Jump to content

Talk:Big East Conference (1979–2013)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zls44 (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 16 July 2006 (→Arena Setup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCollege football B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arena Setup

There is a problem with the stub for Big East basketball arenas. Carnesecca Arena's original entry was filed as Alumni Hall- the correct name at the time. This title is now only held in the conference by Providence's Alumni Hall, home to the PC women's team. However, because the Alumni Hall stub re-directs to Carnesecca Arena, PC's Alumni Hall doesn't show up in the list of Big East basketball arenas.

In short: how can we get PC's Alumni Hall to show up in the stub? User:zls44|(talk) 02:37, 16 July 2006 (EST)

Trophy Pic?

I really need a picture of the Big East football trophy. I couldn't find anything anywhere else. Could someone please put one on this site. I'm not a user but that doesn't matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Gallery?

Why not include the gallery? - User:Masonpatriot

Photo galleries are inappropriate in all circumstances. Wikipedia is not a random collection of images. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well, if you look at the policy in proper context:

"Wikipedia articles are not: . . . Unencyclopediac collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Annotated collections of images or media files illustrating a topic may be encyclopediac if they provide valuable support to an encyclopediac article or group of articles."

First, this shows that your statement of galleries being "inappropriate in all circumstances." is not true. Also, showing logos and mascots is definately within reason and provide support for an article, especially for readers unfamiliar with college althetics (and the images are hardly random... if they were barnyard animals, then they'd be random). Not to mention that logos and mascots are featured promenently on a number of sports-related pages. I see no reasonable argument for excluding them under Wikipedia's stated policy. And the "if everyone jumps off a bridge" statement is kind of a childish response to a reasonable question. - User:Masonpatriot

Totally agree with User:Masonpatriot. The gallery is entirely appropriate to the article and Zoe is just aggressively pushing her personal POV on WP style. Many other articles have similar informative galleries. As for the "jumping off a bridge" comment, well, the distastefulness of that attitude speaks for itself. The gallery should be kept. --84.68.3.202 21:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any REAL and honest discussion on this topic from Zoe would be appreciated since it's rather silly for the gallery to keep disappearing for no good reason. Thanks. --User:Masonpatriot
Exactly. --84.68.164.157 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the gallery too. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed Zoe went ahead and deleted it. I left her a message on her talk page. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around at all the other major conference pages and it seems they've also had the problem with the gallery being removed, and then quickly restored. We obviously have some people who really don't like them, and others who do. Its my personal opinion that it greatly improves the articles. What is sports without team recognition? The logos, icons, mascots, and symbols are very integral to college sports. It makes sense to me that it be illustrated here. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photo galleries are inappropriate in all circumstances is not a valid argument for deletion of the gallery. It is one editors flawed interpretation of policy as pointed out by User:Masonpatriot. The gallery definitely improves the article. --84.65.172.14 08:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said ScottyBoy, and well done for restoring the gallery, despite the persistence of a Rouge Admin. --84.65.67.238 16:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rouge? I think I'm more of a pinkish coral, myself. OK, let's discuss copyright. All logos are copyrighted by the colleges. We tolerate them as fair use on the individual articles of each of the schools, but the fair use argument falls apart when you combine them altogether into one big gallery. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, if that is your reasoning, however flawed it is, I think you'll need to go take them off of the other conference pages as well. Can you explain why you seem hesitant to do so? I'll provide you the links so you don't have to go looking for them:

If you're going to present that as you argument, it would only make sense for you to go ahead and take the other conference galleries away too? Or does only this conference gallery need to be removed? Even still...why don't you go ahead and remove the galleries and logos from these links as well as your argument seems to imply their galleries & logo images need to go also:

Look, clearly there's a reason you're only removing this one gallery. I don't care what the reason is, but as an admin, you need to be a little flexible and hear people out. I've now presented to you over 30 examples of other articles that either use galleries or logos. According to your reasoning, they shouldn't use said logos because "the fair use argument falls apart when you combine them altogether into one big gallery." If this is the official policy, as an admin is it not your responsibility to go and remove them from all of these other pages as well?

