Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ehwdlepiznt (talk | contribs) at 14:20, 11 December 2011 (→2011–12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject College basketball and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

• WT:CBBALL
• WT:CBB

College basketball Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject College basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Misplaced Pages. 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 basketballWikipedia:WikiProject College basketballTemplate:WikiProject College basketballcollege basketball Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject College basketball and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

WikiProject College basketball
Overview Project page talk Participants talk Project category talk Departments Assessment (log) talk Article alerts talk Cleanup listing Unassessed articles (1458) Unknown importance (9814) Featured articles (22) Featured lists (17) Good articles (264) Total WPCBB articles (58571)
Resources and Guides Master team table talk Popular pages talk Research sources talk Templates talk Yearbook references talk Yearly team pages format talk
Tools Active editors talk CBB Welcome Template talk Project banner talk Project Userbox talk
Important Articles 2024–25 NCAA men's DI season talk 2024–25 men's rankings talk 2025 men's DI tournament talk 2024–25 NCAA women's DI season talk 2024–25 women's rankings talk 2025 women's DI tournament talk
view • talk • edit • changes

Conference Players of the Year – articles needed

We're still a couple months away from the tip-off of the 2011–12 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. That being said, right now might be a good time to try and knock out a handful of much needed "conference players of the year" articles. I'm not sure how many editors even watch this page during the season, let alone the off season, so this might be falling on deaf ears. If nothing else it will serve as a good guide for what is needed. My criterion for this list is simple: these are the players who were their respective Division I conference player of the year two times (all of those who were CPOYs three or four times have already been made). By creating these articles first, we are able to more efficiently add blue links in the player of the year navboxes.

If any of these players are also linked by any other navboxes, those will be noted on the side of the player in parentheses. Consider this list an official "sign-up sheet" for us. Editors who want to claim an article to create, put your name by it. What does everyone think? Jrcla2 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we start with newest first? And yes, I do watch this page. :) ~EDDY ~ 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to create some of the newer ones, I encourage that too. I'm just mentioning the ones that, in my opinion, might help bypass future TfD nominations based on the fact that many of the articles in most of the CPOY navboxes are red links. There have been numerous TfD nominations on college sports-related navboxes because there are "too many" red links. If we all somehow (unrealistically in the short term, probably) created all 29 of those articles mentioned, that'd be 58 total blue links that used to be red links. The most recent POY articles would still be fine; this is a strongly encouraged starting point. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think this is a good idea. I've been working on national champion templates for the last month or so - I'd reckon I've created about 20-25 articles to fill these in. The fact is, there are a ton of redlinks out there on CBB templates and I think it is good to focus on them. While I disagree with the rationale that "incomplete" templates should be deleted, it is probably a fair point that these ought to be finished through some coordinated effort. Conference POY, national champ and Coach navboxes have the bulk of the missing articles. If project members have a particular interest (a particular school or conference) I think it's great if they want to focus there (e.g. "their school's" coach navbox). There are still a number of redlinked CPOYs and Coaches who played in the NBA - meaning that info on the subjects is readily available. Rikster2 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • On that final point: It also means they're inherently notable and deserve article creation. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • OK, I think I will go around creating stubs for last season's POYs. ~EDDY ~ 16:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
          • There is one player you may want to consider giving slightly more attention to: Aaron Johnson (basketball), who was the Conference USA POY. He led the country in assists last season and is also on {{NCAA Division I men's basketball assists champion}}. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to Rikster's suggestion about "adopting" a conference or school of personal preference, I will sign myself up to finish the remaining CAA POYs as well as Tom Jasper, a SoCon co-POY who played for William & Mary. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'll take the West Coast Conference. I'll intermix it with championship template work. If anyone is dying to create an article on any of those guys it's fine. I have no pride of ownership, I just want to see this stuff get done. Rikster2 (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I know it's a little bit early to mention this, but I think once we pile through a ton of the CPOYs (meaning: every single one listed above, plus a healthy dose of one-timers who meet professional basketball standards), our next core focus should be on season articles. When the time comes, I would have no particular preference for which ones get created (Rikster, I feel like you may have a preference), but perhaps working backwards would be the best way to go. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Definitely another need. I don't care what order so long as people follow the format that has already been established. I have some seasons that I have more passion around than others (I created the 1981-82 and 1956-57 articles if that gives any clue), but will work on any. Backwards makes sense, but I have also tried to fill in gaps where possible (seasons 1952-53 through 1954-55 would mean most of the fifties were done for example). I think the CPOY stuff will take awhile, though. By then we'll be well into the season and new players, teams, coaches and conferences will emerge who demand articles. Rikster2 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that as the season progresses, the need for more articles will arise. It's one of my personal tenets, however, that creating articles on historically significant players should take precedence over newly-emerged ones. The information on new players changes much more rapidly and is harder to maintain, plus their careers are so new that there isn't as much to even write about. Orlando Lightfoot, for example, retired from professional basketball in 2007, making his article a comprehensive one. Also, the probability of a random editor creating a newly-popular player's article is astronomical compared to someone taking the time to think of, research and create Richie Adams, for example. As the college basketball old guarde, I think we have a bigger responsibility to give due diligence to the under-appreciated players than the flavor-of-the-months. That's how I see it, anyway. Back to the seasons: Knocking out the 50s could be our first priority, since they're about halfway finished anyway. We'll determine which to work on by an as-needed basis, I think. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

