Jump to content

Talk:Pac-12 Conference/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

The Pac-10 claims the PCC as it's decendant, which is true in that it involved the same teams, but it really isn't accurate because the PCC was disolved over a scandal, and something new was built from the scraps; it wasn't simply a renaming. I feel like the PCC information should be taken off this page and what's relevant added to the PCC page.

{Guest} - 15 November 2005 - The new information regarding Associate Members is helpful because of recent NCAA legislation regarding the mandatory six (6) members for each sport. It seems strange that neither of the Arizona schools have men's soccer programs. Further, from the west coast perspective, it also seems strange that wrestling is still a major collegiate sport. Also, does anyone have any information about that burgeoning athletic movement of "lacrosse," any rumors involving Pac-10 teams???

Travelling Partners

What is the "travelling partner" arrangement?

Pac-10 basketball teams (men and women) play almost all of their intra-conference basketball games on Thursdays and Saturdays. And the two games are against two teams in the same state or city area, and their partner team would also play the same two teams in reverse order. So, for example, Stanford and Cal would go to Washington to play Washington and Wash State on a Thursday and Saturday, (e.g, Stanford vs Wash and Cal vs WSU on Thursday, and then Stanford and Cal flipping for the Sat game). Importantly, the road teams would not travel home between games, but just have the short trip betweeen the 2 away games. This has the advantage of cutting down travel significantly. (I imagine the minor sports do something similar when it makes sense). Every weekend, then, 8 of the 10 teams have Thu/Sat games scheduled. The other two teams can play each other or have a non-conference game. Simon12 17:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Logos

{Guest} - 6 December 2005 - I changed the SDSU logo to reflect the most recent version. The logo posted here earlier was from the early 1990s. The SDSU wiki article and the SDSU Athletics website have the correct logos.

Pac-10 rumors

Unless the editors adding to this section can start adding citations for some of the speculation, I am going to pare it down considerably on the grounds of No original research. BlankVerse 12:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. Matt Yeager 02:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

well the bowl game schedule has been put out and the pac 10 has taken it in the butt again. sure usc got in but it took a number 1 finish to do it. last year cal got sent to the holiday bowl and this year oregon has been shipped off as well. it's turned the holiday bowl into the "humility bowl" it looks to me like the powers to be have taken care of the big ten the acc and the sec right well. while the rest of the country treats the bcs as part of their personel property the pac ten goes around the country saying," why can't we all just be friends". i don't think the commissioner is concerned as long as southern california is happy. he has become a commisionaire rather than a commissioner. if someone in his office would send me his dress size i would be more than happy to see that he is appropriately decorated for next years fall soire. ~jim werner

  • Guest - 6 December 2005. I did the best I could to add some research to these "rumors" by citing to some recent newspaper reports about San Diego State University (SDSU). Perhaps the best source of information could be the transcripts or paperwork from the yearly commissioner meetings of the Pac-10 presidents. Anyone know where we could find these things? Every year the subject is discussed but no decisions are made.
  • This section had to go. It offered nothing factual about the Pac-10. Rather, it served as a soapbox for wishful thinking.

Trivia

I didn't think this was worth adding to the main article, but during the it's time as the Pac-8 (particularly in the '70s), football in the league was dominated by the USC Trojans (which won three national titles in that decade) and the league had the nickname: "USC and the Seven Dwarves" Bobak 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sports

Do we want to add a section about the sports that the conference has. Like on the ACC page. And also list national champions that came from the Pac-10. This would be a great and incredible list Washington-Women's Volleyball 2005, OSU Baseball '06 not to mention the other various championships of UCLA, Stanford, Arizona, Cal and most notably USC. tduwhs

I want to add a section about Pac 10 softball--Azureblue1 05:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do. Streltzer 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Added conf champion from 1987 onwards. Pasadena91 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the Men's Soccer box listing, but I think that we should have something like that for each of the PAC-10 sports. Streltzer 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be a list of sports the Pac-10 sponsors and which members currently compete in those sports.99.67.57.226 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Football Controversy

