Jump to content

Talk:ACC Championship Game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleACC Championship Game has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 24, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 28, 2009Featured topic removal candidateKept
March 31, 2010Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
May 4, 2011Featured topic candidatePromoted
July 25, 2012Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Good article

MVP??

[edit]

I checked the official ACC website and ESPN.com and could not find any info on an MVP for the first ACC Championship Game. Does the ACC even give an MVP award? If not then I guess we can delete that column in the table, otherwise I'd like to see it filled like the table on the SEC Championship Game page. Seancp 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coaches' poll

[edit]

Is there a reason why the coaches' poll rankings are being used when the AP poll is generally considered the more authoritative and is the more widely used poll? Binabik80 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Coaches poll was selected because it is a factor in the BCS. The AP poll is not generally considered more authoritative....it just depends on college football fans and which poll they prefer. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with both polls being listed. Seancp 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007

[edit]

Where is next year's ACCCG being held? I haven't been able to find that anywhere. 74.234.5.72 08:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAX. --BigDT (416) 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2011 games

[edit]

I have used WRAL (Raleigh, NC, TV station) as a source for the announcement about the 2008-2011 games instead of http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121207aaa.html so that an independent source was used. However, the ACC announcement does include game dates:

It also notes that one reason Tampa got the '08 game was that Charlotte was hosting a citywide convention that year. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article comments

[edit]

I obviously consider myself too close to give a formal yea or nea on any Virginia Tech article, but here are some comments:

  1. "Each division plays a round-robin schedule against the other teams in the division, and the teams with the highest divisional records at the end of the season are selected for the championship game." This is incorrect. The divisional record is only used as a tiebreaker - the conference record is what matters. The wording also needs to be fixed to clarify that it is the top team from each division that goes to the game, so if you have 7-1 VT, 6-2 GT, and 5-3 FSU are the top three teams in the conference, GT stays home.  Done
  2. "Prior to the 2005 college football season, the Atlantic Coast Conference determined its champion via round-robin play during the course of the regular season." This stopped in 2004. In 2004, VT+Miami joined, raising the conference up to 11 teams, thus no more round robin. UVA fans whined incessantly because we didn't have to play FSU that year. (Never mind that even if we lose, we are still co-champs.)  Done
  3. "At the time, college football teams were limited by the NCAA to 12 regular-season games." It was actually 11 games. The old rule (started in 2002?) was that years with an extra Saturday between Labor Day weekend and the first Saturday in December were 12-game seasons and others were 11-game seasons. (Don't quote me on this - I may be slightly off on the details.) But that meant that 2002 and 2003 were 12-game seasons. 2008 and 2013 would have been had the old rule continued. 2004 was an 11-game season. We played 12 games because we were in the BCA game against Southern Cal. That was not the norm. The rule was changed for the 2005 season so that every year became a 12-game season and thus we now get to see an extra practice game annually against a team formerly known as I-AA. I would just take this line out altogether - with either a 12 or 11-game season, we could play a round robin (and zero or one OOC games) but we choose not to because we only want 8 conference games. So the number of games per season has no bearing on it.  Done
  4. "Because of this fact" - sounds like something from a junior high book report. Removed.
  5. "The ACC applied for an exemption to the 12-team rule, but during the 2004 season, the NCAA denied the ACC's request." This needs to be cited - it's outside the scope of general football knowledge or things cited elsewhere. Cited.
  6. "without the benefit of" = I would change that to just "without" Changed.
  7. "In the 2006 game, two new teams faced off" - keep in mind that we've just finished talking about conference expansion, so calling them "new" may confuse the reader and think that they just joined the conference. Changed.
  8. "Following the Virginia Tech victory" - makes it sound like the Gator Bowl dropped us because Tech won. Really, they dropped us because nobody but Tech has traveled a decent number of fans. I would change it to "Following the game". Changed.
  9. "The designated "home" team is 1-2 in ACC Championship Games." - does that matter? Removed.
  10. "... Navy, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, South Carolina, Florida State, Miami, West Virginia, Boston College, Rutgers, and Virginia Tech—an offer to join the league." Where did this cite come from (are you reading it on Lexis or do you have the physical paper)? This sounds a little odd that they were "prepared to offer" these schools. They may have discussed it, but it never went anywhere.
  11. "prepared to offer other schools ... an offer" - should be reworded to not use "offer" twice. Reworded.
  12. "who began pursuing the possibility of expansion anew in 2003" Do we know that to be correct? (IE, did they start in 2002, but keep it under wraps?) In 2000, when Tech was allowed into the Big East for roundball, it was put on hold for a few weeks because there were some rumblings that Miami might bolt then for the ACC. They assured us they would stay put, but if we don't know for a fact that the ACC had not been pursuing expansion at some point in the intervening years, the wording should be changed to say only what we do know - that in April 2003, the expansion plans were brought to light. Added 'publicly'.
  13. "the prospect of tens of thousands of visitors could provide" - subject/verb agreement - "the prospect ... provides"
  14. The bit about the TV contract really doesn't have anything to do with the ACCCG and doesn't need to be included. It just makes it confusing when you pick back up with "In July 2004, the ACC began deliberations about which offer to select."
  15. "Teams also play three conference games against teams from the opposing division, but these games do not count in the divisional standings." Cross-divisional games DO count for determining the division champion. A 7-1 Virginia Tech who lost to Georgia Tech goes ahead of a 6-2 Georgia Tech who lost to Clemson and FSU. The divisional record (your five games against teams from your division) only counts as a tiebreaker. (If you have three teams that finish 6-2 and they split head-to-head, then you go to the divisional record.) See step 2 of the 3+ team tiebreaker rules. (Note that even though they are listed for 2-team ties, you will never get beyond head-to-head for a 2-team tie unless there is a disaster that prevents some games from being played. Fixed.
  16. For listing the score in the game recaps, sometimes mdash is used and sometimes a regular hyphen is used. I think a hyphen is correct, right? n-dashed
  17. Where the team season pages exist (like 2006 Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team), the recaps should probably wikilink to those pages. Linked.
  18. "Taking the place of Florida State was Boston College" - if it had been back-to-back seasons, ok, but they took WFU's place, not FSU's place. I just wouldn't mention FSU. Fixed.
  19. "The game kicked off at 13:10" military time? Fixed.
  20. "but Virginia Tech earned a rare defensive two-point conversion following a second Boston College touchdown" - should mention that the 2-points was on a blocked PAT as opposed to a pick six of an attempted 2-point play
  21. "and tacked on two touchdowns of its own to tie the game before halftime" - the sequence here is wrong. The recap makes it sound like it was 10-0 BC, then 16-2, then 16-16 after our two TDs. But (I'm going off of memory here) I think it was 10-0, 10-7, 16-9, 16-16. The first TD was "tacked on" before the blocked PAT.
  22. "and a Tech defender returned the pass for a touchdown" - I think the defender was Xavier Adibi, right? Whoever it was, his name should be mentioned. Everyone else (Glennon + Ryan) is mentioned by name.

