Talk:Colt McCoy/Archive01

Misc

I am removing the link to coltmccoy.net from the first line of the article. It is unencylcopedic. Meniscus 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am removing a reference and link to mythical national championship from the introduction of the article. While I would love to see a playoff system, the 2005-2006 season had as legitimate a champion as we will ever see under the present system, with exactly 1 unbeaten team among the major conferences. UT finished number 1 in the BCS and number 1 in every poll I have heard of. To make a reference here to mythical national championships would be misleading to the reader. Johntex\^talk 14:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Nice

I just would like to mention how unspeakably rude I think the last comment about Colt "playing like a little boy" was, especially since he was hit twice and had to be carried off the field. Anyway, biographical pages are to be reserved for unbiased comments.

--208.124.32.230 21:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I noticed that the aforementioned comment has been removed. I would like to express my appreciation. --208.124.32.230 21:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article has been the subject of some vandalism today. We are keeping an eye on it. Johntex\^talk 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This article could be a little more objective. The hit that sent McCoy out on a cart was clean, his own teammate said so. http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/colleges/16096484.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javick82 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 2006 November 25

I added that new reference into the article as an opposing opinion on the hit. Johntex\^talk 17:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also "semi-protected" temporarily to help deal with vandalism to this Biography of a Living Person (WP:BLP). Johntex\^talk 17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism aside

The following lines are not of biographical relevance. They are merely an immature way for the author to whine because his team was beaten at home by their in state rival.

"Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included helmet-to-helmet contact which is illegal in NCAA football,[21] but no flag was thrown. When the replay was shown in the stadium, the Longhorn fans erupted in boos[22] before lapsing back into silence as McCoy lay on the ground for 10 minutes before being taken off the field on a cart.[23] Mack Brown said after the game 'I didn't see it, but it sounded like 88,000 (fans) thought it was dirty.'"

This should be stricken from the article as opinion not shared with the authorities.

Quote from Fort Worth Star-Telegram: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/colleges/16096484.htm

"Texas running back Selvin Young said the hit that knocked down the quarterback was clean.'Chin hit,' Young said. 'Just like you teach it.'"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichthusag (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2006 November 26

1. The fact that McCoy was injured is relevant.
2. How the injury occured is relevant.
3. The information you want stricken is supported by multiple references.
4. The information from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is already included, complete with reference.
5. The quote from Mack Brown is every bit as relevant as the quote from Selvin Young.
6. The quote from the sportswriters is also every bit as relevant as the quote from Young. The sportswriters have probably seen a lot more tackles than Young.
7. You need to be careful with your assertions. You have no right to make insulting remarks about other authors. Johntex\^talk 06:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Update - The Battalion says the hit was, in fact, "helmet-to-hemlet".[1] The A&M student newspaper also seems to be encouraging players to retaliate when they are victimized by a personal foul. For a player in the heat of action to commit a penalty is unfortunate, for a presumably cooler-headed journalist to condone retaliation is very sad. Johntex\^talk 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The NCAA rules are misinterpreted in this article. Helmet to Helmet hits are not universally illegal under the NCAA. THe rules specifically state that Helmet to Helmet hits as an attempt "to punish" are illegal. The article should be revised to remove that citation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SolidT (talk • contribs) .

Uh, quoted: "Intentional helmet-to-helmet contact is never legal, nor is any other blow directed toward an opponent’s head. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified." (from NCAA rules). — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Key word being "Intentional". WHether the heltmet-to-helmet contact was intentional is debatable. In this case, there is a good probability that it was incidental to the tackle."

The Battalion reference

The Battalion reference appears to be an opinion column. It does not seem kosher to submit an opinion piece as a reference for a factual event. Is there another news story that could be cited instead? Is there any visual evidence that could be shown, like a picture or something? If not, I would like to request that that sentence be removed - it seems biased.Ganesh01 00:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh01 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2006 November 28

Most writing includes not only factual observations but also interpretations of those facts. Something very basic, such as the score of the game, might be seen as purely factual, but as soon as you are talking more deeply about how something happened (Did the Aggies run the ball well or poorly? Were the Longhorns unable to complete more passes because of their quarterback or their receivers, or was it the defensive backs?) then human analysis will come into play.

Citing the observations of notable observers is of course perfectly allowable. We have guidelines on what constitutes a good source (please see WP:V and WP:RS). In general, for example, a pseudo-anonymous blog is not considered a good source, a newspaper is. Whether the newspaper article includes a little or a lot of editorializing is not really an issue. If a newspaper article says, "Bush wants to build an 800 mile fence along the border and that is a dumb idea", this is still a citable source claiming that Bush wants to build the fence. The claim Bush wants to build the fence is a statement of fact. The writer may be right or wrong about the fact they are stating, but when they say Bush wants to build a fence, they are stating a fact, not an opinion.