I seperated it from the general football discussion so that it would appear in the table of contents at the top of the page, but should this be in a seperate article? It makes the article unduly lengthy and is tangential to the overall concept of this article. Streltzer 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this really has any place in an informational overview about the Pacific-10 conference. This seems completely off-topic in the context of the rest of the article. Csba 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be OK with splitting it out into its own article, so long as the content is not lost. I'll take a stab at splitting it out. Johntex\talk 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is a joke in this article. Will people outside of OU remember that incident next season? It's a piece of trivia that's treated totally out of proportion for an article about the entire Pac-10 conference. --Bobak 23:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely trivia and should not comprise such a large proportion of the article, if any. Maybe it could go into an article about Sooners football 2006. I'm going to do what should have already been done and trim it way down. No reason to start an edit war. If people really think it belongs in the article, then revert. But it appears that there is some early agreement that it is beyond the scope of this Wikipedia article. Goeverywhere 04:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I still do not see a consensus or resolution to the issue of the "Football Controversy" section. Should it stay as is in its slimmed-down version, should it be deleted, or perhaps established as a seperate article? Streltzer 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Past Champions: Football

I suggest the Rose Bowl or BCS Bowl participants be marked with an * next to them, especially the years that have co-champions.

66.91.154.34 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Football rivalries

I removed a lot of stuff about USC-Notre Dame and Stanford-Notre Dame. My feeling is that this is an article about the Pac-10 conference -- we could go on forever if we talked about out-of-conference rivalries. That information is much more relevant in the articles about the respective schools. As a result I've trimmed it back and limited it to discussion of Pac-10 rivals. Jsnell 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific-10 Conference

I was looking at the conf webpage and they seem to use Pacific-10 Conference for the spelling and style of name not Pacific Ten Conference. Should the page be moved to Pacific-10 Conference ? Smith03 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

USC 2007 PAC-10 Champions

The University of Southern California (USC) are the 2007 PAC-10 Champions. They are the only Champion Recognized by the Pacific Ten Conference. VANDALS most likely immature losers from Arizona State University, keep messing around with the article to make Arizona State University Co-Champions. If you go to the Pacific Ten Conference's Website, you see that only USC is Recognized as the PAC-10's 2007 Football Champion. You can even goto Arizona State University's Website, and you will that they do not have any banners, or anything else calling them selfs 2007 PAC-10 Football Champions.

I recommend that someone whom knows what they are doing fix the mess-ups caused by these unregistered users, and the page be locked to prevent further vandalism. Subman758 December 2nd, 2007 10:52 PM PST.

This above is painly and obviously false. The Pac-10 has a long-standing policy of awarding a "co-championship" in football when league records are identical, regardless of head-to-head outcome. See 2006, 2002, 2000 (3-way tie), and 1997 for the most recent examples. The Rose Bowl selection criteria are used to designate the game participant, not the league's "sole champion." See the Pac-10 Handbook on page 137 for further Co-champions vs Rose Bowl explanation
Pasadena91 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The first few lines of the Weekly Pac-10 Press Release state:

USC & ARIZONA STATE SHARE PAC-10 TITLE--ROSE BOWL FOR THE TROJANS: USC and Arizona State share the Pac-10 title with the Trojans earning the Pac-10 berth in the Rose Bowl by virtue of defeating the Sun Devils in head-to-head competition. It marks a record sixth straight year USC has claimed at least a share of the Conference crown. It is the first Conference football title for Arizona State since 1996. Pasadena91 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Designation of Co-Champions by the Pac-10

The official Pac-10 handbook addresses the issue of co-champions.

From page 137 of Pac-10 Handbook:

CHAPTER 5 - FOOTBALL REGULATIONS 1. Playing Season Policies. a. Championship Determination. The football champion is that team with the highest winning percentage in all Conference games. If that percentage is shared by more than one team, a co-championship shall exist. (10/62, 12/76, 5/80, 12/80, 8/85, 12/89, 6/91)

http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/0708hbv1.pdf

Tiebreakers are only applied for Rose Bowl selection. Thus for the 2007 season, Arizona State and USC are considered co-champions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.94.5 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If Arizona State University is the 2007 Co-Champion in football. Then why is there no recognition of it, on the PAC-10 WEBSITE? Please do tell me wear I can buy, an Arizona State University Sun Devils 2007 PAC-10 Champions Tee Shirt, and Hat? The Answer is, you can't buy them, because they are NOT CO-CHAMPIONS. At least not until the PAC-10 recognizes them, which they probably won't, but if they do, then thats different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subman758 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this conversation took place right after the end of the regular season, I'm guessing this page hadn't been updated yet. The Pac-10, like all I-A/FBS conferences that don't have championship games, declares co-champions if the teams at the top have the same conference record, regardless of who beat who in a head-to-head matchup. That only comes into play when deciding bowl slots. Even the conferences that have championship games now used to do the same thing. Boznia 13:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Past Champions section is a mess

