Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listSuper Bowl Most Valuable Player Award is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on February 6, 2012.
Article milestones
January 13, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 25, 2009Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list


how many black quarterbacks have play in the superbowl?

  1. Doug Williams, Washington Redskins, Super Bowl XXII, 1988
  2. Steve McNair, Tennessee Titans, Super Bowl XXXIV, 2000
  3. Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl XXXIX, 2005
Of course, there were other black quarterbacks who were backups. Zzyzx11 21:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what player played for dallas cowboys and the san francisco 49ers?

I hope this answer isn't too late, but several players have played for both teams. In terms of Super Bowls, then you're thinking about either Ken Norton (who won three straight Super Bowls between both teams) or Patrick Haley (a Super Bowl record five wins between the two teams.) Bwburke94 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While this answer is essentially correct, the players in question are Ken Norton Jr., and Charles Haley. Another player that should be considered in this discussion is Deion Sanders. (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain how the MVP is decided[edit]

This article needs to explain how the MVP is chosen. By the refs? By journalists? Mikedelsol 06:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Eli Manning posted before it was even announced!!!! 03:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Superbowl XLII MVP[edit]

Since this game has not yet taken place, it might be appropriate to remove Ladainian Tomlinson as the game MVP. I can't figure out how someone managed to get his name and team listed because when I try editing the table itself, the edit page does not list him. But his name is quite clearly visible on the article page. Could someone fix this?

Greg jinkerson 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see it. Someone must have taken care of it. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is "MVP Winner" the most appropriate term? There is a winner of the game, but the MVP is the recipient of an award. I think "recipient" is a more appropriate term. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Super Bowl website says - "The MVP award winner is presented with the Pete Rozelle Trophy", so that's probably the appropriate term. Cogswobble 20:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I Add a "College" Column[edit]

Since there's some info in the intro about colleges, I was thinking of adding a "College" column. Any thoughts? Cogswobble 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add the column here to see what it looks like. If it doesn't clutter the article too much then we can add it to the main page... PaulC/T+ 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm too busy at the moment, but I'll try to add this in the next week or so. Cogswobble 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added this to the article (I didn't want to have to merge the info again later). Does anyone think this is too cluttered? Cogswobble 00:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion has been continued in the following sections below:
I will suggest that further input be focused down in the 2018 discussion.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo of the trophy?[edit]

I've been searching and I can't seem to find a picture of the actual Pete Rozelle Trophy that is given out... any ideas? PaulC/T+ 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of superfluous information[edit]

I just removed the parentheticals, colleges and HOF fields. This was for many reasons.

As for the colleges and HOF info - this is superflous information that is not a central focus of the award. If anything, the award might be better known for the fact that many winners have had somewhat "uneventful" pro careers (Larry Brown and Jackson for example). The college information is irrelevant and considering the fact that there is some discussion of the college aspect, duplicating the information in the table just adds to the "size" of the article.

The parentheticals were removed because the summary is provided below. Aditionally, when looking other sports mvp awards - this format is more consistent (see NBA MVP and MLB MVP). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under the By team, there really isn't a need to mention the individual players there -- considering that the table is sortable. KyuuA4 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MVP award accuracies[edit]

Quoting The award is sponsored by Cadillac and the winner is presented with a new Cadillac automobile of his choice.

I do have issue with this bit as it is rather now outdated, this is for those who watched it, especially last night, MVP awardees are now allocated a particular model chosen by Cadillac. As I remember MVPs was allocated a Cadillac of his own choosing, this was until Super Bowl XL. But as far I can remember, Peyton Manning was given a Cadillac XLR and Eli was given a hybrid Escalade. Willirennen (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manning brothers[edit]

Eli and Payton are brothers who have both won the MVP. That is a remarkable note ... shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Are they the only brothers to achieve this feat ... or have others done so in the past, also? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I removed this after someone else added it. It just strikes me as trivial; I'm sure there are many other oddities when it comes to Super Bowl MVP winners, but they can't all be included on the page. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What other two brothers have won? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None that I know of, but I still think this is a trivial item. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source for deleted table - winner by age[edit]

  • "Super Bowl History". National Football League. Retrieved January 6, 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

The table is copied from List of Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award winners by age at win - which repeats much of this list, but still has some new info. I think this information should be incorporated into the main table - perhaps so it is sortable by age/team/year etc. - but don't know how to do that.Greedyhalibut (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded on Greedyhalibut's talk page. The existing columns in the table are already sortable; just click on the arrows in the header cells. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to see the "age" added in for each player. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Age seems trivial for the list, as it's not often mentioned w.r.t. the MVP (Manning aside).—Bagumba (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you think it's trivial? Are most of these guys in the same "age bracket"? I thought there was some big brouhaha about Manning being the oldest quarterback to win a Super Bowl? So, age seems relevant. Not that he won the MVP award, but still (he could have). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Manning didn't win the MVP this year, so it was irrelevant for me to bring it up in hindsight. The oldest and youngest can be mentioned in prose, I just don't think it's important enough to warrant a dedicated column for this list.—Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Bagumba that an age column would be trivial in nature. While I would hope that we can avoid adding too much trivia-type content in the article, the oldest and youngest winners do seem important enough to mention. It took more effort than I expected to find reliable sources, but the oldest and youngest winners are now covered in a third-paragraph sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for doing so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictures: Too many QBs[edit]