If you are going to continue and be selective in where you implement this logic of yours, we'll have to take this issue elsewhere (maybe to mediation or the Arbitration Committee). I'm not accusing you of abusing your admin powers, but if you continue removing the gallery from this single article and none of the others, you're not going to come out looking too good? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the gallery. Non-free images (and yes, that includes almost all logos) should not be used for decorative purposes. See Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 08:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Carnildo, why don't you go ahead then and try removing them from all thos pages and see what kind of backlash you get. The only point I'm trying to make is that Zoe seems to be very selective in where she is implememting her logic. If it's decided to remove them, they need to be removed from ALL of those pages, not just this one. I am wondering why it has only been decided to remove it from this page and no one seems to be concerned about the other pages. I say, if you're going to remove one, remove them all or stop complaining. --ScottyBoy900Q 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to participate in a discussion with an abusive anonymous editor. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who this other person is, but I am far from an "abusive anonymous editor", so you can participate in the discussion with me if you feel up to it. So far you haven't been able to give any answers aside from brief sentences which do not address the issues that I am asking your opinion on. If you'd prefer to take this to e-mail instead so you don't have to deal with the "anonymous user," that is fine with me and you can get my e-mail address of my user page, otherwise we should continue the discussion here as it is worth preserving so other wikipedians can participate and voice their opinions. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the abuse Zoe? You are not prepared to discuss this matter because you have no valid counter arguments. Perhaps you would like to address the interpretation of fair use in relation to US copyright law and WP policy set out below. Then, perhaps, we can come to some proper conclusion. Scottyboy is right though, this is the proper place for the discussion so that all editors can see it.
BTW, you are frequently less than polite yourself. [1] --84.68.245.124 09:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So has this gone to the Village Pump yet? I'm interested to see what others would say. -- User:Masonpatriot
I listed it several days ago under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use under United States law

From Fair Use:

The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, excerpted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[2]

I would argue that the use of these images in the article (and ALL the other articles cited by Scottyboy) qualifies as fair use by virtue of the fact that the purpose of their use is in line with the example uses cited - comment, scholarship, research and nonprofit educational purposes.

It is disappointing that Zoe, having lost the original argument, jumps ship and sails off in a different direction to attempt to justify her unilateral image deletion on the back of another spurious interpretation. --84.68.154.47 08:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use under United States copyright law doesn't matter here. What matters are the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 08:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your point is? From Wikipedia:Fair use:
There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include:
  • Team and corporate logos. For identification.
Their use in this article is for identification and therefore in compliance with both Wikipedia:Fair use policy and the fair use provisions od US copyright law. This is a style debate with Zoe. She has already lost one argument and will lose this one as well. The gallery should be kept. --81.79.32.76 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Carnildo, why don't you or Zoe go ahead then and try removing them from all those pages and see what kind of backlash you get. The only point I'm trying to make is that Zoe seems to be very selective in where she is implememting her logic. If it's decided to remove them, they need to be removed from ALL of those pages, not just this one. I am wondering why it has only been decided to remove it from this page and no one seems to be concerned about the other pages. I say, if you're going to remove one, remove them all or stop complaining. --ScottyBoy900Q 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

Is it just me or does the rivalry section look very sloppy. I cant figure out how to spruce it up. It just seems like they were added with every minor and insignificant rivalry mentioned. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the rivalry section is a bit cumbersome. I tend to believe that the "hopeful new rivalries" section is a bit much. --User:Masonpatriot