These tables should be re-done. The way things are currently laid out is a big waste of screen real estate and requires way too much scrolling. I'd suggest either doing something similar to the Big East article or splitting this into its own article. Tables that are that long really distract from the text. Oren0 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NCAA Championships

It looked like someone vandalized the number of championships UW had and the list was not up to date. I also added the NCAA web page as a reference for that column. Someone should figure out non-NCAA recognized championships, i.e. BCS, pre-NCAA etc. Stardude82 (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Football Champions list

A lot of the records are inaccurate. For example, USC had 2 losses in 2002, not 1. 71.119.249.177 (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of PCC. Date and Location of Meeting.

I've updated information about the origin of the Pacific Coast Conference in 1915.

An article titled "Four Colleges Form Coast Conference at Very Secret Session" appeared on page 10 of the (Portland) Oregon Daily Journal on December 3, 1915.

The lead paragraph states the following:

"Adopting many requirements for a high standard of college athletics, the delegates of the University of Oregon, University of Washington, University of California and Oregon Agricultural College organized a Pacific Coast Intercollegiate Conference at a secret meeting last night at the Imperial Hotel." Wikibeaver (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PAC-10 Expanding BIG-12 Falling Apart?

Does anybody know anything about this. Apparently an ultimatum was issued to Nebraska, and Missouri about weather or not they are staying, or going to the Big Ten. Also there is talk of the Texas, and Oklahoma schools, possibly joining the PAC-10, I guess turning that one into the PAC-16.[1][2]--Subman758 (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sitting here in Columbia MO, and the weather is definitely moving through from the west to the east. But seriously, other than Colorado's move everything is still up in the air. Everyone connected with MU is saying little of substance - I think they are trying to keep all options in play. I don't think we'll know anything for sure until it happens. Wschart (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5257088
  2. ^ http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5257774

Addition of new members

Yes, it's painfully obvious that Colorado is going to be heading to the Pac-10, but they should NOT be added to the lists of members as full members yet. Colorado will still have to go through, at the very least, one more season in the Big 12 before they can fully move to the Pac-10. To list Colorado with USC, UCLA, et al would be incorrect. --fuzzy510 (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • With the delay in actually competing in the Pac-10 in mind, certain indicators could be added to show that, yes, Wikipedia is "aware" of the realignment. One example would be updating the Pac-10 map to show the State of Colorado in a third color, indicating "future" membership (and if Texas, Oklahoma, and/or Utah schools are later added, they would also join in that third color, indicating 2011-12 join dates) -173.60.20.215 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Conference Champion Tables

Last night I consolidated the men's conference championship tables into one large table but it was reverted shortly thereafter. I'd like to make a case for my change, or at least for doing something about the tables.

The Pac-10 page is the only long-standing major conference page that has these sort of tables. And since the conference has been around for nearly a century, they're all really, really long. The page is stretched out so far it becomes a little tedious. The editor who reverted said it's not worth the loss of the win-loss information, but those were only afforded to football and the last ten or so seasons of baseball. I think it would be better to retain that information in a more rich format on its own page, like the page for the Big Ten Conference football champions. It retains the information, looks better, and doesn't stretch out the main page. We could do a similar page for other sports and present even more information than we are now. Even if we don't want to give each sport its own page, we could move all the tables to its own page, like how the SEC handles it.