One other thing about CPOYs - there are four articles that would complete four different CPOY navboxes - Tank Collins (American South), Tom Kleinschmidt (Great Midwest Conference), Andre Smith (basketball) (Big Eight) and Isiah Williams (basketball) (Great West). These are worth prioritizing as well. there are a few other conferences with 2 or 3 redlinks (including the SEC believe it or not), but these guys would allow us to mark their respective templates complete. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just finished the CAA last night. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Three related TFDs

At Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15 there are three separate TFDs that you might be interested in {{Big Ten Conference Athlete of the Year navbox}}, {{Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year navbox}} and {{Chicago Tribune Silver Football navbox}} also in separate TFDs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Lists up for deletion

I've nominated two lists for deletion: List of Sun Belt Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues and List of Horizon League Men's Basketball Tournament venues. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Horizon League

Horizon League should not have its article title italicized. Template:Italic title appears to be transcluded onto the article, but I can't find it in the text to remove it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to figure it out too but couldn't, so I dropped a note at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Horizon League. Hope you don't mind I plagiarized you (it seemed easiest and most succinct way of getting the point across). Jrcla2 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I missed that field in second infobox for the TV network. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Jermaine Blackburn AfD

Former Boise State Broncos player Jermaine Blackburn is up for deletion. Fun fact: he recorded the first quadruple-double in CBA history. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dukebox

I've nominated Template:Dukebox for deletion. Please comment. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

College basketball program navboxes - standards

Through working on a number of articles across programs, it's clear there is no consistency around how these navboxes are used. Here are two examples of program templates that are pretty different: Template:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball and Template:Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball. The result is that in some cases there are second templates that cover the same info, relatively insignificant info on them, etc. Let me propose a few guidelines about how we might be able to get these to a standard format to decrease clutter:

1. Take coaches off. The newer coach navboxes have this info and are more clear about what is found there. Besides, should minor coaching names include a template for a basketball program they may not be closely associated with? This would be a difference from the way the NBA does it - but I frankly think the NBA way is a little confusing
2. Keep seasons, but only the ones that have existing articles. New seasons can be added as the articles are created. Reduces redlinks. With this move, get rid of the redundant "University of X men's basketball seasons" navboxes. These double hit and don't typically provide any additional info.
3. Restrict players appearing on the template to retired/honored numbers. No All-Americans, no NPOYs, no conference POYs. This would enable us to delete the handful of "Retired numbers from X University basketball" templates that are out there. It also reduces the number of players who get a general school navbox on their pages to the select few most associated with the program.
4. Keep info on national & conference championships, arenas, rivalries. Keep a space for "related articles" - some unique aspects of some major programs have their own articles (such as Cameron Crazies). This would be similar to the "lore" section of the NBA navboxes.