We all know that the QB position is the most glamorous, especially pertaining to the SB MVP award. However, let's get some variety here... KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be our guest. --Jayron32 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the editor who helped this list get to FL status, I took a stab at creating greater balance by replacing the photos of Joe Namath and Eli Manning with those of Jerry Rice and Ray Lewis. That leaves eight pictures with five quarterbacks, which I don't believe is an unreasonable balance considering quarterbacks have won the award more than half the time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One-hit wonders[edit]

There are a number of players who have won Super Bowl MVPs despite having otherwise unnotable pro careers (Jake Scott, Mark Rypien, Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, Deion Branch, Malcolm Smith - even arguably Doug Williams and Dexter Jackson). Any objections to a small section to comment on the anomaly? --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only if it is well sourced. The definition/criteria of inclusion of such "one-hit wonders" should not be original research. This is still currently a Wikipedia featured list, and any new content that does not follow Wikipedia:Featured list criteria risks having this page being demoted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. I'll try and find some articles in the media which discuss the issue and use those for sources. I am sure I must be able to find some. To be safe, I may put the proposed text on the talk page for review - last thing I would want to do is get the page demoted by accident... --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of winners[edit]

On the list of winners, each person's name has a little symbol of an up/down arrow immediately to the right of their name. What is that symbol supposed to be for? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I honestly didn't notice it before, and I suspect it's something new with the underlying platform. The same quirk is at NBA Most Valuable Player Award and other lists. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is probably a good place to follow up, if any of us are inclined.—Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it was was reported at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Sorted_tables_problem and fixed at (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) It has now disappeared. I assume someone fixed it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I suspect we should mention that the MVP winner also got a car in some years. Cadillac was the sponsor until 2009, there was no sponsor (and no car) in 2010, and Chevrolet supplied a vehicle from 2011 to 2015. Apparently the 2016 winner does not get a vehicle.

This and also this are blog posts and thus not a good WP:RS. However, they list the vehicle awarded going back to 2004. That data can be used to find supporting WP:RS. This is a news article about the lack of a car this year. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a sentence saying that most winners have gotten a car. According to a Sports Illustrated article I found and used as a source, automobiles have been given to Super Bowl MVPs since the beginning. As it turns out, Drew Brees (the 2010 Super Bowl MVP) was the first winner not to receive a car. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oldest Super Bowl MVP[edit]

This addition was recently made to the article, saying that Tom Brady became the oldest Super Bowl MVP. This is a classic verifiability, not truth situation, which I realized after the Super Bowl when I couldn't find a reference to support this. We had the oldest and youngest Super Bowl MVPs in the lead before Super Bowl LI, but Brady becoming the oldest Super Bowl MVP was apparently overshadowed by the Patriots' comeback as I couldn't find anything on it in any post-game media reports. After not being to find a source for a while, I removed the oldest and youngest winners from the lead. Now the oldest winner has been restored, without a reference. I'd like to have this in the article, but not unsupported, so I've removed it for now. Can anyone help by pointing to a reliable source that mentions this fact? Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Giants2008: I've found a few close ones[1][2] but those would be hinging on WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Can't find anything that explicitly states he's the oldest SB MVP. A google search of ""oldest super bowl mvp" + brady" only yields 775 results, and none of them are what we're looking for. This is clearly something that hasn't been reported on much in the press, or anywhere else for that matter. Lizard (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that looks like OR/synthesis to me as well. The odd part is that we had no problems citing the previous oldest Super Bowl MVP (John Elway). I guess the media just hasn't had a chance to do many articles on Super Bowl facts and figures, which usually have such details, since the last game. If I ever see an RS with this fact, I'll make sure to re-add it. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trivia added[edit]

I notice that nearly an entire paragraph has been added on some high schools producing multiple Super Bowl MVPs. While somewhat interesting, this is really trivial in nature and I don't support its inclusion in the article. Part of editing Wikipedia that is hard to understand at first is that, just because a fact can be cited, that doesn't automatically mean it should be added. For an article like this, we want it to have the essential facts about the award without the lead turning into a trivia section. For me, a huge sentence on high schools the players went to is not important enough to the topic to justify the level of coverage it has; we're verging on indiscriminate information here. My intention is to remove this content in the near-future. Thoughts? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now info on colleges with three MVPs was just added. This is probably more relevant than the similar content on high schools, but I removed it for now as I'm not impressed by the reliability of or I wouldn't consider either of them reliable for much of anything, much less a featured list. If anyone can find newspapers or the like that have mentioned the college details, I'd be happier with seeing them included. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just made an edit to add a column for College. If the reference had any errors, these will be very easy to find and correct.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "Trivia"...
There is absolutely nothing "trivial" about a high school producing multiple Superbowl MVPs. Is it trivial that Archie Manning produced 2? It is key info that this source is doing something that might be astoundingly special that other people and other programs might want to take note of.