The rivalries aren't even accurate. For example, South Florida's rival is Central Florida. South Florida is listed as having Miami as a rival, but they are only scheduled to play 2 games with Miami. In addition, South Florida is simply too "small time" for Miami and there is no interest at Miami in having a regular "rivalry" or regularly scheduled games in any sport against South Florida. In that regard, I'm going to change the South Florida-Miami entry to South Florida-Central Florida, which, if you speak to students at either school, will be told is the real rivalry. Only those with delusions of grandeur would consider Miami, UF, or FSU as their rival. 68.204.200.39 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently some debate as to the USF-UCF rivalry. This rivalry has existed for a number of years in baseball and basketball. In addition, any person following the football program of either school should be quite aware that both the fans, the players, and the school administrations consider the game a rivalry. As much was apparent at the USF-UCF game this past September. There is, in fact, a trophy for the winner of the game, which I believe is called the Florida High Tech Corridor Cup. http://www.floridahightech.com/NewsLetter/october2005.htm --about 1/3 down that page. Clearly there is an athletic rivalry between the two schools and no revert should be made in regards to the USF-UCF rivalry being listed. 68.204.200.39 05:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USF does not now nor has it EVER considered UCF a rival. The two schools have not played in basketball for at least a couple of years, and are not scheduled to play in football beyond 2006. You say that a "rivalry has existed for a number of years in baseball and basketball" and yet USF has played as many or more basketball games vs. Jacksonville (44), FSU (31), Florida (22) and Stetson (22) in state than they have UCF (21). In baseball, USF has played Stetson (142) and Miami (110) more often than they've played UCF (94). If you truly want to look for a rival, consider UAB. USF has played them more often in basketball (53) and football than they have UCF. If you asked a USF fan whether they considered UCF a rival they would laugh. Just because an Orlando-based organization offers a trophy and a few UCF fans want it to be a rivalry doesn't make it so. Please stop propagating this myth.

And yet if you speak to the involved players, the involved coaches, and the school administrations, they consider it a rivalry. And please sign your entries. 132.170.162.119 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Also, a review of your edit history shows that you have previously vandalized UCF pages and/or inserted disparaging statements that violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. 132.170.162.119 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia states that content must be verifiable. I have verified that UCF and USF are not rivals with irrefutable facts. Unless you can provide facts that show otherwise, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia. That would be impossible, because you couldn't find anybody who works in the USF administration who would state what you are claiming.Calfan 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of games played is irrelevant to a rivalry. If you view other rivalries listed on this page, you would find that many of those teams have not played in years or have played other teams not considered "rivals" more often, yet those games are still rivalries. UCF and USF have played each other often in every sport but football, and this is only due to USF's not starting a football program until the late 1990s. There is a trophy which was presented to USF as the winner of this past year's game. It was accepted by the USF administration. Clearly, if the USF administration did not perceive a rivalry, then they would have declined to be part of the trophy. Further, UCF & USF recruit head-to-head against each other in all sports. The media has further declared these two schools to have a rivalry:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/03/news_pf/Sports/USF_UCF_comes_to_frui.shtml http://sports.tbo.com/bulls/MGBJ8NPXNDE.html http://sports.orlandosentinel.com/default.asp?c=orlandosentinel&page=cfoot/news/AFN2572684.htm http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050917/SPORTS/509170342/1002 http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/NEWS/508250340/1002/SPORTS

After that, let's quote USF Coach Jim Leavitt, as cited in the last linked article "It's a high-interest game, no question about it," said USF coach Jim Leavitt. "It doesn't matter whether both teams are very powerful, having a great year or not. It's going to be one of those typical rivalries that will develop because of geographics." 68.204.200.39 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Football rivalry between Rutgers and Louisville is fictional. The article refers to an incident in a game played in 2005, and other issues aside, I think we can all agree that a single game in a series of 5 games played between the teams since 1976 does not constitute a rivalry. I'd also add that Rutgers has claimed that it was not an intentional logo-stomping, so the incident remains in dispute, and the reference is biased. --AlanK 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members table

School type/religious affiliation

The religious affiliation or designation as "non-sectarian" is not so clear cut. For example, Duke University describes its ties with Methodism as "formal, on-going, and symbolic" [3] while Wake Forest University maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" [4]. Both schools can be considered "non-sectarian" in that they are no longer under the direct auspices of their founding religious organizations. Likewise, Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order (and thereby the Catholic Church) in the 1960s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown University). All of this is to say that I think the nature of a school's religious affiliation is beyond the scope of this article, and that "public" or "private" suffice in the context of the members table. --24.63.125.78 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understand what you're saying. I think there is a perception difference when it comes to BC, though, as they are definatley popularly viewed as a Catholic institution. Also, as a failsafe, I usually check the USNews and World Report profile of each school (most of the information is provided by the institution itself) and BC describes itself as Cathloic while Duke and Wake Forest describe itself as having no religious affiliation.
Also, I don't think it's completely outside the scope to put something small like that in an informational chart, as it tends to show what type of institutions each conference represents. If people want to find out more about how that affiliation affects and guides the instituion they can go to that school's wikipage or actual hopepage to examine further.
Also, is it necessary to post this on EVERY conference page... kind of overkill in my book. -- Masonpatriot
Please refer to Talk:Atlantic Coast Conference so we can keep all the discussion in one place. Thanks. -- Masonpatriot