Reviewed by --B (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --Johntex\talk 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, Following a rule change, Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games now fails featured topic criteria 1.d. and 3.c., as 2008 ACC Championship Game needs to be audited for quality and added to the topic. The topic has 6 months from the time of the rule change, or until 2009-01-03, to re-meet the criterion - rst20xx (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

[edit]

When any team (not just VT) has a rank in any poll it should be displayed to give the reader as much information as possible. Just leaving a team unranked gives absolutely no information as to the relative positions of the teams playing. It is not "rigging" to include a ranking whenever it is available. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within the article about the game itself, I think it's reasonable to list any/all rankings. Within the table, it's not useful to be switching among multiple polls; it makes it unclear which poll their ranking was in. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree with Fred on this one. Using the Coaches' Poll for tables and such is standard within the Wikiproject. We just had a discussion on that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree but will defer to you guys on this Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I can definitely understand where you're coming from, but it's a style thing. I guess we're trying to get anyone who looks at these charts to not be confused by all the different ranking systems available. It's easier to compare #22 in the coaches' poll to #17 in the coaches' poll than #24 in the AP Poll to #17 in the coaches' poll. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 attendance figures

[edit]

We've got conflicting attendance reports for the '09 game. The State, a newspaper based in Columbia, is reporting it as "in front of 42,815 at Raymond James Stadium."[1] One of their "sound off" sidebar items mentions "Free-ticket giveaways to kids in both end zones, making it look good for TV," which suggests they're only counting paid attendance. By contrast, Sports Illustrated reported "Attendance: 57,227."[2] What other sources are reporting attendance, so we can come up with a most-valid number? —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to Rename article to ACC Football Championship Game

