Talk:Lloyd Carr

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

College football High‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Picture[edit]

No pic of lloyd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.155.31 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

Rated High because on the WikiProject Talk page, a current coach of a BCS/Top25 team would be rated High. Bornagain4 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

I like Lloyd, and most of the text is useful, but how about some headings? Right now it is one jumbled mess.

I'll work on that, I also added the "controversy" section but cited many sources to maintain fairness and accuracy. AStudent 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just got done cleaning up the article and there was overwhelming lack of neutrality. I've removed alot of the bias and unrelated information, revised the scrutiny section, added topics and moved some information to more relavent areas of the article. In the future, please don't copy the Lloyd Carr bio out off a University of Michigan source without editing the article for neutrality. AStudent 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That cuts both ways, you know. It's rather hypocritical to write a rant about NPOV after including a link to the RCMB, of all places. -TheMile 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home coaching record is 69-9?[edit]

As of what date was this stat accurate? It should be removed, since it will be virtually always out of date. Blockhouse 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)blockhouse[reply]

Michigan is 69-9 at home under Carr to date (end of 2006 regular season). That record is no more susceptible to datedness than his overall record or any other coaches. Jweiss11 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan didn't win the big ten in 2006..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.66.136 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches' Poll[edit]

Is there a reason why only the Coaches' Poll is used in the box containing Carr's record? I think the AP Poll results should also be provided, especially given that Carr won the AP national title in 1997. (Otherwise people might wonder how he won a national title when his team was ranked #2 in the Coaches' Poll.) Funnyhat 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking[edit]

After viewing Tom Osborne's page, I've deleted the "(tied with Nebraska)" comment next to the ranking in 1997. This does not seem necessarily relevant given the pure statistical nature of that box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.134.70 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]