Just spitballing here, what do you all think? I like these navboxes, but they are all created to meet individual whims and aren't consistent. I get irritated seeing articles that have 2 navboxes when one would suffice as well. People start to get the idea they should apply the template to every player who went there, whether on the template or not. Rikster2 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I care if there's a 100% standardized way to present these types of navboxes (after all, WP:CFB doesn't even have a standard for theirs and they have much more manpower and collaborating abilities than us), but I do agree that the existing ones need re-tooling. I agree on points 1, 3 and 4; coaches are redundant and are better served by coach-specific navboxes, retired/honored numbers keep it to the most relevant players to the program, and conference/national championships and miscellany pertinent to that program are all good. However, on point 2, I think all seasons in the program's history should be included, even as red links. Many times an editor will create a team's random season and won't think to add that newly created article to the existing navbox. Including them all will not only show the user how far back that program goes specifically, but also encourages users to fill in the missing seasons as they see fit. I just don't really envision any but the quasi-competent editors remembering to add the new seasons into the navbox, but if they're already there then that makes them automatically visible (blue links).
In order to hide said red links, the format of the navbox could be laid out akin to the Seasons part on Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think all seasons with article should be on the template. Look at {{Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season navbox}}. Michigan has articles for every season back to 1969. Many schools are like this (not necessarily all seasons, but more than belong on the main navbox). They don't all belong on {{Michigan Wolverines men's basketball navbox}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think seasons belong on the program navbox, but coaches do not. The seasons represent the program itself, while many coaches have a more tenuous connection to the individual programs they have coached, and there are separate navboxes for the coaches. I favor retaining redlinks for seasons, because I think they do actually encourage creation of the articles. Strikehold (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rikster, thanks for bringing this up. I recently brought up this topic, more or less, at the college football talkpage (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#Team season navboxes). Standardization of this sort is needed for college football programs as well, and I propose that we consider this discussion with regard to both football and basketball and with an eye toward setting standards for other sports. As for the points discussed above, I agree with removing coaches, since they already have dedicated navboxes. I do, however, think that a link to the list of program coaches should be included, if that list exists. I also think players should be pared to down retired/honored numbers, if not removed entirely. As for form, I support the grouped navbox structure with logo colors, a la Template:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football navbox. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the main person who worked on the Gonzaga template. I'm not wedded to it—I'm fine with whatever the consensus is. (BTW, my main team is Kentucky.) That being said, here's my take on the proposals:

1. Strong support. Since coaches now have their own templates, go with those. I agree with Jweiss that if a list of a program's coaches exists, it can be linked from the program template.
2. Lean slightly toward including all seasons, even if they're red links. I believe Jrcla and Strikehold make very good points on that issue.
3. I'm somewhat neutral on having retired/honored numbers in the template, but mildly disagree with omitting All-Americans, NPOYs, or CPOYs. School policies on jersey/number retirement vary widely. I'll use Gonzaga as an example. The only numbers Gonzaga has retired are those of Frank Burgess and John Stockton. I don't know if the Zags have retired jerseys, but if they haven't, some of the most significant figures in the program's history wouldn't make the cut for the template, most notably Adam Morrison (even though he's proven to be an NBA bust). Morrison's Gonzaga number of 3 is being used in the upcoming season. Using Kentucky as another example, that program has honored so many players that including all of them in the template is pure cruft. IMHO, the best solution would be to listify players in all of these categories and just have links in the template.
4. Strong support. I can't improve on the rationale given.

Guess we'll see what happens...  :) — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really involved in this project, but here's my input:

1. Couldn't agree more, they belong to coaches navbox. Perhaps the current coach could still be listed in the program navbox somehow.
2. Create a navboxes for seasonal articles and include every season there, even if the articles don't exist. A link to List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball seasons should be enough in the program navbox. However, I don't mind if the 10/5 recent seasons are linked from the navbox.
3. Restriction is a must, to limit the template from becoming too large. I'm not sure what restriction we should have, but seeing Tar Heels navbox, it's just too many players listed.
4. Keep national championships, arenas and rivalries.