Whether or not the writer then follows a factual statement with an opinion is not relevant. They have still made the factual observation. It is the factual observation we are quoting, not any later opinion.

Any columnist whom we might quote is likely to be stating his/her observations and opinion of the game - that is true whether it is an ESPN sports writer, Battalion sports writer, Daily Texan sports writer, etc. Just think of these hypothetical headlines: "Aggies thump Horns" "Aggies slip past Horns" "Aggies dominate Horns" "Horns blow it" - just the act of choosing the headline introduces an opinion about what happened.

The Battalion is a good reference to use here because some readers may be more inclined to believe the Battalion's factual observation that the tackle included helmet-to-hemet contact than, say, if the Daily Texan were to state the same fact. If the Battalion piece has bias, it is clearly in favor of the Aggies and against the Longhorns. The Battalion bemoans the fact that McCoy did not retaliate against the player who was evicted for making a cheap-shot late hit. The Battalion claims that McCoy is not as tough as McGee, etc. The Battalion piece has little good to say about UT and little bad to say about A&M, yet even the Battalion piece states that there was helmet-to-helmet contact. They do this even when one might expect that they would try to deny it, but they do not.

Photographic evidence would be nice but it is problematic due to Wikipedia's restrictive policy with respect to non-free photos. The policy is deplorable because it gets in the way of making better articles, but it is what it is.

The citation should definitely stay in. If you want to find a second reference, then by-all-means add the second footnote right after the first one. There is no reason to stop at just one reference. There are several facts in this article that are supported by multiple sources already. Johntex\^talk 06:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly a longhorn fan. Unbiased my ass.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.105.243 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2006 December 14

What does your ass have to do with anything? Johntex\^talk 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kellen Heard did not knock McCoy out of the game

"McCoy was injured on a QB sneak in an opening drive touchdown run against Kansas State. He played against Texas A&M the following week but he was hit "helmet-to-helmet"[3] by Kellen Heard. There was a lengthy delay, and Colt had to be carted off the field."

The hit that knocked Colt out was delivered by Michael Bennett, not Kellen Heard.

"Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet"[3] contact which is illegal in NCAA football.."

Characterizing the hit as "helmet-to-helmet" and illegal is misleading. The contact that occured between Bennett's helmet and Colt's facemask was secondary, incidental, and thus perfectly legal. It's doubtful that the incidental helmet-to-facemask contact contributed to the aggravation of Colt's injury.

Using the citation referencing "helmet-to-helmet" is disengenuous as well. The author specifically refers to those complaining of the nature of that hit as whiners. The quotation is being taken out of context when it is twisted into evidence that the hit was an illegal helmet-to-helmet hit.

That source should be eliminated entirely. It's an op-ed piece that contributes nothing. The only reason it is being referenced is because it contains the golden words "helmet-to-helmet" which are in turn taken out of context to prop up the argument that Bennett's hit should've drawn a flag.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightintxag (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2006 December 21

The author of the op ed piece is defending the hit and saying that fans shouldn't whine about it just becaause it was helmet-to-helmet. The author clearly believes it was helmet-to-helmet. If you have other references that claim their was no helmet-to-helmet contact, please bring them up here on this talk page. Johntex\^talk 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention of injuries in the lead

It has been suggested McCoy's injuries should not be listed in the lead of the article, since they are detailed elsewhere. I agree that the information in the lead was too much, but I do think a brief mention is still meritted. Colt has only played one college season, and the injuries were a major factor in that season. Therefore, I left in a short mention of the injuries. I look forward to other views on this. Johntex\^talk 20:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Good job.--Fightintxag 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you for suggesting it be trimmed! Johntex\^talk 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox pic

The infobox pic cannot be a screenshot please read the Template:tv-screenshot talk page. Also a fair use rational must be provided as is stated in the actual template. Screenshots are only allowed to be used next to text in the article that mentions the programs airing. Quadzilla99 08:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article: hold on, few minor problems

I've been reading the article, and am deciding whether to pass this or not. It is a great article, but there are some minor things that need changing.

