Talk:2020–21 College Football Playoff

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020–21 College Football Playoff/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 05:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ZooBlazer (talk · contribs) 23:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Happy to review this since it has been stuck in the queue for way too long. Overall the article is in pretty good shape. Just some minor things to address. -- ZooBlazer 23:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS Just a courtesy ping to make sure you didn't forget about the review. -- ZooBlazer 04:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer Thank you - I definitely still plan on finishing this. Hoping to have it done by the end of this week. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS I'll leave this open for one more week. It's been open for almost 2 months. Normally I would have failed it long ago as a result, but I gave it extra time because it was in the GAN queue for so long. -- ZooBlazer 01:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, I have been quite busy IRL lately so I appreciate you leaving this open. I am hoping to get to the rest of your comments today. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS Since it has been another 3 days and no progress was made, I am unfortunately going to close this review. If you manage to get all the comments addressed and renominate the article when you are less busy, let me know and I'll be happy to look over the article again. -- ZooBlazer 17:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio check

• No issues found by earwig

Lead

• "A rematch of the CFP semifinal at the 2015 Sugar Bowl, the Crimson Tide defeated the Buckeyes..." The Crimson Tide itself is not a rematch. Rephrase to something more grammatically correct, such as: "In a rematch of the 2015 Sugar Bowl semifinal, the Crimson Tide defeated the Buckeyes..."
  • Decided to just cut that first clause since I don't think it's relevant enough for the lead upon reread. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• "The final participant, No. 4 Notre Dame, was an FBS independent." Since it's the College Football Playoff, the reader already knows they are FBS. Changing this to "was an independent" or "competes as an independent" flows better.
  • Rephrased. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
• When mentioning the Rose Bowl was moved to Arlington due to Covid, it might be helpful to specify "due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in California" to give the reader the exact context of why it couldn't be played in Pasadena.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Selection and teams

• Avoid conversational or editorialized transitions like "Upsets did occur, though". A more encyclopedic tone would simply state the results, such as "However, several ranked teams were defeated that week..."
  • Cleaned this up. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• "...ended the Gators' playoff hopes, according to Sam Cooper of Yahoo! Sports;" is unnecessary. That a late season loss eliminates a fringe contender is general sports consensus, so stating the fact and leaving the citation at the end of the sentence is much cleaner and less clunky.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• "to avoid the upset" and "were unable to do the same" when discussing Notre Dame, Oregon, and Northwestern leans slightly into sports journalism tone rather than Wikipedia's neutral point of view. May simplify this to just state the outcomes of the games.
  • Done. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• "drew criticism from some" relies on a weasel word ("some"). Either specify who or rephrase it to something like "drew media criticism".
  • Replaced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Similar to the Yahoo attribution, "...according to Berry Tramel of The Oklahoman" when discussing Iowa State and Oklahoma missing the playoff is unnecessary. It is a widely accepted fact that the result eliminated both teams.
  • Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• The detail regarding Marco Wilson being penalized for throwing an LSU player's shoe borders on undue weight for this article. While it was a memorable moment for Florida's season, it may be a bit too trivial for a summary of the CFP picture.
  • I would normally agree, but I would argue for keeping it in since the shoe throw essentially lost them the game, and them losing the game knocked them out of CFP contention. A lot of media treated the shoe throw as the thing that took Florida out of the running (Yahoo: "Florida loses shot at CFP after player throws a shoe", ESPN: "The throw, which came in a tie game against a heavy underdog, certainly cost Florida a win. It might, too, have kept the Gators from the College Football Playoff.", SI: "Instead, UF's National Championship hopes were untied like laces, thanks to a blunder from its defense but one unlike any that the unit had caused to that point in the season.").
• "Cincinnati head coach Luke Fickell wanted his team to be considered for the playoffs." This sentence is somewhat self-evident and unencyclopedic, as every undefeated coach wants playoff consideration. Rephrase this to focus on the broader narrative, such as specifying that Cincinnati's undefeated status sparked debate over the inclusion of Group of Five programs.
  • Just removed that bit since I keep talking about Cincy in the next sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:40, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Rose Bowl

