Talk:Atlantic Coast Conference/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Basketball section

The information about basketball mostly consists of info from 2004 and 2005 (about the addition of BC, VT and Miami. It seems like a section similar to the Soccer section would be more appropriate given the ACC's previous National champions and winning tradition. Agree/disagree? Docbengal 01:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There have now been a few more additions, but now seems busy. I think a list of National Champions would suffice.

Members table

Source: http://bceagles.collegesports.com/genrel/bc-acc-profiles.html Thought about inclulding ADs and fb/bb head coaches as they have listed on this site, but decided on just sticking to numerical statistics, for fear of overcrowding. --24.63.125.78 07:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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" [1] while Wake Forest maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" [2]. 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 US 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). 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 10:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Actually, the US News site lists Duke as Methodist [3]. I agree it may have been overkill, but I also think "Public" / "Private" is enough information for a table that is meant to compare the general attributes of an athletic conference's members. 24.63.125.223 17:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My miss on the Duke affiliation. I see your point, yet I also don't see it as something that detracts or negatively affects the articles. I agree it probably doesn't fit on the ACC page, since 4 more columns were added to the charts, and it makes it easier to read to have just "public/private". I see no need to change it on the other conference pages, since it detracts nothing from the articles and does not clutter the chart like it would on the ACC page. Just my $0.02. FYI, I assume you saw that I'm trying to direct discussion of this issue to this page, instead of having it spread out over a number of different conference talk pages. Thanks. --Masonpatriot

Fair enough, though I think the issue is slightly different in a context like the ACC, where the distinction between the schools is primarily public/private, versus say the Ivy League, where all the schools are private and therefore distinctions might include mention of the different founding religious affiliations. 24.63.125.223 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Masonpatriot, over on the Ivy League page, including that all of the schools are nonsectarian may not detract from the article, but it does not add any relevant info as all eight are nonsectarian. In fact as 24.63.125.223 alluded to at Talk:Ivy League, the "Founding affiliation" would be more interesting as these original affiliations can tell us more about what the schools have in common or how they differ. Also, the table removed some interesting information about how the founding names of the universitites. The Ivy League includes seven colonial colleges, and like their original religious affiliation, this is again a reflection on how old some of these schools and what their original purpose was. btm 23:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As an Ivy alum, I completely understand. I realize the Ivy chart probalby doesn't fit in as well as in the other conferences. I think revamping the table to include more Ivy-relevant information would be great. I just was adding a more or less boilerplate version of what I've been putting in all the conference pages. I'm sure each one will end up being a little bit different. -- Masonpatriot,

National championship stats

Adding each schools' national championships from the table comes out to 127. This is inconsistent with the total of 91 listed in the ACC infobox (same total listed at http://bceagles.collegesports.com/genrel/bc-acc-profiles.html which break the number down to 47 from women's teams and 44 from men's teams) which is in turn inconsistent with the number of men's and women's titles listed in the ACC infobox. Can anyone explain these discrepencies? --24.63.125.78 07:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Notre Dame Footnote

Perhaps the Notre Dame-BC footnote blongs in one of the articles about the rivalry itself? (ie the Holy War (college football), Ireland Trophy, or Frank Leahy Memorial Bowl) Once we start getting into why Notre Dame is playing Rutgers, I think we've taken the article a bit too much off course. AriGold 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rivalries

I removed the listing of a rivalry bewteen BC and Syracuse. I have never heard of this as anything more than a conference matchup. I looked into it and found nothing that supports more than just a casual conference rivalry. See: http://www.1122productions.com/rivalries/ ; http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22college+football+rivalries%22 AriGold 19:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It is nothing more then a former conference matchup. IN the end of this decade, BC and Syracuse have scheduled home-and-home series with each other, so maybe around that time it can be considered a rivalry. But not yet.-ClemsonChuck

This phrase:

" It is widely considered a good, but not great conference. Most would argue that leagues such as the Big East, Big 10, SEC, and even Conference USA are much better. For example, the University of Miami struggled in the Big East, but found life much easier and was very competitive in the ACC."

has been added and removed from the ACC article several times. I think it should be removed because it is an opinion, not neutral NPOV. In fact I disagree with the opinion - the ACC has 3 teams in the top 10 currently, more than the other conferences mentioned. The UM evidence is also not NPOV. I think that we should vote to keep this section out of the article.

• Support Tkessler 22:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Support No reasonable individual would agree that "most" view all four conferences listed as better; arguments can be made either way, but the assertion is simply not NPOV. The Miami statement is fact, but whether it supports the assertion that the BE is better is a matter of opinion; perhaps Miami (and Virginia Tech) improved quite a bit for their inaugural seasons. VT hawkeye 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• SupportThat is just the work of a spammer, most likely a Big East fan (my opinion, but its probably true). To say the ACC is not up to par with CUSA defies serious logic. Also, Miami has had a harder time competeing in the ACC in football then it ever did in the Big East. Call me an ACC homer, but I don't bring my homer POV over to the Big East article or use it to degrade this article. -ClemsonChuck
• SupportAnything that begins with "it is widely considered" is almost always (unless you can cite a credible national poll or something) NPOV. Besides, I would disagree with the factual basis of that statement, and I'm not an ACC homer, just look at the difference in Miami's record in the Big East and the ACC. Remove it.

Academic Ranking?