• "During the summer before Colt McCoy's seventh grade of school and in response to a challenge from his father, he gave up his six-drink-a-day Dr. Pepper habit and has not had one since.[1] In 2003, Colt McCoy starred in a commercial for James McCoy's drug store.[7]" - This entire paragraph should be removed. The source on the commercial is a YouTube link (which violated copyright even there, go figure). The first sentence is rather abrupt and trivial. I'm not sure that a Dr. Pepper addiction really needs to be mentioned.
• "As a freshman, he redshirted during the team's..." - He redshirted? This should either be, "he was redshirted" or "he decided to redshirt", because I'm not sure who's choice it was to be redshirted.
• 2, 4, 8 should read, "four, two, eight". Please spell out numbers under twelve. (not required for GA, but will make it look written better.)
• "McCoy suffered a stinger shoulder injury[19][20][21] while rushing for a touchdown against Kansas State.[22]" - Why does this have four sources? The first is akwardly placed in the middle of the sentence (see WP:CITE). I don't think there's a need for four sources on one statement.

Other than this, it is a well sourced (and written) article for a player that has only played one year. Once these are fixed, I will gladly pass this article, and list my reasons of passing this.++aviper2k7++ 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

re: "He redshirted" ... this seems to be the everyday usage of this word, and is neutral on what led to the redshirt decision. It might be difficult to find out whose idea it was for McCoy to sit out a year; unless he made a public statement that it was his choice, the Texas coaching staff would would probably just call it a "mutual decision", if even mentioning it at all.

I agree with you on the paragraph starting with the Dr Pepper note. It's a bit of a non sequitur, and the commercial has a bad source. I've removed the paragraph. I hope everyones' OK with that.

Is there a style guide anywhere on the numbers? "threw for two touchdowns" is probably ok, but "[he went] four for eight " is awkward and looks like spelling out numbers for the sake of spelling out numbers.

*Mishatx*-In\Out 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That is true. I'd say "for three touchdowns" and "5-10". You can read some of Manual of Style: Numbers and Dates for their guidelines. "Colt McCoy threw 2 touchdowns against Iowa" I just thought seeing the number 2 alone was rather sloppy, and should probably be replaced by a word. But you're right about spelling out numbers for the sake of spelling out numbers. I see the redshirted point. This article is GA, but I'm confused on the "minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7." phrase. Does this mean I can't pass it until two days? I should've just passed it and tried to fix the problems.++aviper2k7++ 05:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It would still be nice to fix the citation issue. I'm still not sure why there's four citations for one statement, three of them in an awkward place.++aviper2k7++ 05:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, there was some controversy at the time about the nature of the injury. I guess someone felt they needed a lot of backup. *Mishatx*-In\Out 17:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's in the middle of a sentence, and it's sposed to go after a punctuation mark. I think two sources is enough, it's not even that controversial of a statement.++aviper2k7++ 21:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple footnotes for the nature of the injury because there was some initial confusion over what type of injury it was. The multiple sources make clear that this matter was settled. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and one of our goals is to have each fact in Wikipedia backed up by not just one, but multiple citations, where-ever possible. This gives the reader more information to support the claim and also provides more sources for additional reading if the reader is interested.

WP:CITE does not say that footnotes can only come after punctuation marks. What it says is that when footnotes come at the end of a sentence then they shoould be after the punction and not before it. The exact quote is "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence; footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation." Therefore these footnotes follow immediately after the fact they are backing up - the nature of the injury. Johntex\^talk 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple people should give this a thorough copy edit as well, especially the 2006 Season section.A mcmurray 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Mishatx on the use of "he redshirted". I do think it is OK usage. I also agree it would be difficult to determine whose decision it was for him to redshirt.

I am fairly neutral on removing the information about the Dr. Pepper habbit. I don't think it is terribly important, but it does provide some non-football information to flesh out this biography. On the balance, I would rather include it and reword the paragraph, but I don't feel strongly about it if everyone else thinks it should be removed.

I commented above concerning the number and placement of references related to McCoy's injury.

I gave the 2006 a copyedit and replaced numbers less than 12 with the word for the number. Johntex\^talk 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know I didn't work on the article but I would like to see you folks get it promoted, just because when I get my first GA I think it will pretty much rock, one nominee in the pipes now, University of Illinois Observatory. With that in mind I would note that while "he redshirted" may be proper usage it is usually spoken passively, "he was redshirted." I only comment because I specifically remember that the wording "he redshirted" caused me pause when I read the article, just speaking as a total outsider here.A mcmurray 22:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I did an unscientific Google search just now. "he redshirted" returned 34,800 hits, while "he was redshirted" returned just 508. "Given a redshirt"=494. "Took a redshirt"=627. "Redshirt season"=57,600. "Redshirt year"=53,100. Johntex\^talk 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Based off the Google information above, another alterantive would be: "As a freshman, he took took a redshirt year instead of playing during the team's 2005 national championship season. During this year he served as the quarterback for the scout team in practice against the starting defense." Johntex\^talk 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's good or eliminate the "he took" with: "The team (or coach or AD or whoever did it) redshirted him during the 2005 national championship season.A mcmurray 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I changed it to "As a freshman, he was given a redshirt year so he did not play during the team's 2005 national championship season." I chose this wording because no matter whose idea the redshirt was, the team still had to give it to him, so this wording seems safe. Johntex\^talk 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. I liked it, it sounded a lot better than the text I read earlier this afternoon and the "he took" made it sound more like his decision, which I doubt it probably was, or maybe it was, not quite sure how those things work.A mcmurray 22:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Passing GA