We've had the clean-up banner over the conference champion section for over two years now; I think we should do something about them. ― El Cid ∴∵ 17:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

They just announced the new logo. Is it okay to post the new logo, as long as rational states that no alternative can be used? Bentoman (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering it's been officially announced today, I've gone ahead and added the new logo. The only problem is that the only good one I could find is a ridiculously small image, so if anyone's got a larger alternative it'd be appreciated. --Kevin W. 02:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

New logo with older articles

What's the policy for logo use with older articles? Obviously, the older logo would be more appropriate for something like 2009 Pac-10 Conference football season, so should the older logo be uploaded as a separate file? --Kevin W. 09:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • We should have a separate files for the new and old logos for Pac-10. Old pages should have old logo and new pages with the new logo. Ucla90024 (talk)

USNWR Rankings

I removed the USNWR rankings from the member table for a couple of reasons: First, while the USNWR are probably the most well known rankings of US universities, they aren't the only rankings, and I feel some users might prefer using other rankings either because they feel they are more accurate or they portray their alma mater in a more positive light. Second, while the rankings are of course verifiable, they are themselves subjective, and don't quite jibe with objective measures of a school like enrollment, endowment, and NCAA championships. Third, while the Pac-10/12 does pride itself for the academic prowess of its members, the article is about an athletic conference and academic rankings seem a bit beyond its purview.

As a Pac-10 fan, I do enjoy seeing how well the conference stacks up academically, but I don't think it's quite appropriate for the membership table. ― El Cid ∴∵ 22:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Officially the Pac-12 now..

What's the WP protocol for changing the main article title? --Abdoozy (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not official until Juny 1st, at which point the article will be moved and altered. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 23:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's official until Pacific Time. Even so you may have changed the title but the box on the right and the main body still say Pacific 10 24.36.110.176 (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article title is now ”Pacific-12 Conference”, but looking at the 2011–12 Pac-12 Handbook (page 6) it seems that it should be ”Pac-12 Conference”. Unlike with Pacific-10 and Pac-10, Pac-12 is the official name, not just an abbreviation. The conference website also conforms with this. –Kooma (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New Map in side box needed now that Colorado and Utah are full members

24.36.110.176 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to make timelines more consistent

I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.

for example, a school with a yellow bar means:

  • An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
  • A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
  • A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
  • A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
  • A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
  • A full member of the Big Sky


Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered. To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines

I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)

I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added. Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.

I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.

Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing this discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Standardize facility sections

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#Standardize conference pages' facility sections.

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences

A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency

Unhelpful map colors

I had to expand the map beyond the dimensions of my iPad to be able to see the difference in the colors of the two divisions. Two shades of blue? Seriously? Couldn't we have two more contrasting colors, like blue and orange, or red and purple ,or almost anything else?--76.106.149.108 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd edit

An anonymous IP keeps making this change. The change is made with the oddest edit summary of "Conference membership section has absolutely nothing to do with North/South construct used by one of the 25 sports played by the league; reverting to consensus format." First, the consensus is the original page configuration which subdivides it into a North and South configuration. Second, the same thing is mentioned in at least five other places in the article. The anonymous IP ought to bring his comments here and convince us that really is a consensus, because the editor's definition of consensus, at this time, means that he's right and everyone else who edited the article is an idiot. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Relevant section is about the membership institutions and their associated descriptive data. The inclusion of North/South introduced less than one month ago (without comment or consensus) was reverted with full comment. The North / South division structure is sport-specific to football (alone within the Pac-12's 25 sports) and is not a distinction made in context to membership which is the focus of this section. Member institutions are not assigned a North/South division distinction as this change implied, the football schedule and standings merely incorporate a division structure. Football's utilization of North and South divisions has nothing to do with the relevant sport-agnostic university membership info contained within the membership section (Institution, Location and Population, Founded, Type, Enrollment, Endowment, Annual Research, Nickname, NCAA Team Championships). The football section already fully explains the division structure in context to both scheduling and standings groupings. At no point was anyone called names or disparaged, although your comments continue to be overtly hostile for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I cannot read minds, but I think the IP would like the section more similar to Atlantic Coast Conference#Current members and Big Ten Conference#Current members (without divisions in the main table), rather than Southeastern Conference#Current members. The SEC has the division groupings for multiple sports, whereas the ACC, the Big 10, and the Pac 12 only have the divisions for football. I do not have an opinion either way, as there seems to be a lack of consensus across all the NCAA conference articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
And that's why we have these discussions here. To see if we can get a consensus. But some lame anonymous IP who has his own opinion is about the farthest thing from attempting to make consensus as you can get. If there is no consensus, then we retain the long-time edits per WP:BRD. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Using this logic as stated, you could also revert the uncomented edits which introduced this change from consensus less than one month ago. You appear to be picking a fight because you disagree with the reversion to the consensus, rather than making the difficult argument for a change to include this new data which is unrelated to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.228.112 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Get consensus. I'll ignore your personal attacks because you appear to have failed miserably to understand how Wikipedia works. Continue to make threats on disrupting the article, and I'm sure you'll find your editing privileges suspended. Get consensus, and quit edit warring. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Schools ranked by academic measures

