Talk:2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game

Historic

This is a historic article and it should have it's own page. It's one of the biggest upsets in the history of college football.

Agreed. If any game deserves its own page, it's this game. EtriganZola 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider many games to be worthy of their own article. But a I-AA team beating the 5th-best team in the country, on the road? This game deserves its own page, no question about it. Trvsdrlng 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about whether or not this article should be deleted should occur at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Cogswobbletalk 19:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This game is certainly significant. Whether it is of encyclopedic significance is questionable.75.83.232.97 02:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The first instance of a Division I-AA team defeating a Division I-A team, that team being ranked 5th to boot? I've seen articles on people, places, things, and games far less significant than this. Skullfiend 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There are very few regular-season college sports games that I would argue should have a stand-alone article. The Michigan State-Notre Dame football game of 1966 would be one, another would be the 1971 "Game of the Century" (Oklahoma vs. Nebraska). Basically, it has to be something that will be talked about by casual fans for years afterwards, which rarely happens in regular-season games. This was that type of game. Jsc1973 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources of games significance, from 4 major sources (not just AP article)

For the editors of this article, in addition to the AP article that is found everywhere:

• It made the front page of the New York Times (college football games do not do that, it's not USA TODAY), where it states Appy State pulled off one of the biggest upsets in college football history.
• From ESPN.com's Pat Forde: Remember the score: App. State 34, Michigan 32. We'll still be talking about it a few decades from now. Especially in the locker rooms of every huge underdog, where they'll say, "If Appalachian State can beat Michigan, why can't we shock the world, too?"
• From SI.com: Have no doubt, what the Mountaineers did Saturday in the Big House was a watershed moment for FCS teams and one of the biggest upsets in the game's history.
• The Los Angeles Times: Carr's legacy now will be as closely tied to Saturday's loss at the Big House as it will be to the 1998 Rose Bowl win over Washington State that made him Victor Valiant.

Please mine these articles (and more, several on each major sports website) for content --Bobak 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Is this article properly named? First thing I noticed was that it requires the reader to understand that when Michigan is used in reference to a US college it means University of Michigan and not the state. The next thing was the reference to the unambiguated "football", which may be an issue for obvious reasons. I'm also a little unconvinced that the year is necessary as it is pre-disambiguating something that is unlikely to be an ambiguous name for an article on Wikipedia. Couple of thoughts that come to mind are Appalachian State University vs. University of Michigan, 2007 Appalachian State University vs. University of Michigan, and the first two with either "American football game" or "(American football)" tacked on to the end. Of course, if I'm the only one that sees a problem, that's fine with me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I vote for 2007 Appalachian State University vs. University of Michigan football game. An alternate is Michigan Who? 34-32 which I also enjoy. X96lee15 21:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The current name is consistent with our naming convention for other unnamed regular season games. (See Category:College football games.) Some games have a name like the Bluegrass Miracle and in time, it's possible that one may come to be used for this one. But until such time as another game gains popular acceptance, I think the current name is consistent with everything else in our category. The alternate names (ones using "University" or with the year at the end) should probably be created as redirects. The weauxfing name (Michigan Who?) is obviously unencyclopedic and should not be used. --B 21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree with B. The name of this article is consistent with other articles, and reflects common usage. Cogswobbletalk 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Significance

Is there anything that can be said about the significance of this win for the Appalachian State team or the significance of the loss for the Michigan team? Obviously, it is a notable event, but are there also important consequences for the teams/players/coaches this season or next? Sancho 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ... Lloyd Carr is on the hottest of hot seats as a result of the game and Michigan is now unranked in both polls. But as far as any tangible direct consequences, no there isn't really anything. --B 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is significant in that it has cost Michigan any chance at the national title for this year. A number 5 team (which Michigan was previously) has a strong chance of making it into the top 2 if they win all their games. An unranked team (which Michigan is after the game) probably has no shot. I don't think there has ever been an unranked team has ever clawed there way back up to the championship picture.

There could also be an impact on recruiting but that would be extremely hard to measure for sure. Johntex\^talk 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oklahoma was unranked in a lot of the preseason magazines in 2000 ... I don't remember where the AP/Coaches polls had them, though. --B 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's the fact that they're currently unranked which has cost them a chance for the National Championship. It's not hard to conceive of a team this is unranked at this point in the season finishing in the top 2. It's the fact that they lost to a I-AA team that has cost them a shot at the title, as some of the Michigan players have pointed out. In other words, voters (and the even the computer polls) are unlikely to forgive this loss and put them in the top 2 at the end of the season, even if they finished 11-1. Cogswobbletalk 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the more notable results is the AP changing its rules to allow D-IAA/FCS teams to be ranked in their poll. --Bobak 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD on 16 Sept 2007: explanation

• At 17:00, 16 September 2007 User:69.14.170.223 tagged this page for speedy delete as not notable. I saw this entry in the speedy-delete list, saw that there was discussion querying this, started to AfD it to get it discussed, then saw that it already had an AfD dated 4 Sept 2007 strongly keeping it. So I backed out and cancelled the speedy-delete tagging and the partial AfD-ing. Anthony Appleyard 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation. Johntex\^talk 18:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Other name

Does this game have any other name? "2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game" is terribly long and I dunno if anyone will reach this article via search. --Howard the Duck 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the game referred to by many names, but none really caught on and most are pretty vague. Names like "Michigan Upset" or "Michigan Miracle" aren't nearly specific enough, considering Michigan's sporting history. I think "Appalachian State Miracle" is the best and most fitting name for the game, though it's a bit misleading as it seems to suggest that the game took place in NC, not MI. I think the page should stay where it is, since no single widely-used nickname emerged following the game; however some redirects might be helpful. I'll go ahead and redirect "Appalachian State Miracle" to the article. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oregon

I added a bit of information about the Oregon game, where Michigan lost 39-7, which led many to believe that the Wolverines really had fallen to the bottom of Division I-A. But I added it in an encyclopediac way, but the cite might need cleanup. I added this because there is a lot of info about Appalachian State's future but none about Michigan. The loss to Oregon is a signifficant part of the story. MVillani1985 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Point spread

What was the point spread for this game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.66.50 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no point spread because Vegas doesn't offer betting lines on games between FCS and FBS teams. Cogswobbletalk 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Score, contradiction?

The article says 34-32 but the infobox says 33-22. I don't like editing FA's unless they are in an area of my expertise: can someone fix this please. Tigerboy1966  10:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Doormat games

Should there be a mention of the tendency of "big time" college teams to schedule one or two early-season games against "doormat" teams to (1) run up their records and stats and (2) have another game they can sell tickets to, while not risking disappointing the fans with a loss? Or a link to an article on that subject (which I didn't find)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article on Michigan players getting high before game, not taking it seriously

I found an [article] with an anonymous former Michigan player talking about the players having partied a lot in the week before the game. He even claimed that several starters smoked marijuana just before the game. I'm thinking some of the things in this article could serve as a paragraph in the Michigan pre-game session. I think the information is notable, but I'm wondering if it is a reliable soruce. Thoughts? Wall Screamer (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Nope, all information is accurate as far as i could tell. Lukecausby (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Luke Causby

Maybe the grafics of some important plays are missing. I made a few while writing the german article to this topic.--JTCEPB (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)