asked for help like that, it'd be a much happier wiki - so ask away, any time. You might want to note that you can get live help with this - even just pop in now and say "hi", it's a very useful thing. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz, our anonymous IP user friend has returned, and has attempted to delete properly sourced and footnoted, objectively true material. What can we do about this? This guy clearly has no interest in engaging in discussion page talk; he only wants to insert or delete Clemson-related material into the South Carolina coach's Wiki bio. When I rewrote these sections last week, I intentionally deleted any material that might be seen as boosterism (a common problem in college football articles) to achieve a more NPOV. Need some help here . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for help from an administrator! We have an anonymous IP user who is determined to vandalize this article in ways that promote the Clemson football program, including the insertion of un-sourced text and the deletion of NPOV footnoted text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) {{help}}[reply]

Hey Dirtlawyer, To be honest I have to agree with chzz here that assuming good faith this appears to be more of a content dispute then anything. It definitely looks like they are removing (and adding) some things that they shouldn't but when most of its a content dispute we need to try and settle those difference before both parties start brushing against policy. I noticed that the IP hasn't been warned despite it being the same one who did this a little while ago and we really try to make sure there are sufficient warnings before we continue on with a block or something similar. I'm placing a warning on his talk page and will try and direct him here to talk with you. If he continues to do it I would recommend not reverting it your self but putting up another {{helpme}} tag here and possibly asking for him to stop (and talk about his concerns) that way if he continues to be a problem (and believe me if he does there are plenty of people on EnWiki who tackle vandals) he will be the one seen as a problem and not both of you for edit warring. The warning I'm putting on his talk page will also show future admins/vandalfighters/helpers that he has been a problem in the past and will expedite a block if that ends up being needed (hopefully not). Jamesofur (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesofur, thanks for your help. I'm not really interested in an "edit war." That's why I sent up Wiki smoke signals for help. Not really looking to block the guy, either. Just want to bring him out of the dark and get him to play by the rules. It must be a slow week; otherwise, all of the Gamecock fans would already by going berserk over these edits. Hopefully, they're not all assuming that I'm "handling it." Frankly, I enjoy writing articles, not playing vandalism cop. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand. I put up the notice and will keep an eye out here for you. I agree, it would be very unfortunate to see anyone get blocked, so the end goal is to get everyone talking if they have a problem. Jamesofur (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesofur, our friend is back, deleting sourced and footnote content, without explanation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some help from an administrator? We have an anonymous IP editor who has repeatedly deleted sourced and footnoted text. This appears to meet the definition of "edit war." Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

Ciao, Dirtlawer. This isn't really a case for {{adminhelp}} – if it's blatant vandalism, try reporting to WP:AIV, or if it's somewhat complex, try WP:AIN. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth.

[edit]

The place of birth is not Miami, FL. He was born in Johnson City, Tennessee. Also it may be worth inserting that the Science Hill football field where he attended is now named after him. Here is a link to prove his birthplace. http://gamecocksonline.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/spurrier_steve00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmstewart7030 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pro-Football-Reference.com: [2]? Birthplace: Miami Beach, Florida.
2. databaseFootball.com: [3]? Birthplace: Miami Beach, Florida.
3. NFL.com: [4]? Birthplace: Miami, Florida.
4. Gatorzone.com: [5]? Birthplace: Miami, Florida.
5. You will not that the Gamecocksonline.com profile states his "hometown," not his birthplace, is Johnson City, which is where he attended high school.

BTW, all of the above sources were pulled from the footnotes to the Wikipedia article text. Spurrier's father was a Presbyterian minister, and he accepted a succession of pastorates in Florida, North Carolina and three different towns in east Tennessee, including Johnson City. None of this is contradictory, and all of it is very well documented, not only by the websites provided above, but also in numerous hard-copy books, and newspaper and magazine profiles written since 1964. If you doubt these sources, I suggest that you do a Google News Archive search, starting in 1964 on "Steve Spurrier birthplace." You can also email the sports information department at USC; be sure to specifically ask whether Spurrier was born in Miami, Beach, Florida. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a 1995 Sports Illustrated article:
"Graham Spurrier uprooted his family constantly: They lasted a year in Miami Beach, where he and his wife, Marjorie, had Steve, the youngest of their three children, before going to Charlotte and then moved from Charlotte to the hills of eastern Tennessee, alighting in Athens and in Newport before settling in Johnson City."
To read the excerpt in context, please see page 3 of the following linked article: [6]. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

Spurrier and Panthers?