The header for this section needs to be changed if an unbiased discussion is desired.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case anyone still had doubts about the validity of the above position, here is a news quote from an article about Brees & Foles going head to head:
"The lack of wall space in the [Westlake High School] coaches office, which is covered with pictures of former greats, is proof the school is a football factory, but the odds of two former quarterbacks meeting in the NFL playoffs are still astronomical."[1]
With this report, I consider this case-closed--Mark Thomas II (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I still believe that it's trivia and don't consider it "closed" by any means. In reality, those high schools don't have any special attributes that are causing multiple MVPs; they just happened to have two athletes who later played well in a big game. It doesn't make them "astoundingly special". And yes, Archie Manning produced 2 is trivia, as grateful as I am that he did, and that Westlake piece should be viewed with skepticism as it is a locally based site pumping up a nearby university. Meanwhile, the college column you added used the site, which is absolutely not reliable. If that's going to be added, it needs a much better source than that. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, I called in User:Lizard the Wizard to give their opinion. This user has experience in the NFL list department and I trust them to give an unbiased opinion on whether the changes improve the article. While I'm here, Mark, please don't use an edit summary like "Nail>coffin", as you did here. This is a collaborative website, and people aren't going to want to work with you if you act like that. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Giants2008, you start a section and choose the title "Trivia added", and all of a sudden it is me who has crossed the line by expressing my view that your blatant dismissal is unfounded.
I have supported my position with a reliable source. You dismiss that too, again in an unsubstantiated manner. Here is one more reference, coming from a source that is hundreds of miles away from the school in question:
[Quoting Drew Brees] "I wouldn't say that I am all that surprised because he [Foles] is a Westlake guy."[2]
So clearly Brees does not see this connection to be trivial. Obviously his opinion is biased, but the fact that this article exists speaks to the notability. And if Houston being hundreds of miles away is still too close for anyone, here is a different article with a dateline coming out of Minneapolis, and published out of New Orleans:
"Drew Brees and Nick Foles both first came to stardom in the suburbs of Austin, Texas, where the two quarterbacks starred at Westlake High a decade apart. Foles, in fact, ended up breaking up most of the records Brees set for the Chaparrals as he led Austin Westlake to a state championship game appearance. And remarkably, Brees and Foles are now the only two Texas high school quarterbacks to ever start in the Super Bowl after Foles made his start on Sunday night. The connection is strong enough that the Saints legend made sure to take care of his fellow Chaparral before the start of Super Bowl LII."[3]
Here you have a case where the connection has been deemed significant enough for someone to report this out of Minnesota. And the article itself speaks of the strength of the connection, not any triviality to the matter.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say the paragraph about high schools is undue and I'd consider it fancruft. The college column in this revision is also undue; the college a player attended is inconsequential to being named Super Bowl MVP. This is an NFL award. And although this isn't being discussed here, but just to be fair, I'd say the bit about Rypien and Ward being the only players born outside the US to win the award is also trivial. Lizard (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The significance of the high school info has been thoroughly supported above, now with three references that present the view that it is far from trivial.
As for the column on colleges, that info has always been important, because it speaks to the person's pedigree.
If anyone wants to argue about info on this article being "trivial", then the first thing that I would highlight is how the article has an entire section on Winners by Team. MVP is not a team award. It is an individual award. You could likewise make an argument that "the team they played on is inconsequential". But it is not. It is useful information. The number of times that a player from a particular franchise has landed this award speaks to the success of that franchise. The exact same holds for colleges. And also high schools. If you are the Dallas Cowboys and have produced 7 players who were awarded SB MVP, then it says something tangible. And if you are a college like Georgia, USC, Alabama or Michigan [edited] that has produced multiple SB MVP winners, then that too says something tangible about the program you run. And the same holds for the high school level. Or take Archie. Yes, it is possible that it was some freak random coincidence. But there are probably folks out there trying to get swabs of his DNA in order to produce a clone army of Peytons & Elis. I'm not sure what they do with the Coopers that inadvertently get made. They probably euthanize the first of every batch, pharaoh style.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll return to speaking seriously here...
Let's go back to the Westlake example. Brees went there. Foles went there. Yet neither of these guys hold the school record. Both of their records got blown away by this new QB. He surpassed both of them during his junior year, before that season ended no less. And he is currently playing for a big name college. Do you think that the college scouts did not take note of the fact that his high school produced Brees & Foles? Do you think that any current NFL QB scout has not taken note of this fact? I am certain that this info is important to them. And if it isn't, then I'd expect the owner to fire them so that a competent scout could take over. This pedigree-type of info is EXTREMELY important. I am astounded to know that there is more than one person here so willing to dismiss it. Right now I am picturing you with your collection of trading cards with you having scratched off the college info, because you bought them as NFL trading cards and your view is that where they went to college doesn't matter. "Oklahoma Schmoklahoma".--Mark Thomas II (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A player's pedigree doesn't matter nearly as much as you claim. Scouts aren't going to automatically give a quarterback from those high schools and colleges a break; they're going to have to prove themselves on their own merits. Also, there are plenty of good college programs that don't have a Super Bowl MVP. Anyway, the only other poster so far agrees with me that the additions are trivia, so I don't think calling them that in the header was out of line. At this rate, I'm not seeing a consensus for any of these details to be added, and adding long walls of text on how important you claim these connections are is probably not going to help. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fitting you should bring up TLDR, as that's exactly what I did when I saw the wall of text. I'll just say I feel pretty strongly about my stance on these additions. It'd be difficult to convince me otherwise, especially regarding having a "College" column. Lizard (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I feel pretty strongly about..." vs "Here are multiple solid references which support my position"
Wikipedia policy is very clear on the proper resolution to this type of situation.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