1. It is well written: It is well written with no grammatical or spelling errors I could find. The writing is concise and logical, and the lead is interesting and well written, grabbing the reader into the article. Fits manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable: The article has MANY sources, and even multiple citations on controversial statements. Sources are reliable and are written out well also. Couldn't find any elements of original research, which can be very hard in an article like this. Beautiful sourcing job.

3. It is broad in its coverage: Contains information about his football career, as well as his personal life. It is broad for his thus-short career.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy: Article contains a neutral point of view, and when any criticism is mentioned, many sources follow. Article mentions both the bad and the good without sounding fanboyish.

5. It is stable: Have not seen any edit warring in the recent past, and even very little vandalism at this time (which is quickly deleted).

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic: The article contains all free images. Whoever photographs this is doing a great job. It's very hard to get one photo, but multiple photos is outstanding.

This article fits all the criterias of Wikipedia:What is a good article? and this is why I'm passing this article to Good Article++aviper2k7++ 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! *Mishatx*-In\Out 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Aggie Game

I think the article devotes way too much time on the Aggie game, especially when it's not such an important event in his career. I think it should read something like "Following the K-state game, McGeeMcCoy started the home finale vs the Aggies. In the waning minutes of the game, McGeeMcCoy was injured following a hit by Kellen Heard. The Longhorns went on to lose the game 7-12." I dont think this much detail should be put on that one hit and whether it was legal or not. It's obviously very subjective and there'll be disagreement. Corpx 05:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I vote that we refer to him as "McCoy", instead of "McGee"... It's just so easy to mix up Longhorns and Ags. --Wordbuilder 00:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Idea :) Corpx 01:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to shorten it until a new season begins, at the earliest. The article is not overly long. The A&M game is among the most prominent events in his career to date. Until other events eclipse those of the A&M game, or until the article is in need of pruning, the detail should remain in the article. Johntex\^talk 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone else have an opinion on this? Corpx 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Corpx. That description of the hit and its ramifications is way too long and clearly reveals the underlying bias of Johntex.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh01 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2007 July 29

Please note that the above unfounded allegation came from someone whose only edits have been to this article and its talk page and have all been attempts to bolster the Aggies. Johntex\^talk 01:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right that these have been my only edits. The previous user (Corpx) asked for an opinion so one was given. The job of the page supervisor (who I'm assuming is Johntex) is to make sure the article is unbiased, and it appears biased to me. The flow of the paragraph in question is poor and clearly bent on making a statement that the "illegal" hit caused the Longhorns to lose. You can either refute the allegations or just leave the page looking obtuse like this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh01 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2007 July 31

There is actually no "page supervisor" on any Wikipedia article. On any given article, there will be some editors who have put in more work on the page than others, naturally. There will be editors who are better writers, or better fact checkers, than others. There will be some editors who have taken the time to learn our policies better, and to gain more experience than others. However, writing this page is not anyone's "job". Maintaining this page is not anyone's "job". We are all volunteers, and we should all be striving to make each and every article unbiased. We should also all be striving to be civil and to avoid throwing around unsubstantiated allegations.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim of "underlying bias". The evidence shows the opposite, in fact. The article quotes multiple opinions about the event from multiple sources. Among the many sources we use; we quote the A&M newspaper as a source that thought the hit was illegal and we quote a Texas player who said he thought the hit was fair. If you research the history of the article, and if my recollection is correct, you will find that I added both of those references so I am working to present multiple sides of the story. As of this week, we have added a new source that says the Big12 officials admit that a penalty should have been called.

You are simply wrong on the facts. Your allegations are false. There is not one shred of evidence for your above claim that "the paragraph...is clearly bent on making a statement that the "illegal" hit caused the Longhorns to lose." We never make the remotest insinuation that the play caused the Longhorns to lose the game. The hit occurred very late in the game with the Longhorns trailing and far from being in scoring position. I am not aware of anyone who has alleged that hit cost Texas the game.