I recommend changing the image for the Marquette Golden Eagles from the eagle logo to the new interlocking "MU" monogram. Having attended every Marquette men's basketball home game, I can attest that the eagle logo has been nearly completely eliminated; the monogram is used at center court, on warm-up jerseys, on the cheerleader and dance team uniforms, on the band uniforms, on all scoreboard graphics, and on the tickets. The eagle remains on the the tubas and on the base of each basket. Even BigEast.org uses the monogram. --Maxamegalon2000 21:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Loyola College

It flew totally below the radar, but in January the conference added Loyola College as an associate member for women's lacrosse. I went ahead and added them in the enrollment and logo categories, as well as adding a spot for associate members. Loyola had an updated logo on it's athletics website, but the best version I could find had a teal background, which would have significantly messed up the flow of the logos on the white page background. I went ahead and used the logo from the MAAC page. --Zls44

I removed Loyola from the listing table and the logo gallery, mainly because those are areas that are really relevant for full members of the conference. I have no problem having a section to list associate members, however. I think this course of action keeps the Big East page more in line with other conference wiki articles. Sorry, I just don't think playing Women's Lacrosse in the Big East means Loyola should be listed equally with the other members as it just introduces unnecessary confusion to the article. Masonpatriot 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. BigEast.org doesn't even have Loyola on the top of their page with the other logos. --Maxamegalon2000 14:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Plans

The following statement is currently located in the article:

Other schools rumored to be a part of further Big East expansion plans include the University of Memphis, the University of Central Florida, Miami University, the University of Toledo, East Carolina University, and Navy, though Navy has allegedly twice refused an invitation.

Could someone please provide an external reference to back this statement up. I have never heard of any of these teams being considered for future expansion. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Holy Moses, the conference is considering adding MORE teams? The Big East is way too big already.J.R. Hercules 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


My guess is if the statement is true, the Big East is planning on splitting into football and non-football conferences, so the Big East may be looking into taking 4 football schools to 12 so it could have a football championship game like the ACC, Big XII, SEC, and so on. However, I also haven't heard anything about any new plans of expansion. --S. Ellis 09:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire paragraph as speculative and non-sourced. We don't do original research and we sure don't do the crystal ball stuff. Mike H. That's hot 08:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realignment

Most of the recent edits to the Realignment section posted by 68.107.245.107 are very good, but one is inaccurate misleading and the other is speculative, so I reversed those two.

68.107.245.107 wrote that NC State Chancellor Fox's unexpected "no" vote against BC was stated as being "in part due to uncertainties surrounding the geographical and cultural "fit" of the northeastern school." and cited with [5] That citation doesn't back up the assertion of "fit" issues, and a search of press accounts clearly indicates that at no point did Chancellor Fox ever explain her vote. This particular citation is clear that no one at NC State was ever willing to speak for Fox, so the possibility of a leak regarding her intentions seems unlikely.User:BobVanasse

Where "three football programs" was changed to "two marquee football programs and BC" is editorializing. BC does have a football program and which programs are or are not "marquee" programs is subjective.

the new big east teams

Dont you think you should go into a little detail about the newcomers? Their accomplishments arent even listed in this article. the newcomers have combined for 19 Final 4 appearences (Louisville 8, Cincinnati 6, Marquette 3, DePaul 2) and 5 national titles (Louisville 2, Cincinnati 2, Marquette 1). These accomplishments deserve mentioning.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_East_Conference_(1979–2013)&oldid=64150710"