I did not think that quoting Wikipedia policy on Consensus was necessary, but I was mistaken. So there it is.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giants2008: "I'm not seeing a consensus for any of these details to be added..."
You called in a person when you already knew what the Lizard thinks. This is an example of what could be called "Gerrymandered consensus". You do not have a proper understanding of what constitutes consensus here on Wikipedia. Two positions have been presented here in this section. One of these has been supported with multiple reliable sources. The other has no supporting references whatsoever. We do not then take a rollcall and a vote. But rather, consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments. So quite to the contrary of your statement, consensus has firmly been established. Lack of desire to read the wealth of sources that have been presented does absolutely nothing to nullify this consensus. It just shows the level of care in (not) supporting your position.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've invited editors at WP:NFL to provide further input. Lizard (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is "adult supervision" really necessary? How bout just go find a reference that supports the position that "pedigree is not important" (my paraphrase). If anyone were to present just a single solid reference that supports this view, I would be fine with having the College column removed. No need to send me to my room without dessert.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add...
If such a reference were to be provided, then the proper course of action would be for editors to then weigh the quality of these positions, as supported. But what I am doing here is stating that it will not be me who will re-add the College info.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is more a matter of editorial judgement. Just because something can be supported by sources doesn't mean it belongs in an article. And requesting sources to support that something shouldn't be in an article is simply absurd. Do I need a source to support that we shouldn't have a column for each player's favorite animal? No, because that's decided by editorial judgement. The burden of proof lies on you to convince your fellow editors of your judgement. Lizard (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You talk about burden of proof as though a wealth of supporting references has not been provided here. Perhaps you maintain your earlier view that I've used too many words for you to be bothered to read.
And how hard would it be to find one person out there who says something to the effect "I don't care what college he went to... That's not important"?
This is not a discussion on pet iguanas. It's a discussion on colleges. And I've already provided a link that shows how the people who print trading cards find college info to be non-trivial. But perhaps you didn't click on that supporting material either.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should offer an answer to my own question above...
It would be very difficult to find such a reference ...if no one notable within the realm of Super Bowls shares the opinion expressed by two editors here. So if such a reference were to be found, I would be quite surprised, but I will abide by what I had stated earlier. It will not be me that re-adds the column.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some history to this discussion might be helpful...
We are rehashing an issue that happened on this article more than a decade ago. Just scroll up to: see what had been state back in 2007. I have not seen any opposing viewpoint posted to the Talk page until 2018. But with this edit from Aug 25, 2007, the College column got clobbered with this justification in the edit summary:

"removed hof and college information - this is about mvps not about colleges or hof - maintenance is unecessary."

Point made here in 2018 is that this is a position that has yet to be supported with any source that holds the view that pedigree is trivial.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OOPS. I had totally missed the rationale that had been posted here for removing the College column back in 2007. You can scroll up to:
The strongest rationale presented back then, as far as I can find, is this:
"The college information is irrelevant..."
No supporting references for that view were provided. And it appears that the discussion ended there, laying dormant for a decade.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • The bit about high schools absolutely does not belong in the lead to an article about NFL Super Bowl champions; the lead is supposed to summarize the most salient points about the topic. I leave it to others to decide whether the content is so trivial that it should or should not be included elsewhere in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you yourself have decided that it isn't worth your time to read the sources provided above that support the view that pedigree, to include high schools, IS important info.
The "vote" here could be 100-to-1, and if there are no supporting references provided for the 100, while the 1 is thoroughly supported, Wikipedia policy is clear that consensus in such a case goes to the 1. (See "...carry no weight whatsoever", quote of Wikipedia Policy on Consensus, above.)--Mark Thomas II (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll cite policy then. WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" (emphasis added). The Super Bowl number, team, and position of winners are such crucial, defining details that they're basically mandatory in any context. College attended, however, is relatively insignificant when discussing Super Bowl MVPs. Lizard (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that your point would make for an excellent argument as to why College should not be the first column in this table. As it is, College is presented as the last column.
Now if anyone would like to persist in the position that College does not belong in the table at all, then what would be needed at this point is a substantial reference that would offset the several sources that have been presented that indicate that pedigree is an important aspect.
It should also be pointed out that I don't see any of the references here presenting a view that pedigree would constitute one of the "minor aspects". They are all speaking to the effect that it is a significant aspect. Like let's look at that trading card again. Oklahoma is not printed as some kind of asterisk footnote. It is right there in the central prominent position, even listed *above* his NFL player stats.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another important thing to note here is that you've pulled out a quote regarding Proportionality from the context of a section that was written to address the issue of whether a point of view is neutral or not (NPOV). Let's be clear that there is absolutely NO NPOV issue regarding a player's college. It is a simple, straightforward fact. Totally neutral and unbiased. A fact as clean and clear as the DATE that the Super Bowl was played on. So a very strong argument could be made that WP:PROPORTION does not apply here at all. We are not in any NPOV disagreement.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) If you insist on sources that will prove a negative, none of these Super Bowl MVP lists on reliable sites mention colleges at all: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If pedigree is so important, why are the vast majority of reliable sources excluding universities in their lists? Maybe because the colleges these players went to in their pasts aren't as important for understanding the topic as you believe, Mark. As for the high schools, I reviewed the three sources in the box above and found that none of the three mention either quarterback being a Super Bowl MVP (and Brees' win was many years ago, so it could have been brought up). If the sources you list didn't believe them winning/potentially winning this award was important enough to include in their pieces, why should we have nearly a whole paragraph devoted to it? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK YOU! ...for that very refreshing rebuttal, abundant with solid references.
I see those lists to be examples of major sources who don't see college info to be in, say, the top 5, pieces of info to include in such a list. Solid stuff.
You jump from those 5 references to then make the statement, "the vast majority of reliable sources excluding universities in their lists". As our info here stands now, I see that to be quite a leap.
A primary point is that our job here is not to mirror these kinds of articles. We are discussing the optimum format for this encyclopedia. None of those 5 references are an encyclopedia. Though I would agree that they can serve as reasonable guides as to what is best for us to include and to leave out.
With your set of references, I now see your position to have a well established basis. So now we are in a position where I see both sides of this to have solid ground, quality-wise.
There is loads more that can be presented on the pedigree-is-important side of this. For example, I just now watched Nick Foles' MVP Award acceptance speech. It is opened to questions, and one minute in... with the 2nd question he is fielding... Nick Foles explains the significance of Westlake High School. I shit you not. For anyone who has not seen it:
Nick Foles: "...Drew [Brees] is someone that, you know, we both went to Westlake High School in Austin, Texas..." (MVP Award press conf, answering 2nd Q)
There are a LOT of things they could have been talking about during that press conference. He was just handed the award, still warm from the Commish's hands, and the room is filled with discussion about Westlake.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holy Flock! The 4th question is all about Westlake High School also!
And that question has nothing to do with Drew Brees. Earlier (above) I had mentioned that a third QB blew away the school records of these two Super Bowl MVPs. And this question is about that guy.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyberbullying concern[edit]