• The text states Alabama scored on their first three possessions, "giving them a 21–7 halftime lead" but completely omits how and when Notre Dame scored its 7 points.
• "Christian Harris intercepted an Ian Book pass... Alabama's offense scored on their ensuing drive. The Tide led 31–7..." This progression skips three points. Alabama scoring a touchdown on that drive would make the score 28–7, not 31–7. Alabama's fourth-quarter field goal must be explicitly mentioned for the math to make sense.
• "The Tide led 31–7 before a Notre Dame touchdown—a 1-yard rush by Book—and a successfully-recovered onside kick with fifty-four seconds to play" is clunky. It implies the onside kick just happened at the same time as the touchdown. Clarify the sequence: Notre Dame scored the touchdown, and then subsequently recovered the ensuing onside kick.
• Additionally, in that same sentence, remove the hyphen in "successfully-recovered". Adverbs ending in "-ly" are not hyphenated when forming compound modifiers.
• The summary should include the game's Offensive and Defensive MVPs (DeVonta Smith and Patrick Surtain II).

Sugar Bowl

• "Clemson and Ohio State met for the third time in CFP history and the fifth time ever in the Sugar Bowl semifinal". The phrasing accidentally implies they have played each other five times specifically in the Sugar Bowl. Rearrange it for clarity: "The Sugar Bowl semifinal marked the fifth meeting ever between Clemson and Ohio State, and their third meeting in CFP history."
• "The first six possessions of the game featured two touchdowns and one punt for each team..." is awkwardly phrased and forces the reader to mentally calculate the game flow. Rephrase to something like "The teams traded pairs of touchdowns and punts over the game's first six possessions..."
• The summary glosses over the primary storyline and performance of the game: Justin Fields threw for six touchdowns (a Sugar Bowl record).
• The game's MVPs (Justin Fields and Justin Hilliard) are not mentioned.

Championship game

• "After a three-and-out by the Buckeyes to begin the game, Alabama scored on a rush by Najee Harris and a reception by Heisman Trophy winner DeVonta Smith, giving them a lead early in the second quarter. Master Teague's rushing touchdown tied the game..." This completely omits Ohio State's first-quarter touchdown that originally tied the game at 7–7. The text currently makes it sound like Alabama was up 14–0 before Teague tied it with a single TD.
• The defining individual performances of the game are missing. DeVonta Smith had a record shattering first half (12 catches, 215 yards, 3 touchdowns) before leaving with an injury, and Mac Jones threw for 464 yards and 5 touchdowns, setting CFP championship records. The text currently just vaguely states the Tide "added two touchdowns in the first half" without mentioning Smith caught them or acknowledging Jones's stats.
• "The Crimson Tide added two touchdowns in the first half, giving them a 35–17 halftime lead, and two more in the second half while forcing Ohio State into a turnover on downs on consecutive drives in the late third quarter and mid-fourth quarter." This is a massive run-on sentence that tries to summarize the entire half in one breath. It needs to be broken apart to separate the first half scoring from the second half defensive stops.
• The game's MVPs (Mac Jones and Christian Barmore) are omitted.

Aftermath

• The transition between Saban's coaching record and the television viewership is abrupt, with back to back sentences starting with "It was" ("It was the seventh for Alabama head coach..." followed immediately by "It was the least-watched national championship...").
• The spelling of Sarkisian is incorrect ("Sarkesian")
• "Sarkesian returned to the CFP with the Longhorns in 2023–24 and 2024–25" is irrelevant to the subject of the 2020–21 College Football Playoff. While including that he left for Texas is acceptable context for the immediate aftermath, detailing his career achievements years later goes beyond the scope of this specific season's article.

Other

• 2020 Texas A&M Aggies football team, 2020 North Carolina Tar Heels football team, AT&T Stadium, and Arlington, Texas all have WP:DUPLINKs
• I would suggest adding alt text to the image

Spot checks

• Checked refs 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 41. No issues with any of them. Ref numbers are accurate as of

• @PCN02WPS and ZooBlazer: Where does this nomination stand? Is it ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Most comments need addressed still. Only the lead has been dealt with so far. -- ZooBlazer 17:47, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.