I personally think that Tar Heels template has too many information which are not appropriate for a navbox. There is no need for conference tournament and conference regular seasons champions and years, they are less significant than national championships and can be easily found on North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball. This is to avoid the navbox becoming too large. Quoting from WP:NAV: They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. Or perhaps there could be another navbox listing Tar Heels seasonal achievements, which includes their conference wins. — MT (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

On players included in program navboxes - My thought on retired jerseys/numbers was trying to limit the numbers with some objective standard, but maybe it doesn't hit the mark. It also provides a way to get rid of a whole set of navboxes around basketball program retired jerseys without losing anything. My thoughts on other inclusion criteria for players: Very opposed to conference POYs on these - there is already a CPOY navbox for every one of them and this just creates a second navbox on a players' page with no new information. Plus, this honor just isn't big enough to be on the overall program navbox. With All-Americans, this number gets pretty big for programs like Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc. I suppose we could restrict to consensus first team AA's - but again this creates at least one additional navbox to a players' page as there are consensus AA navboxes for each year. National Players of the Year are too squishy - which ones "count?" Also, these navboxes exist as well. Another option would be to look at Naismith HOFers. Or take JWeiss' suggestion and not have players on it at all.

Other thoughts - I am not at all wed to cutting redlinked seasons. I just thought it was a way to get rid of a bunch of redlinks to articles that will probably be a LONG time in coming, if they come at all. I do like the idea of cutting the "Seasons" navboxes altogether and including this information in the program template. One last thought - since this is basketball it may make sense to include Final Four appearances in the navbox since many of these seasons do have articles and it is a metric quoted by the press to show historical program strength. Rikster2 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts, per issue:

1. "Take coaches off." Undecided. I guess I don't understand why we would take coaches off but leave the seasons. Whatever we do with one, I think we should do with the other because they both have their own navboxes.
2. "Keep seasons, but only the ones that have existing articles." Disagree. I think the redlinks serve two valuable purposes, both of which have already been discussed so I won't add to an already long discussion other than to say that I agree with the historic argument and the encouragement argument. I would keep the redlinks.
3. "Restrict players appearing on the template to retired/honored numbers." Disagree. I'm likely in the minority but I think if a person is notable enough to have an article, they're notable enough to be on the template. Butler does not retire numbers, yet they have had some prominent players who stand out enough to be mentioned, which is why they have[REDACTED] articles.
4. "Keep info on national & conference championships, arenas, rivalries." Agree. I definitely agree that these should be kept.

I've never really understood the purpose of these mega-navboxes. Either have a mega-navbox with all of the articles that would appear in any navbox related to the team or split them up into separate navboxes. Doing both doesn't make sense to me, hence why I tried to make a giant Horizon League navbox a while ago. City boy77 (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

City boy, the problem with including all players is that for some programs this would make the navbox incredibly unweildy. For example, there are well over 600 Michigan Wolverines football players with articles. I've made a mockup of a new navbox for the Michigan football program here: User:Jweiss11/Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. One possible solution is to include either only the most recent ten (arbitrary number) players or only former players who are are still active in their sport as a player, coach, or commentator, and also include a link to a list of all notable players. City boy77 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, don't most of the sports pages list their notable players? Perhaps this isn't common practice for football but I know several articles that do this for basketball. I don't think this needs repeated in the navbox. City boy77 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

When sports pages list their notable players, there is supposed to be criteria for why those player are listed apart from any others who have articles. To just arbitrarily list a bunch of players who happen to have articles is original research, because who decides who's notable enough to be called out? That's why designations such as "Consensus All-Americans" or "National Players of the Year" are used. I do think that, at most, only honored/retired jerseys should be on team templates. Otherwise it will become a good-intentioned but off-the-mark attempt at really determining who belongs on it. If a program doesn't honor or retire jerseys, then they just won't have individual players featured. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to reiterate - one advantage to including retired/honored numbers is that it eliminates a whole class of templates like this one (provided we create the corresponding women's basketball navboxes where needed). Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sample template reaction