[edit]

I'm not sure if this article is stating that Steve Spurrier is doing for South Carolina what no other Carolina Panthers coach did, or that he coached for Carolina? Or are you saying South Carolina should be called Carolina for some reason that I don't know about. I'm asking because I changed two or three instances where it says Carolina to South Carolina. It was immediatly reverted to delete South. Iknow he wanted a job with the Tarheels . . . and I know he never coached Carolina. He did play against them when he was with Washington. 8panther2pride8 (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with an IQ above double-digits understands that in a section titled "South Carolina Gamecocks" what use of the word "Carolina" is referencing for a man who never coached for the UNC-CH Tarheels or the NFL Panthers. Of course, you already realize that, right Gamecockpride123? Or should I call you Sandlap123? Or maybe Sccocksss, or SCgamecocksss, or NCPride321. It's sad that you think you're fooling anyone with these juvenile games. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not insult my intelligence Garnett and Black. I don't care if you are an admin or not. If this is the way editors get treated by page managers than i am done with this. I've used wikipedia for a while, and the day I decide to give back, and actually make an account and try to make an edit, I have you all over my case. As for your argument. The team is not called the NFL Panthers. Its Carolina Panthers. And the reason I made the edit is because reading the information on him, I stumbled at he's done what no Carolina coach has done. Immediatly I thought Carolina Panthers, since he came from the NFL. Was it so wrong that I added South to Carolina in two or three instances? And to call me juvenile is laughable, as well as extremely rude. If all admins treat subordinate editors in this fashion, then I am done with this encyclopedia. I cant believe that even if you disagreed with me, that you didn't defend your stance. You just attacked me. I have been here a day, and its all drama. Change your ways wikipedia, or your going to lose more and more people who just want to give back. 8panther2pride8 (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us why on the "day you decide to give back", that you just happen to be reading an article about Steve Spurrier that's been suffering the same tendentious edits from a series of editors as the one you made, and then you decide to repeat those same edits. You are a Carolina Panther fan, so what would you be doing on an article about a person who has absolutely zero connection with that franchise? I'd think that on the first day you decide to start editing Wikipedia that you'd be spending your time in the article dealing with the subject that you took your user name from. But for some strange reason, you decide to edit this article under absurd pretenses. You are the one insulting the intelligence of people who attempt to keep Wikipedia clear of your type of disruptive behavior if you think for one second that your actions aren't blatantly obvious. At any rate, we'll soon have all this cleared up when the SPI I filed is reviewed by an admin, but I imagine you and I both already know what that outcome will be. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So your not an ADMIN? Hahahah, your just a rogue editor with malintentions? Thats hilarious. And here I was thinking that all wikipedia editors and admins were like you. You could do some serious good if you placed your efforts into research. I see you were banned before. I wonder if it was for being an a**hole to users you dont agree with. I tell you what,shall we actually debate the edit? Or are you going to pull some excuse to not have to? Maybe just call me an idiot some more? Attacking people will get you far in life. Your obviously lacking the Southern Hospitality our region is said to have. Your rudeness and blatant disrespect is creating a toxic environment for all users who happen to stumble into your territory. And for your info, Steve Spurrier was the coach of the Washington Redskins. While I left them for my new team from the Carolina region, my father kept true to the Skins. He and I happen to know alot about the man. Also, when their are alot of edits on an article concerning something similar, than it is not random to visit the said problem. It clearly would need some attention, would it not? It looks like the only one disruptive here is you. And I imagine you will attack anyone who challenges you. Thats because you're afraid that your logic and argument won't hold up by itself. As my South Carolina wife would say, "bless your heart". Do some self examining, your not as righteous as you think you are.8panther2pride8 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update more information

[edit]

I found out that he is now ambassador role for Florida. I don't have any sources so far, but that's all I've know about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benroyz (talk • contribs) 02:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive rewrite

[edit]

I've noticed for a long time that this article was a poorly organized jumble of stories and factoids with a real scarcity of good references, and I was finally inspired to rewrite the whole thing when the Head Ball Coach returned to Gainesville. It's much better now (imo) except for the sections on his coaching stints at Florida and South Carolina. These, of course, are the two most important parts of the article, but they were also the most horribly written, so I saved them for last.