I removed this from the article: "The Atlantic Coast Conference is, academically, the most highly ranked scholarship-granting American collegiate athletic conference. Only the non-scholarship Ivy League holds a higher overall academic ranking." I don't necessarily doubt the claim, but before it can be restored to the article, it must be clarified. What exactly is meant by overall academic ranking? What "overall academic ranking" are we talking about? Even after that matter is clarified, sources must be added to prove that this is indeed the case. Dagga 20:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Championships

It seems to me we should list the champions of each sport in separate articles, lest the main article get very cluttered. e.g. List of Atlantic Coast Conference football champions VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply listing national championships is not very effective - it is unclear what sports those championships were in, and if the relevant school was even in the ACC when it earned those championships. Tkessler 05:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Conference Realignment

The following statement is a joke: "In 2003's cycle of conference alignment, the ACC added three more members, all from the Big East". This didn't take place *in* the cycle of re-alignment. It STARTED the chain of re-alignment. I fixed this under the IP 71.193.193.30 on February 22, 2006, and had my revisions undone by another user. And the language "the ACC 'raided' the Big East" may sound a bit harsh, but it is indisputably accurate. The entry for Alexander Hamilton says that "Aaron Burr shot Hamilton", and history will note that the ACC raided the Big East.

1) Please sign your discussions with ~~~~, so people know who wrote what. 2) "Raiding" implies that it was done in a hostile manner, imho, and this was simply a business move with no malice intended. The wording is best when kept in a npov. AriGold 16:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why was the text about expansion removed? It is important information. It may have not been wikified, but still should be included somewhere in the article. 136.167.226.60 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of us discussed it and decided it belonged in it's own article and that what it on the page now is sufficient. We have all of the members, the year they joined and a mentioning in the history section. AriGold 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of giving the history of the 2003 expansion its own article. It made a lot of this article a little too long IMO, but it was rather important in the grand scheme of college athletics over the last decade. Any takers? ClemsonChuck

Perhaps an even better idea would be to just create a seperate article for all of the 2003 conference expansion and re-allignment that began with the ACC.

Georgia Tech and Football National Championships issue

Didn't Georgia Tech win a NCAA Championship in Football in 1990? Also, I know Florida State has two national championships in football, but what are the other two from? 205.145.233.1 18:34, 16 March 2005 (UTC)

FSU won 2 national championships in women's track and 2 in men's gymnastics. Neither Georgia Tech, nor Florida State have ever won a "NCAA Championship in Football", as there has never been an NCAA Championship in football, hence no school has ever won a "NCAA Championship in Football". AriGold 14:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How so? There is an NCAA I-A Champion, isn't there? john k 14:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not. Like I said above, there has never been a NCAA Division I-A national champion. Division IA football is the only college sport that the NCAA does not sponsor a championship for. Other levels of college fotball, Division I-AA, Division II and and Division III, all have playoffs and determine a NCAA champion, but Division I-A has never done the same. On a sidenote: If you visit chat boards where people regularly discuss college football, you'll most often see people refer to national championships at the D1A level as "MNC"s. MNC stands for "Mythical National Championship" since the national championship has been determined by using polls, like the AP and the ESPN polls, and not a playoff to determine who a national champion is. AriGold 16:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bowl Championship Series is not based on a poll. However, it does appear that it is not an official NCAA championship, so I withdraw any objection. john k 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The BCS is most certainly based on a poll. Three polls to be exact, the Coaches Poll, Harris Interactive Poll, and a computer average of 6 polls. These polls determine what 2 teams will play for the MNC. AriGold 13:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...yes, I suppose. But the BCS champion is whoever wins that one game, even if the polls think it should be someone else (as happened with USC a couple years ago, iirc). john k 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's exactly why the system is no good, imho. You have these 8 polls that determine a "national champion" by simply putting two teams up against each other. You're letting coaches, who only watch videos of teams that they are facing next week, vote on who will ultimately be the "national champion" when they have no idea who is best. Same goes with the AP. They catch normally 2-4 games a weekend before they have to vote. So you've got all of these polls used to pick two teams to play a game and then call it quits. Then you get incidents like with SC, where you have everyone decide "ok, this is the system we're using" and then when it doesn't work out for a certain team, they go off and claim a part of the formula that says they were #1 and call themselves national champs, it's crazy. AriGold 19:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For a complete list of every NCAA National Championship awarded simply go here, it's the NCAA's official listing. AriGold 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ranking

A very detailed article, should be polished a little bit and nominated for GA status. Bornagain4 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

New Bowl Selection peramerters set today

I went ahead and set up the new Bowl selection guidline the ACC will relase today. However, sense the ACC is going to be releasing this later today at the annual Kickoff press conference (within hours after I write this at 11:30 EST). FOr this reason, I cannot attach an actual link to the press release yet, but have relied on the reputal sources at ESPN from yesterday 7/24/06 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2528025). I hope no one has issue with me not waiting for the official release by the ACC in a matter of hours.

Logos

There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\^talk 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Atlantic Coast Chronicles external link

I have reverted the addition of the Atlantic Coast Chronicles external link for the following reasons:

1. The link is to a blog, which per WP:EL is "normally to be avoided".
2. It is apparent linkspam, since:
   1. The editor adding the link, Marcwink73, has made no other edits than to this article.
   2. The writer of the blog is "Marcus" (accmarcus@yahoo.com), per the Blogger User Profile.[4]

If anyone feels the blog should be re-added, I invite them to discuss the matter here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Your Fan-Bias Off the Rivalry Listings

I removed/edited two "rivalry" listings: One for a FSU/NCSU rivalry, and one for an NCSU/ECU rivalry. Only afterwards did I check the history to see that they were both made by the same individual, who I am willing to say it is a safe bet that the person is a NCSU fan. They were far too one-sided, w/ special notice going to the ECU-bashing (look at the history if you care want to see what I am talking about). That kind of stuff is for message boards, not Wikipedia. Otherwise, I would say every ugly thing I wanted about South Carolina, Georgia, UNC, Duke...the list goes on. - ClemsonChuck