→(Initial reaction to User:Jweiss11/Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox)
College basketball has a dearth of articles on team-to-team rivalry and game-specific articles (Duke/UNC has one, but not much else exists in those areas). Rather than a whole subsection dedicated to these aspects, I think any applicable rivalries and games should just fall under Miscellany.
For seasons, I still think the Notre Dame template is the way to go. Football seasons have the luxury of taking place in one calendar year (other than bowl games, which don't really count), and so it's always a lot cleaner and nicer looking to just have "2005" rather than "2005–06". The addition of the "–xx" lengthens the season subsection substantially, and it will look unwieldy (to use Jweiss' term) to have the seasons automatically shown. If consensus thinks otherwise that's fine, but I don't think it should be like the example above.
Other subsections worth consideration:

• Final Four appearances (as mentioned above, it's an oft-used barometer of a team's historic success and many season-specific articles exist for those teams already)
• Championships – This would include the two premier national postseason tournaments (NCAA, NIT) as well as conference regular season crowns only.

Anything else would be extraneous and beyond the scope of a quick-hitting overview of the program. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate, if one were choosing one conference championship to show, wouldn't it make sense to make it the official champion who receives that league's automatic NCAA tourney bid? I think regular season is a better demonstration of who the strongest team was and know that conference tourneys for leagues like the Big 10 don't go back that far, but I also know leagues like the ACC have always crowned their tourney champ as the "ACC champ." Agree with other suggestions (and don't necessarily disagree with this one). Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is where it gets tricky for college basketball as opposed to college football, and is another example of why these two WikiProjects cannot be uniformly standardized (naming conventions, women also playing basketball, conference regular season vs. conference tournament championships, etc., make this an apples-to-oranges comparison for a lot of this stuff). Maybe it'd be best to list both the regular season and tournament championships? Coherent arguments can be made for both, and the media reports on both championships equally, so it might be worth considering. At the end of the day I'll accept whatever the majority think on this issue. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jrcla2, I realize there are some differences between college football and college basketball, but the organization of the two sports and the types of articles we have for each are largely analogous. Looking at the Michigan football navbox I mocked up, a basketball team also has venues, rivalries, pagentry, coaches, players, and seasons, right? As for championships, I really don't think those should be listed explicitly in the navboxes. Navboxes are there to provide navigation to relevant articles. Take a look at Template:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball. That navbox contains links to all of UNC's seasons, but then there's also links for national and conference championships and it's not always clear where those are supposed to be linking. Some of these link, redundantly, to a UNC season article. Others link to NCAA and ACC tourney articles. There are links to the five NCAA tourney that UNC has won. But, of course, those are not the only NCAA tourneys that UNC has played in. Aren't those relevant too? Including the championships strikes me homerism and banner-hanging. The articles, not the navboxes, for a given team should make it clear what championships the team won and when. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just curious----what exactly is "pageanty?" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

When a coed wears her school colors intimately? Jweiss11 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to watch main WP:CBB page

All- The article for Harold Jensen was just deleted due to an expired PROD placed on 10/5. I know I never saw it and am trying to get the article un-deleted so I can document his notability more effectively. I had always assumed that deletion notices would be placed on this Talk page, but obviously they sometimes crop up there - so please be aware. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

All - the editor who deleted Jensen has restored it. I plan to improve the article to establish Jensen's notability (he got significant media coverage as an active player due to his NCAA performance and 2nd team All-Big East as a senior standout for Villanova - and was a 2x Academic All-American). He also has gotten coverage since as one of the famous figures in NCAA tourney history. If any of you want to chip in I would appreaciate it. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

College basketball program articles

Is anyone else concerned that we don't have articles on a ton of Division I basketball programs, even some fairly sucessful ones like Arizona State, California, Hofstra, and Morehead State? ~EDDY ~ 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it certainly is an issue worth addressing. For me personally, I'm more concerned with CPOYs and various national awards' recipients, then secondarily season articles. Eddy, I appreciate your creation of some of these articles recently. I do have a favor to ask though – when you create an actual team page, can you do two things:

1. Update its talk page from Needed-class to either start or stub class since it's no longer a redirect
2. Update the CBBALL Master Table so that the article is no longer shaded green

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 01:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see too it. I'm just mentioning that we should have articles on all Division I programs, when we only have artiles on about 2/3 of them. I'll try to start some of the more notable ones like I listed above. ~EDDY ~ 20:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Large bold formatting needed for F4 appareance & championships

An NCAA Final four appearance is the 2nd most notable possible accomplishment of any team/coach's season, and a championship is the most notable, by far. Yet there are many articles where they are not format emphasized in tables.