Off-topic discussion by sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The above discussion has presented a very clear case in how in the two positions, one is thoroughly supported, while the other is lacking in support. The supported position was then subsequently "meta-supported" by showing very clearly, in no uncertain terms, how the supported position is also the position that conforms to Wikipedia Policy regarding Consensus.

In an ideal world, if any disagreement persisted, then supporters of the other side would bolster their position with supporting references, along with "meta-support" to show that Wikipedia Policy was also in favor of their view.

As the situation stands now, absolutely no references have been presented in support of that position. And a huge stretch was attempted in an effort to show that Policy conformed to that position. Under this current state, it seems very clear to me that any rational person could visit this discussion and see which position is solid, and which position is in error.

BUT... I am not in any position that is free from bias. I am heavily biased that my own position has been thoroughly and properly established. So I am fine with taking a step back from all of this with the hope that rational unbiased editors might arrive here to help the process along. But that's not what has happened. Instead, the latest action has been to revert the edit that has been heavily supported by reliable sources as well as Wikipedia Policy. And on top of that, I have been threatened ...with this story that I am engaging in some kind of war, when at every step I have presented rational, well-supported arguments.

Wikipedia, I'm sad to say, has a thoroughly entrenched reputation for cyberbullying. And it appears that is where this discussion is headed as well. The threat has already been made. Long after I had made my appeal to reason and rationality. So be it. The latest revert was made "pending conclusion of discussion". If no substantial counter-argument can be presented, then in my view, this discussion HAS been concluded. But again, I am not in a position that is free from bias. So I am willing to take a step back and maybe even gain a fresh breath of air.