Being a bit obsessed, I own a bunch of books about Spurrier and the history Gator football in general, and that section is coming along in a sandbox I set up for that purpose. However, I have much less material on his time at USC, and I don't have a deep understanding of the relative importance of games and events at Carolina like I do for Florida football. So if any Gamecock fans ( Hello, @GarnetAndBlack:?!? ) or anybody else would like to tackle that section, please do! Otherwise, I'll get to it myself later on in the fall. Thanks, hope to see other editors hop on board soon... --Zeng8r (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length

[edit]

Somebody put on a "the lead is too long" banner on this article. I disagree. Granting that perhaps a few details could be removed, the lead is a very condensed version of the article, which is exactly what a lead is supposed to be. As I tell my students, counting paragraphs is a terrible way to determine if text is too long or short. The lead as written is divided into short paragraphs to make reading easier. A few backspaces could merge the paragraphs into bigger blocks of text that would meet the four paragraph guideline (which is only a rule of thumb anyway), but that would definitely not improve the article. I think it's fine as-is. Zeng8r (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the tag. Certainly there's something that can be trimmed from the lead? Yes, the four-paragraph guideline is a rule of thumb, but I've yet to find any featured articles (which are the best articles that Wikipedia has to offer) that exceed four-paragraph leads. Among leads I typically use as a reference when I write articles are Don Bradman, Otto Graham, Michael Jordan, and Babe Ruth. All of these, with the exception of possibly Graham, have had arguably more illustrious careers than Spurrier. I'm not an expert on Spurrier's career, but if I were to rewrite the lead from scratch, I'd dedicate the first paragraph to basic introduction info and/or major highlights, the second paragraph to his early life and playing career, the third to his coaching career, and the fourth to his post-career honors/later life. Lizard (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spurrier has done a lot of different things at several different places over 50+ years in football, so the lead and article are going to be correspondingly long. The guys you mention primarily had one career arc that one can follow from beginning to end, with a short "life after football" section to wrap it up. Spurrier will certainly be among a small handful of people inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame as a player and a coach, played over a decade in the NFL, is the winningest coach at two different SEC schools, coached in two different pro leagues, etc. etc. There's a lot of ground to cover.
And as I said above, counting paragraphs is a terrible way to determine the proper length of a piece of writing. Delete a few carriage returns between short paragraphs in the lead, and - viola! - it's magically four paragraphs long. That would make it less readable, though. Zeng8r (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Spurrier's career has been more diverse than most. I still think it could be effectively represented with 4 or 5 paragraphs, and personally I'd combine some of them to try to achieve that, but I'll yield to your judgement. It's times like these where I wonder, WWDLD? Lizard (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the Lead being too long. Maybe we can trim some of the bio data, like place of birth, that are repeated verbatim below. I think we can condense to a reasonable size. --FeldBum (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, looking at the lead again, it really is pretty long, isn't it? I'll see if I can do some condensing over the next couple of days. Zeng8r (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Steve Spurrier. 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: 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) 20:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Spurrier. 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: 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) 20:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Steve Spurrier. 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: 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) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox format

[edit]

There is no reason to convert the college coach infobox in this article to a standard NFL template. Spurrier is FAR more known for coaching and playing college football than for his stints in the NFL, so that part of his career should take priority in the infobox just as it does in the article itself. His NFL stats and records are already in there, so the (reverted) conversion mostly removed info while adding ephemera like his height and weight, numbers which probably are no longer accurate, lol. The only important info added by using the NFL infobox was his draft position, so I'll see if I can find a good place to include it in the current infobox. Zeng8r (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re acting like the NFL bio doesn’t acknowledge his coaching accomplishments. There is literally nothing that the NFL bio Infobox has that the college coach Infobox doesn’t have. The NFL bio however does allow the inclusion of his NFL stats, his number from when he played, height, weight (still use listed height and weight even for retired players), were he was drafted. You are also underestimating how accomplished he was as a player. He won a Heisman and was an all-American.--Rockchalk717 18:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m gonna be straight forward here, I’m pretty sure we’re not gonna talk each other out of our opinions, that’s usually the case with edit disputes. I’m gonna post on NFL project talk and College Football project talk referring people to this discussion so we can get some more people in on this. --Rockchalk717 19:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stick with the NFL infobox, it is the best way to present his accomplishments as a coach and as a player. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I lean toward using the Infobox college coach since Spurrier was more accomplished as a college player and coach than as an NFL player and coach. However, I see the point about the NFL infobox servicing more data like height, weight, and draft info. Perhaps, we should think about adding such fields to Template:Infobox college coach? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But at the same time I still feel like the NFL Bio doesn’t take anything away from his coaching and college playing accomplishments on top of it providing more information.--Rockchalk717 06:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nick

[edit]

his nickname is "the old ball coach"

the article cited for "the head ball coach" is about it being an error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.200.109 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For one, your characterization of the citation is incorrect. For another, "the head ball coach" is definitely Steve Spurrier's nickname - just look at the title of his autobiography as seen in the background of the infobox pic. Zeng8r (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Beamer

[edit]

Under coaching tree, Shane Beamer was an assistant coach under Spurrier and is now a head coach. Thudson77 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Spurrier&oldid=1260220929"