[edit]

I believe the article should be renames to ACC Football Championship Game to avoid ambiguousness with the other ACC Championships for Basketball, Baseball, etc. --BuffaloChip97 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not the title of the game. This is the only game that's properly the ACC Championship Game; I'm moving it back and moving the disambiguation page to a …(diasmbiguation) title. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACC Championship Game. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACC Championship Game. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ACC Championship Game. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team colors in results table

[edit]

I've made a change to the SEC Championship Game and Big 12 Championship Game pages that I'd like to make here as well; using team colors only for the winning team in the results table (rather than using team colors for both teams). I've had difficulty reading these tables, as coloring both teams yields low readability; using colors just for the winning team is much clearer. Comments welcome, thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Here is the before version of the SEC article, and here is the after. Definitely easier for a person with good vision to quickly see who won each game, but at the same time, we aren't using colour as the only means to convey the winning teams, so I don't think we have MOS:ACCESS issues. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change implemented, thank you. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title revisited

[edit]

While searching theacc.com for anything about the change in sponsorship—and I can't find a positive announcement, only the conspicuous absence of Dr Pepper from mentions of the 2019 game—I found that the ACC typically styles the game as "2019 Atlantic Coast Conference Football Championship Game". Based on that change of usage, should we move the article to "ACC Football Championship Game" and change the article accordingly? Or should we just mention the official title in the lede and keep it as "ACC Championship Game" elsewhere? —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 April 2024

[edit]

Withdrawn, not closed, in favor of separate smaller RM bunches. Dicklyon (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– For all of these that I've checked, capitalization is not dominant in sources, so per guidelines shouldn't be capped in our articles or their titles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose 326 articles in one move discussion, with huge variation between some of them. This isn't a list of related articles, like the NFL draft. Naming convention and capitalization could be different for pro sports vs collegiate. No diffs provided or any supporting info for any of the articles. Are we supposed to take the nominator's word for it? Are we supposed to check all 326 articles for ourselves. Should be snow closed and new RMs done for common sets of articles (like "NFL Championships"). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My hope is that if you (or someone) see some of these for which proper name status seems likely, then you'd point out at least one such. I'm not expecting you to check all of them, but since they seem to be mostly essentially equivalent, maybe one discussion is all we need. If people insist on breaking them out per league, or whatever, we can do that, but it's still as much work, and more, so I'd rather not go there unless someone has a reason. Either way, there's not rush. Take a week, or two or three if that's what it takes, to say if you'd likely object to some of these. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that there are only 21 of these that need to be looked at (the first 21); the rest are just year variations and the templates for a couple. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more note: A lot of these articles show "xxx Championship" logos. But I don't see "Game" in there. If you look in book n-gram stats, you sometimes do see "Championship game", but that capitalization is not very common, so I didn't go there. You can check stats for different leagues and conferences, too, and I didn't find any where the capitalized form dominates. E.g. for ACC you see a big blip in capitalization after Wikipedia did so, but still not really dominant. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminder that ngrams which contain words not normally capitalized (such as "draft" or "game") always lack meaningful context and are entirely useless for these types of discussions due to the amount of "noise" in the results. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Gonzo fan. If the nom even says that there are logos with "xxx Championship", then it's possible that many of this bulk list could end up moving from "Xxx Championship Game" to "Xxx Championship game". Per Gonzofan, snow close and do it properly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, possible snowclose. Lumping these requests like this makes no sense. O.N.R. (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural strong oppose way too many articles being considered in one go. No prejudice against these being nominated separately for each sport event e.g. discussing all the NFL CHampionship Games in one 1 RM. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – This nom is a cluster f. These absolutely cannot all be evaluated together as a number of these are definitely proper names while others are actually worth discussing. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow close, strong oppose. Complete trainwreck. C'mon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems that editors would prefer a whole bunch of RMs to one large one. I'll withdraw this and start over. Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Let's be clear here, it's not a matter of preferring multiple RMs, it's a matter of this being a cluster fuck of a nomination. These are all quite separate from one another and cannot be properly evaluated and voted on as a bundled nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Cluster fuck. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACC_Championship_Game&oldid=1221438132"