Recently an editor added a section on "Schools ranked by academic measures" see [1]. My edit to remove with comment was then reverted by an anon IP.

At this point, would anyone care to make a case for inclusion? The non-redundant data columns are bolded:

  • Conference Rank
  • Institution
  • Location
  • 6-year graduation rate(2012)
  • Freshman retention rate(2012)
  • Average SAT score(CR+Math) of first-time freshman(2012)

(Institutions are ranked by 6-year graduation rate.)

The included data and sortable rankings for 6-yr graduation rate, Freshman retention rate, and Freshman SAT scores of each school have little to no overlap with this article's scope of the 12 full member institutions' athletic teams and Pac-12 conference athletics in whole. The data appears scoped to all undergraduates. Perhaps it would be possible to limit it to scholarship athletes, Academic Progress Rates thereof, or similar. I'm open, but SAT scores of high school kids who are now attending a Pac-12 school and the subsequent academic performance of entire undergrad classes (unaffiliated with the schools' athletic departments) isn't adding to understanding about this athletic conference. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello UW Dawgs, I am the author who has added this chart to the article. I do believe it's worthwhile information. You see, athletic conferences often act as academic conferences. This is becoming even more true as public universities turn to private sources of funding and giving rather than public support. You see this with U-Dub. There is a great deal of research, collaborative effort and collective achievement that goes on within the bigger conferences. Football conferences serve as economic and educational partnerships and networks. As a quick aside, I'm sure you're familiar with the Big Ten Conference's unofficial policy of not adding any new teams who aren't AAU classified. This is an example. The endowment graphic is also irrelevant to the athletics of the pac-12 but not irrelevant to the pac-12 conference. That charting is present on all major football conference articles. Also note that research expenditure is irrelevant to football but not irrelevant to athletic conferences(and to the pac-12). Please remember that Wikipidea is an encyclopedia. There exist a wealth of data tables on Wikipidea that have to be annually updated, I see no reason why this can't be one of them. I see that your username may indicate a conflict of interest. I'm not, of course, not accusing you of vandalism, I'm only noting the usefulness of the information to users and to the public. I find the national average comparison to be the most interest part of the addition. There is no need to remove data. Although, I think the addition of athlete completion rates and GPA is a good idea.

DMB112 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove 'Off-Topic' tags within article sections, as you did here.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific-12_Conference&diff=583147975&oldid=583147827 They are designed to spur discussion, collaboration, and improve Wikipedia. Please see below where I have opened an identical discussion of these tables in context to all college athletic conferences. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Your tags are ill placed, but I apologize for removing them. They will remain. DMB112 (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navboxes

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference Articles

This section now exists in multiple conference articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to help improve this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Head football coach compensation tables

There is a discussion of "Head football coach compensation tables" as implemented within this article, ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football which may be of interest to you. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pac-12 Conference/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

To Whom It May Concern: The NCAA Championships table is inaccurate, at least in regards to UW - UW has more than 4 since 2000.

Last edited at 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Football division titles