The bottom line to this subsection is an appeal to any and all users of Wikipedia to refrain from cyberbullying tactics. Is that too much to ask?--Mark Thomas II (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few of us disagree with you about what content the article should have. This is normal on Wikipedia and not cyberbullying in any way. If you believe you've been bullied, you are free to start a thread at the administrator noticeboard's incidents page if you so desire, but my feeling is that nothing would come of it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consider dispute resolution, as edit warring is discouraged.—Bagumba (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit warring is making reverts without having established proper grounds for doing so.
Establishing Consensus definitively in the Talk section, inviting dissenting opinion, and then making proper change to an article based firmly on Wikipedia Policy does not constitute edit warring.
I am glad to see that mature, well-reasoned discussion has taken root here up in the original section, and I am preparing a rebuttal. I am hopeful that this remains the norm.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that you have repeatedly claimed consensus in your favor when it very clearly is not. Your additions have been reverted in whole or in part by 5 different editors, and if you weren't aware, 3 of them are administrators—editors who know policy like the back of their hand. Two of them explicitly stated in their edit summary that consensus hadn't been reached. And this accusation of cyberbullying is weak; assume good faith. Lizard (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that it is strange to have an administrator involved in this. And absolutely bizarre to have three.
Just look at how you got involved. An editor here was presenting a very weak argument, so what happened was that "reinforcements" were called in. I myself am of the opinion that the process of improving Wikipedia can happen quite smoothly via mature interactions of normal people. It is not necessary for anyone to have an "NFL Article Editing Lobby" which ensures that "votes" will always go their way by calling in an army of like-minded thinkers. That is not how Wikipedia is designed to work. (And likewise, Russia is not supposed to be the element providing the tipping force in US elections.)
Was it proper for an admin to go to my Talk Page and threaten with blocking me?
Say you are driving down the freeway, going the speed limit in the fast lane. Someone else wants the particular space on the road that you are occupying. That is a conflict. I ask...
Would it be proper for that person to settle this conflict by pulling out their cellphone, dialing 911, and having a police car pull you over and threaten to take you to jail?
You were abiding by the law. And at every step of the way you were presenting evidence that your actions were well within the law. You had even been posting quotes of applicable US Code. Yet you were the one pulled over.
Strong evidence of violation of Wikipedia Policy on Article Ownership, WP:OWN
Ok, next point...
Are you aware of the Wikipedia Policy on Article Ownership?
Here is what a "good cop" would do, regarding our article here...
Take a look at this page:
Take a look at that pie chart. Giants2008 has eaten more than half of the pie, going by added text.
If admins were properly doing their job, they would receive their complaint about me, and then they would investigate. They would clearly see how I was abiding by WP. And then they would look at the page I just highlighted. They would not go to my Talk Page and threaten me. Instead, they would "pull over" Giants2008 and give that editor a talking to about WP regarding Article Ownership.
As for your own role in this, here is a radical idea for what you might want to consider doing should something similar happen in the future...
The next time an editor comes to you saying that they're having a problem over at a particular article, you can give that person tips on how to present a more solid argument. Gently take them by the hand, and show the LMGTFY. Viola. They, all by themselves, will then have the most powerful tool known to modern humanity in how to build a strong argument (Note: Lmgtfy URL was blocked by Wikipedia). And we would have gotten that post with several solid references prior to, instead of after, the thugs arrived issuing threats that they would be kneecapping people who were acting well within the law.
And yes, I just referred to Wikipedia admins as THUGS. I have yet to encounter one who treats editors respectfully. Every single time I have witnessed abuses of power. Actions at this article here have been no different.
I did not initiate this subsection out of concern for cyberbullying by people like you. It was out of concern for cyberbullying by people who have been entrusted and empowered to help this website run smoothly. There have been FAR too many times when I've seen admins assassinate innocent editors. And by assassinate, I mean permanent blocks. Wikipedia is in dire need of a BLM-type of movement, where common editors who follow the rules are supported, not harassed.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) "Was it proper for an admin to go to my Talk Page and threaten with blocking me?" and "the thugs arrived issuing threats that they would be kneecapping people who were acting well within the law". Your initial conduct that drew me to your talk page was a violation of WP:3RR which I suggested, and again suggest, that you read. Many admins would have issued a block forthwith for that violation. I opted to give you a second chance by alerting you to the rule. In return, I am termed a "goon" who is engaged in "abuses of power". You should now add Wikipedia:No personal attacks to your reading list. Nobody is trying to bully or "assassinate" you, but you need to follow the same rules that apply to all editors. Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me to call you out for abuse of power is not a personal attack. That's like saying Ed Snowden is the bad guy, when all he was trying to do was shine light on horrible abuses of power. There are actually laws in place that are designed to protect whistleblowers. And I would suggest that Wikipedia would be vastly improved if it instituted policies where an editor like me would be protected by calling out admin actions such as this case here. But instead, the list of "crimes that I've committed" gets piled on, now including NPA.
You have the power. I have absolutely none. Your position here is that I should be thankful to you for the restraint that you've shown. You only used your taser, when you "had every right" to use your 9mm. Ok, I thank you for not shooting me, I guess.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to listen better. Nobody is shooting you, tasing you, assassinating you, bullying you, or abusing you. You were given a warning and asked to read WP:3RR. Instead of heeding the advice, you are engaging in attacks. When you have a chance to cool down and take a breath, take a look at your reverts, read the 3RR rule, and try to understand why you were given a warning. Here are the three reverts within nine hours that triggered the warning: (1) first diff at 11:24 reverting Bagumba; (2) second diff at 18:40 reverting Lizard; and (3) third at 19:12 diff reverting Lizard. Cbl62 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would hope that admins receive some sort of training before being empowered.
And I would hope that part of that training would help give admins a bigger picture regarding why certain rules are in place. Let's focus on why 3RR exists...
3RR is there as a tool to help encourage mature discussion in the process of resolving conflict.
Now let's look at the examples you've highlighted. My "crimes".
This is the first edit I had reverted. A thorough admin will take note of what is happening, and the justification presented for the revert. In this one particular case:
Giants2008's rational for undoing my edit: "College column was sourced to, an unreliable source"
My justification for the revert: "Colleges column readded. There was objection to the reference as being unreliable. Now removed. Individual articles on each player has college info that can be easily confirmed. See Talk discussion for importance of presenting this info here."
Again here, it might be better for me to stick with what I would do if I were an admin...
It would be perfectly clear to me that this undo does not even count as a strike as 1-Revert, because the objection was addressed.
This is a clear example of how conflicts are smoothly and maturely resolved on Wikipedia. Hardly a "strike" going toward 3RR, the rule designed to prevent immature conflict resolution.
I could go on, item by item, but hopefully my point has been clearly established:
At every single step of the way, I showed full respect for everyone involved. I thoroughly supported my position with solid references. And I thoroughly supported my actions by citing exact quotes from WP.
And even here now with you, I STILL see my actions to be thoroughly respectful. I have been critical of your actions. I am continuing in my criticism of your actions.
Here I am presenting you with a solid rebuttal of the violations that you see me to have committed.
A different tack we could take here is WWJD?
Say that Jimbo himself were to show up to this discussion. Do you think that he would jump on me for anything I have done here? Or would he say something more along the lines of, "Mark is acting exactly how we want mature respectful members of our community to act."
I really don't know what he would say. Maybe he would permanently ban me. But I would hope that part of his response would be, "Why are there three admins involved in this? Do we want Wikipedia to operate like a Police State?"--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the point I had made in my very first reply to you over on my Talk Page was that I saw all of my actions here to be perfectly in line with WP. It can be easily seen above how I had posted exact quotes that clearly show that my argument, with all support presented, conforms to WP regarding Consensus, and that the other side of this had fallen way short of establishing that. I am repeating myself now. But there it is. You see me to have been in violation of 3RR. I had clearly told you that I was not.
The proper action... Or rather, let me say it this way... If I was an admin (which I am not, and will probably never be) my response to that would have been to highlight exactly where this editor had violated 3RR, and exactly how their rebuttal was invalid. That's just me.
And maybe that is a big part of the reason why I will never be an admin. To do your job, you have to be comfortable with the part of the job that requires wielding your big stick. I probably should be more appreciative of people in admin roles, and cops. One of those people who goes around regularly saying "Thank you for your service." But I don't do that. There's this hippie part of me that believes that society can be kinder and gentler. Like how W's dad used to say. I know it sounds like a pipe dream. But if you have read the discussion above, then you saw my appeal to how I maintained the belief that Giants2008 & I could resolve this conflict without any need for "outside help". Silly me. Imagine a society that had no police force. Where ordinary citizens police each other, in gentle ways. It would probably take three months before everything turned Mad Max. More like 2.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also... In my very first reply here to Giants2008, I had stated:

"The header for this section needs to be changed if an unbiased discussion is desired."

NO ONE has supported me in that. Not you. Not any one of the three admins. That chosen title is the first sign that the ensuing discussion will be unhealthy, if not outright toxic. Instead, Giants2008's response was to call me out for inappropriate behavior, while refusing to make any change to their own method of operating. Giants2008 has been operating WAY OUT OF LINE here for a very long time. Admins have shown absolutely no desire to do anything about that. Instead, I have been identified as the problem.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, being the primary contributor to an article is in no way ownership as Wikipedia defines it. Many of our articles are mostly written by one or two editors, and some of them are among the highest-quality on the site. Ownership is being so unwilling to consider any change, whether good or bad, that one tries to exert full control over a page and lock out others. I don't do that, and am always willing to consider the opinions of my fellow editors. There have been numerous changes to the article as this discussion has occurred, like this and this, and I haven't edited those. If I was an owner like you claim, then I'd be racing to revert any and all changes to the article. That's not what I'm doing. I didn't even remove the high school stuff from the lead; instead, I brought it here for a discussion, which has shown that nobody other than yourself believes that this level of coverage belongs in the lead. If your position doesn't get some support from other editors in the near-future, the content will most likely be removed per the consensus of Wikipedia editors who have commented here. Anyway, to hear that I've been "WAY OUT OF LINE" for writing a lead section a long time ago (which is responsible for the data you present) is inaccurate and deeply insulting to me. Please don't attack me like that. Again, if you believe my conduct is so bad as to merit a talking to by an admin, ANI is here. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I'm here, Mark, how is it that you have seen so many bad things on this site when you have fewer than 70 edits so far and only started editing regularly less than a week ago? Have you ever used another account(s), or were you a spectator for a while? Just curious, as it would help us to know about your prior experiences (if any). Giants2008 (Talk) 19:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You stated: "...[I] am always willing to consider the opinions of my fellow editors."
It was in my very first response to you that I had highlighted that the title you picked for this section show just how unwilling you are to consider my position on this as valid. You refused to change it. And here we are however many days later, and it remains unchanged.
As for content in the lede, I am not the editor who added that. My only contribution was the Brees-Foles part.
And when we return to discussing substance toward improving this article, I have loads more to share. For anyone interested.
It makes for a solid case for this pedigree-is-important position, with words coming straight out of the mouths of SB MVPs.
Just look at your position expressed right now in how you intend to revert this info. Your argument is that it is only me who supports this position (inaccurate). A proper argument would not be based on a hand count-vote of who is taking which position.
I will reiterate what Wikipedia Policy clearly states regarding Consensus. The overriding concern is QUALITY of the argument. Not numbers.
And if you are serious about what you said about Ownership, I will suggest that you consider taking a break from this article entirely. Like for a year.
I have done that myself with many articles. You seem to think that it is important to know specifics about my experience in editing Wikipedia.
I have visited the Wikipedia offices in person. That is to say, I walked in to the place on Montgomery St in San Francisco, specifically to talk to them about problems like what has happened here. I live thousands of miles away from there. But I did this trip to see them, because I am that passionate about having a top quality website that helps the entire planet. Is that not clear by the crazy level of effort that I've put into this article right here?
This might be a more important bit of background...
I don't really care about pro football all that much. I did not watch the Super Bowl. Over the past decade, I've watched probably one game. Maybe two.
What I am motivated by is the quality of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an amazing phenomenon. But it can operate MUCH BETTER than it does. I expect you know the story of how the Wikipedia creators themselves have been burned by "the process". So much so, that one of them states that he refuses to edit his creation anymore.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And regarding this notion that I have been personally insulting, attacking and inaccurate... I point to the image inserted above, with the caption:

"Strong evidence of violation of Wikipedia Policy on Article Ownership, WP:OWN"

This is an example of a hard fact. The position I presented is that this behavior is in violation of WP, long term. I posted a link to the policy. I posted a link to the data. This is a perfect vignette of exactly how I have conducted myself throughout this entire discussion. I have expressed my position. And then I have thoroughly backed up that position. And then I get called out as the "bad guy" for behaving like this. I experience this as Opposite World.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of calling out Giants for WP:OWN. If this were true he wouldn't have even bothered to open discussion on the edits in question. And he certainly wouldn't have asked for a third opinion from me. And you may claim he called me in because he knew I'd support his stance. Which is why I contacted WP:NFL for further opinions (unfortunately to no avail). But anyway. I see now that bringing up the fact multiple admins refuted your claim of consensus has backfired. You believe your interpretation of policy to be infallible and that anyone with a dissenting view is a bully. But unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide that consensus is in your favor. That's seen as bad form, unless consensus is absolutely clear (not just to you, but to everyone). This is the primary reason why discussion hasn't been as friendly as one would hope. Lizard (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn, and I put a lot of thought into that last rebuttal. Lizard (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stats" column[edit]

We are still in the process of arriving at resolution on the question of whether the table will have better quality with, or without, a column for "College". And during this discussion, Giants2008 presented examples of tables that include a column for "Stats" or "Highlights", which goes a long way toward explaining to the reader why a player was awarded the MVP. So while the College question is being resolved, we could concurrently discuss whether the best form of the table would also include other info, such as Stats. Here is one sample from the most recent game:

2018   LII   Nick Foles   Eagles   QB   28-of-43, 373 yards, 3 TDs, 1 TD reception

It would appear that some here have the opinion that "less is more". But Stats could be a case where more is more.--Mark Thomas II (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We generally avoid stats columns on NFL lists. It's cruft that adds a wide column to the table, especially in cases where stats don't tell the whole story, like for Ray Lewis and Martin/White. It's just too much. Lizard (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple winners table style[edit]

The table at Super_Bowl_Most_Valuable_Player_Award#Multiple_winners is currently broken because Brady has now won the award with two teams. He won 4 with New England and now 1 with Tampa Bay. This current version separates the wins with the two teams, unnecessarily making a reader add the two together (not to mention, it's currently an error showing 5 with NE and 1 with TB). Given this is an FL. it should be fixed to

  1. Show the correct total
  2. Decide whether a separate row itemized for each team still works, given that not all quarterbacks (Brady) played for only one team.

For comparison, neither NBA Most Valuable Player Award#Multi-time winners nor World Series Most Valuable Player Award#Multiple winners, which both have players who have won with multiple teams, has multiple rows for the same player. —Bagumba (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Bagumba: As the editor who got this to FL standard, I believe that the larger problem is excessive coloring in the tables, which did not exist when I originally worked on the list. I've strongly disliked the way it looks for a while now, as the sheer amount of colored cells is distracting and nothing like the moderate usage in the other FL examples. I'd even say that the coloring scheme is causing the formatting issue here, as that is the main reason why separate cells would be used, with New England and Tampa Bay being in different conferences. My opinion is that the coloring for the conferences and positions should be removed, to reduce the over-colorization going on and allow for the NBA list's formatting to be applied to Tom Brady here (one total with both teams listed in the relevant cell). Any thoughts? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Giants2008: I tried looking at MOS for colors and tables, but didnt see any guidance on this. Less so than the colors, the problem to me is that the legend is overloaded. I believe that the average reader would need to keep referring back and forth to the key to see what every symbol, color, and parenthetical means. This is a bad trend in FLs. As far as the conference, which conference won the Super Bowl is a point of interest for bragging rights. The MVP award is mostly correlated with who won the Super Bowl. I've never seen coverage on which conference has won more SB MVPs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Agreed. There's too much going on, which has led to problems with the formatting and detracts from the emphasis that colored cells are meant to provide. Conferences are a great example; emphasizing them is possibly relevant for the Super Bowl champions list, but not so much in this one, where the winners should receive the emphasis. My intention is to cut back on the clutter, if a consensus doesn't develop against the idea. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Not to mention some of those colors I'm sure are a MOS:CONTRAST issue with the blue links.—Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Okay, I've just made a bold edit to cut down on the coloration. At the same time, I modified the formatting of the Brady column so that it is no longer broken and makes sense to the readers. Hopefully this resolves the problem. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]