What we are talking about here is the life of Colt McCoy, who has only played one college season. This particular play and the resulting injury and the speculation about the bowl game were a big part of his one college season. This issue is not going to fade or go away until after the next meeting of these two teams, at the earliest. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we cover it in detail. We present all the sides of the story, including the recent news that the Big12 officials now say they blew the call. By presenting all the evidence, the reader can make up his/her own mind about who they believe and what they think happened that day.

I encourage you to review our policies and guidelines; including WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS. These policies will explain to you that we are attempting to provide "verifiable" information from credible sources, which we have done here. Please also see WP:CIVIL. Please don't throw around allegations about "bias" unless you have something meaningful to back them up. Also, please sing your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks very much. Johntex\^talk 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

I asked WP:College Football editors to chip in their opinion on this. My proposed revision

McCoy went on to start the Lone Star Showdown game against the Aggies, but was largely ineffective as he threw 3 interceptions and passed for only 160 yards. McCoy was unable to finish the game due to an injury sustained late in the fourth quarter, and the Longhorns went on to lose the game 7-12.

Current version:

With 20 seconds remaining in the Lone Star Showdown versus the Aggies, Colt was injured by a "vicious, stadium-hushing tackle" as Aggie defensive end Michael Bennett connected with his helmet under McCoy's jaw after McCoy had thrown an incomplete pass. Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet" contact which is illegal in NCAA football if done intentionally, but no flag was thrown (see later note on Big 12's post-game decision). When the replay was shown in the stadium, the Longhorn fans erupted in boos before lapsing back into silence as McCoy lay on the ground writhing for ten minutes before being taken off the field on a cart. Mack Brown said after the game "I didn't see it, but it sounded like 88,000 (fans) thought it was dirty." Fellow Longhorn Selvin Young said he thought the hit was a clean hit. McCoy was taken to Brackenridge Hospital where he spent more than three hours undergoing an evaluation that included an X-Ray, MRI, and a CAT scan. Longhorns trainer Kenny Boyd said the injury was a severe pinched nerve in McCoy's neck. Boyd said that McCoy was expected to make a full recovery, but no timetable was set for McCoy to return to play. The injury to McCoy came one game-clock minute after an A&M player, #91 Kellen Heard had been evicted from the game for an illegal, blindside late-hit on McCoy.

An X-Ray, MRI exam and CT scan showed "no structural damage to McCoy's neck or shoulder", said Dr. Carey Windler, the team's orthopedic surgeon.

Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2007 July 31

I think it's too long. It's well sourced and cited which is great, but it is overtly long for such a non-incident. All we need is: He got hit, it probably should have been a flag but it wasn't called, medical tests showed he was okay. We don't need quotes from the coach and other players and their thoughts. The explanation of the NCAA rule on helmet to helmet is probably okay/good too. I think the "short" proposed version is too short and barely covers anything. A hit that requires medical tests in the hospital isn't something to gloss over, even if they are later medically cleared. I think there is clearly a middle ground here that should be reached. MECU≈talk 13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add some detail about the injury. Such as saying it was a severely pinched nerve but all tests showed no structural damage to neck or shoulder.↔NMajdan•talk 19:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this will help, but here are gif files of the hit: hit 1, hit 2. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this section needs a rewrite: "Replays showed both on television and in the stadium revealed the hit included "helmet-to-helmet" contact which is illegal in NCAA football if done intentionally..." While the quotes are certainly accurate, they are misleading. It gives the impression that the helmet-to-helmet contact was intentional, when it clearly wasn't. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MECU, NMajdan, and BQZip01. I think a link to the gifs is appropriate if they fall under the Wikipedia copyright guidelines. Now who wants to rewrite that section? I don't think I should do it. Johntex is clearly upset with me.:-)Ganesh01 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I never said the gifs should be included (althought, as you said, if they meet Wikipedia's image criteria, then sure). All I said was I thought MECU should add a sentence or two on the severity of the injury.↔NMajdan•talk 13:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the hit really that big a deal? I personally dont think so, since it wasnt career ending and he came back and lit it up in the Alamo Bowl. I really dont think we need to get into the whole whether the hit was legal or not thing, because it is very subjective depending on the source. If anything, the comments from the Big XII should be mentioned. The version now adds undue weight on the A&M game paragraph, when its compared to the recaps from the other games. Corpx 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• The hit was/is a very big deal. It is big enough that the Big12 officials revisited the call just this week. It will be one of the biggest topics of interest leading up to this years game between Texas and Texas A&M and readers should be able to look to Wikipedia for comprehensive coverage of the incident. All sides should be presented fairly.

McCoy's injuries are a huge part of his career to-date. This article is not overly long. Consequently, there is no reason to remove the material, and plenty of reason to keep it in the article. Johntex\^talk 15:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)