I made a two line edit, stating that the use of "north" and "south" in labeling the Pac-12 football divisions was a misnomer. Within minutes, UW Dawgs had zoomed in and reverted my edit, claiming a violation of WP:TRIVIA. The most cursory reading of the trivia guidelines shows that to be wildly inaccurate, plus the reversion itself is a violation of several parts of WP:ROWN. But Wikipedia says I can't report him, or re-revert, without getting charged with edit warring, and have to get a consensus. So I can get a consensus that what I entered does not constitute a list of trivial items, so I can undo this vandalism? Will102 (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Will102, apologies on the "WP:TRIVIA" in the edit summary when "trivia" more accurately reflects my intent. Note that WP:ROWN is (good) *advice* but not WP *policy* as stated in the article header. And I applaud your use of WP:BRD. That stipulated, what is the precise relevance of your misnomers and longitude edit to a college athletics conference article? WP:ISNOT and WP:IINFO for example. Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It also seems like original research.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Pac-12 Conference per discussion, as the common name – being about ten times more common in reliable sources than "Pacific-12 Conference". I've also taken into account that Pac-12 alone, while much more common than either, is a shortening rather than a true alternate title. Though Pac-12 Conference is not quite as concise, it comports with many other aspects of our naming conventions: naturalness, recognizability, consistency with similar forms of article titles that do not omit "conference" or "league" , and leaving in "Conference" will likely serve to lessen ambiguity for some by its precision.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Pacific-12 Conference → Pac-12 Conference – Absolutely no one uses this unusual expansion; only we seem to. The majority of sources refer to this as simply the Pac-12 Conference. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Needs more research Kudos on the listing, it is overdue. WP:COMMMONNAME might indicate it should remain as-is. A Google search of "site:pac-12.com: "pacific-12"" (and similar search terms including "pacific 12" and "pacific") return few to no matches for these terms on the league's site, while "Pac-12" is used extensively and possibly exclusively. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't COMMONNAME suggest giving more weight to the Google search and not to remain as-is?—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to Pac-12 Conference Yeah, not sure why we are using "Pacific-12 Conference", it should be "Pac-12 Conference". I get that "Pac-12" may be the most commonly used, but in that instance "Big Ten" and "Big-12" would also be moved under the same premise. If it comes down to it I would say both Pac-12 Conference or Pac-12 are better options than "Pacific-12 Conference" though.—  dainomite   00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Dainomite: Can you clarify if you are !voting for Pac-12 or Pac-12 Conference? See my comments below. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks Bagumba, I provided clarification and edited my original comment. —  dainomite   03:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Pac-12, alternatively to Pac-12 Conference per WP:COMMONNAME. A search of Google News for "Pac-12" has 1,570,000 hits[2], while "Pac-12 Conference" has 30,900 hits[3] and "Pacific-12 Conference" has 3,220.[4] As COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title." As background, the official name is Pac-12 Conference, not Pacific-12 Conference. Per the conference's 2015–16 handbook, "The name of this association shall be the Pac-12 Conference". (p. 6) The current article's name of Pacific-12 Conference was likely based on an (incorrect) assumption based on the conference's previous names of Pacific-8 and Pacific-10. "The western United States’ preeminent intercollegiate athletics conference, now known as the Pac-12, has been recognized previously and variously in chronological order as ... the Pacific-8 (Pac-8) from September 4, 1968, until June 30, 1978; the Pacific-10 (Pac-10) from July 1, 1978, to June 30, 2011; and, beginning on July 1, 2011, the Pac-12." (p. 3)—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've modified !vote above to have "Pac-12 Conference" be an acceptable second choice. Definitely do not leave at current "Pacific-12 Conference".—Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Pac-12 as the common name and per evidence provided by Bagumba above. --Tt(talk/contribs) 09:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to Pac-12 Conference. "Pacific-12 Conference" is clearly wrong under WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL. But I don't favor a shorthand "Pac-12" without reference to the "Conference". The conference is officially known as the "Pac-12 Conference." The fact that reporters often use a shorthand "Pac-12" should not trump using the official and descriptively accurately name of the "conference". Allowing google search hits results to dictate the naming would likewise result in changing every conference name: Big Ten Conference => "Big Ten", Southeastern Conference => "SEC", "Atlantic Coast Conference" => "ACC". Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment
  1. All similar Pacific-12 Conference articles would also need to be moved, see Category:Pacific-12 Conference. ("Pacific-10 Conference" remains correct in my view, the truncated version appeared with the creation of the "Pac-12 Conference").
  2. Someone should script the ~1200 "Pacific-12 Conference" -> "Pac-12 Conference" text changes. As this appears to have been incorrect for four years, this piece will go a long way towards educating other college editors moving forward, while the redirects will catch the strays moving forward

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

After the RM closes, right?—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coverage of conference academics