For example, Duke has been to the F4 twice without winning either its conference championship or conference tournament title, and the fact that if still made the F4 was given no formatting emphasis.

Similarly, NCAA champsionship years were not in any way identified in the article listing F4 appearances by coach.

Large bold fonting would be appropriate emphasis in any table depicting F4 and Championship accomplishment. NCDane (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks absurd. No, it doesn't need emphasis and it would not be appropriate. This isn't an encyclopedia for the visually challenged. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY TO Jrcla: Reason for formatting change is not to aid the nearsighted, it is either (1) for emphasis as in the case of the Coach K article, or (2) to convey additional notable information as in the article on coaches who have made the F4. Also, I do not see anything "absurd" about bold large lettering format, but if someone wants to suggest another format that would be fine. NCDane (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There doesn't need to be "another format." The way it is, linking to that season's NCAA Tournament with the words "NCAA Final Four" or "NCAA Runners-up" suffices. You may not think it's absurd, but I can assure you that you are the only one who thinks that. We could take a straw poll of 50 editors, and 50 of them would think it's ridiculous. It's unencyclopedic and draws too much attention to those specific seasons. Anyone perusing his yearly records column will easily see that he's been to said Final Fours ("F4" is not used in any vernacular I've seen) or national championship games. Related question: why did you bold your responses to Jweiss and myself? You have a penchant for thickening letters (ha). Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jrcla:

I notice you are fond of using such incivilities as “absurd” and “laughable”. I can play that game as well as anyone, but for the time being I will only ask that you make more of an effort to restrain yourself.

I believe more formating IS needed for the sound reason I have already given that it conveys important information. Furthermore, it does so economically, adding only about 10 words to the article, and without obliging the reader to search links.

I would be interested in seeing any public poll results (no secret ballot)

F4 is shorthand I am using only for discussion purposes, and so is CK below. The Wiki discussion format makes it unnecessarily difficult to distinguish different commentators, and that it another thing I would like to see changed. For the time being I wish to bold my comments to help distinguish who is talking to who. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, increasing the font size is not a good idea. It's inconsistent with general practice on Misplaced Pages and does not look academic or neutral. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY TO Jweiss: (1) General practice objection is irrelevant to suggestion general practice should be changed. (2) Wiki has dozens if not hundreds of different formatting templates. What exactly is an "academic" formatting "look" and what is not? (3) "Neutral"? what does that objection mean, exactly? All that my suggestion entails is the addition of completely objective and notable information via formatting. There is nothing un"neutral" about it. NCDane (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

—Your response was to Jweiss but I'm still giving my two cents. General practice can be changed, correct, but it takes painstaking measures and input from an extremely large variety of editors at a place more public than WikiProject College Basketball. If you feel so strongly that enormous, bold and distracting font should be used for championship and Final Four seasons, this will need to be brought up at the village pump or some other similar discussion place. Making this sweeping change would require overwhelming consensus and would take (dare I even suggest) an unquantifiable number of manual human edits to go back and change all of the articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jrcla (continued) How do I get to this village pump place?

The change I am suggesting to the article on all F4 coaches would affect only that article.

The change I am suggesting to the Coach K article would take a few hours if applied to articles on all coaches who have made the F4.

BTW bold font is used in college football coach bios to highlight in bold the letters “W” and “L” for bowl appearances, as in "W Rose Bowl" so there is a Wiki precedent for my suggestion that important results receive additional emphasis through bold fonting. I think a larger size combined with bolding would be better due to the transcendent importance of the events. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

—Academic vs. non-academic: Times New Roman vs. Comic sans; uniformity vs. slapdash; standard size and width vs. laughably large bold font
—You're not "adding" any information at all. All you're trying to do is take existing information and make it stand out so much that it drowns out all other information around. That's not neutral. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jrcla (continued)

There are dozens of typrfaces as tasteful as Times NR, if that is what you are getting at, but I am not proposing atypeface change, because I do agree with the need for TF uniformity.