This recent edit added a table of Rhodes Scholars by conference institution. I know the NCAA preaches student-athletes, but how much coverage does the academic side of college conferences really get in independent sources versus the coverage of its sports? At what point does academic coverage in this article become undue? As for the Rhodes scholars by school cross-section. it almost seems like original research, but perhaps I don't read enough about the non-sports side of conferences. Does this grouping get coverage. Would like to get other people's perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a discussion of academic standards and academic performance as directly related to athletes is entirely appropriate -- see, e.g., the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate (APR). As for the listing of the number of Rhodes Scholarships awarded to university students, that's about as tangentially related to academic performance of athletes as you can get. The University of Mississippi has had 25 Rhodes Scholars -- does that mean that Ole Miss is a better university academically than all but two members of the Pac-12? Really?? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. APR is rapidly becoming a big deal -- programs can lose scholarships if they don't satisfy the NCAA minimums, and it's becoming a relatively good metric for how well colleges support their scholarship athletes academically. Hopefully, that means good tutoring and counseling, not term paper ghost-writing, plagiarism, and cheating on exams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to revert the bold edit on the Rhodes Scholars. If there is consensus later, it can be added back.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151, UW Dawgs, Bagumba, Dainomite, Torritorri, Cbl62, Ejgreen77: I've pinged here everyone who participated in this RM. Since this was the "parent article", should a mass move discussion be initiated for the 167 other mainspace pages (apparently) that have "Pacific-12 Conference" in their title (maybe broken up into a first request of about twenty to test the waters for manageability)? If people think so, as the closing admin (and someone who is not very familiar with this topic as a whole) I am not really the one to initiate it, but I'm posting this as food for thought.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: I've already started on the men's basketball articles. I don't think it is controversial given the outcome here, so I think individual editors can just be bold and cite the RM discussion in the move explanation. Even if there was a tool that could move en masse (I don't know of one), editors would still need to manually edit the contents themselves to reflect the new title and also any links to other Pacific-12 articles.—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba Great. If you come upon any such titles that need administrative intervention, e.g., because they are move-protected, you can't move over the redirect, or they have many subpages, please feel free to drop by my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding areas to rename "Pacific-12"

The tasks that need to be done are

  • Move article names from "Pacific-12" to "Pac-12" (Pacific-10 and prior stay as is)
  • Update the article lead and infobox to display "Pac-12", as well as other places in the article (e.g. other Pacific-12 related wikilinks)
  • Inside the naxboxes, update the new name of the navbox, and update links to avoid redirects

I've completed all the article moves and updates for men's basketball. Here are the areas outstanding:

Renaming "Pacific-12" to "Pac-12" tasks
Area (including its recursive subcats) Done Notes
Category:Pacific-12 Conference baseball
Category:Pacific-12 Conference men's basketball YesY
Category:Pacific-12 Conference women's basketball
Category:Pacific-12 Conference football‎ YesY
Category:Pacific-12 Conference soccer
Category:Pacific-12 Conference softball
Category:Pacific-12 Conference navigational boxes YesY The navs directly in this category are updated. Its other subcats can be taken care of by the respective sport-specific categories above.

There is no urgency on links from other pages as there are redirects. It's not so easy for categories. At some point we need to do a masse WP:CFD nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see this handy table until just now. I believe the category work is now completed, see Category:Pac-12 Conference. As there are an enormous amount of associated articles, certainly there will be errors and omissions. Apologies in advance if items were missed or broken. Further review is appreciated. I only worked on categories and articles therein, but not on articles outside of these categories. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: For housekeeping, do we need to take the ~61 empty "* Pacific-12 *" categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to be deleted? I'm not sure of best-practices on former cats which are empty and should remain empty. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@UW Dawgs: Likewise, I don't dabble into categories too often. Per WP:CFD: "When a category is renamed or merged with another category, it is usually helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page." However, WP:CATRED says "It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them." Perhaps you can post at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion if you wish to get more guidance on this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep, good idea, done and thanks! UW Dawgs (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Endowment market valuations

Why does the NACUBO link say that WSU's endowment in the $900 million plus range. However, WSU own foundation website says it is in the $400 million range? https://foundation.wsu.edu/endowment-performance/ --50.64.2.22 (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Pac-12 Conference. 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) 21:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pac-12_Conference/Archive_1&oldid=1093342861"