I certainly AM adding information to the coaches article since the article makes no mention of who won any of the 60+ torunaments. I disagree that there is any “drowning out” effect, and your contention that any F4 appearance be viewed on equal terms as an appearance resulting in a championship baffles me.

As for the CK article there is no pretense of “neutrality” with all those different color-coded results, so the position you have taken above is contradictory, on the neutrality point and on the drownout point as well NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NCDane, I agree with Jrcla2's comments, and have some suggestions as well. On the Mike Krzyzewski article, there is absolutely no need for bolding or larger text to denote Final Four appearances in the head coaching record table. The simple text makes it crystal clear how far the team advanced in the postseason. However, we do have a color scheme in the table to denote conference and national championships. Perhaps Final Four appearances deserve a color designation as well for reinforcement. I'm not sure I'd support that given that we already have five color designations in the table, but it seems like a reasonable area of exploration. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jweiss: Only national champ years are color-coded, and other F4 appearances receive no additional fonting emphasis. That is inconsistent since an F4 appearance is at least as important as a conference season or tournament championship, and CK was in two F4 without having won either season or tournament. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Tennis has a color-coded scheme for tournament performance that I find pretty handy; e.g. see Roger Federer#Grand Slam tournament performance timeline. On NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by coaches, I think it's definitely worth noting tournament titles in some way, but increased font size is not the way to go. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jweiss (continued): I simply do not understand your object to the large bold font in either case, especially since the multi-coloring is no problem for you. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this list ought to be arrayed with or perhaps integrated with the table at List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins#Most NCAA championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

REPLY #2 TO Jweiss (continued): I do not understand what you mean by this. I think the coaches article should remain independent rather than be integrated with another. the change I suggest is the simplest way to convey information since it adds no text other than a one-line explanation at the start of the article. NCDane (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I realize what I wrote about this may have been confusing. What I have now done is moved the table of coaches with multiple NCAA DI titles from List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins to NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by coaches. That's a much better place for it. Now we can consider integrating the table of Final Four appearances with the table of NCAA Championships. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You should read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style on bold text and fontsize. Here's the summary:

• WP:MOSBOLD: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph). Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases. Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text.
• WP:FONTSIZE: Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose. Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates.

Based on these MoS, if you want to emphasize Final Four appearances, you should use another method rather than using large bold text which is not consistent with the rest of the table and also the rest of the article. More information about tables can be found on WP:TABLE. — MT (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am done commenting on the issue. It will take a parting of the seas for this proposition (large, bold text) to come to consensus in support of it. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NCDane, as MT suggests, please refer to the Manual of Style. Also, take a look around Misplaced Pages and see if you can find other examples of text size enlarged in way you are advocating. I think you will be hard-pressed to find such examples. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Vote? Okay, let's vote right now. I vote No. Nyet. Nein. Non. No all-caps bolded type for Final Four Appearances in college coach infoboxes, or, for that matter, anywhere elsewhere. Why? First and foremost, it looks like a typesetter's abortion from the standpoint of layout, design and typography. Second, there's that pesky WP:MOS thingy----such formatting is completely inconsistent with not only established practice within WP:CBB and WP:CFB, but pretty much all of Misplaced Pages. Third, it's completely unnecessary----the all-capped, bolded text adds no additional information, and immediately draws attention to itself from the surrounding championships and career awards and honors. If we all-cap and bold Final Four appearances, will we do the same for NCAA basketball tournament championships? College Basketball Hall of Fame members? First-team All-American players? NCAA lacrosse tournament championships? NCAA lacrosse final four appearances? To summarize, it's hideous, it's inconsistent, it's unnecessary, and there are actually more important championships, awards and honors that, in fairness, are entitled to similar treatment, leading a complete mess of an infobox, all-capped and all bolded.

If we should be doing anything, we should be judiciously paring the secondary awards and honors in these infoboxes to only the most significant in the particular coach's career. If hypothetical coach Bob Jones received the West Bumdiddle Herald's Conference Coach of the Year award, and it's among the five most significant honors and awards coach Jones ever received, then by all means include it in the infobox for coach Jones. But if the coach's name happens to be Mike Krzyzewski, and he's won four NCAA championships and 13 ACC championships, and has been honored five times as the national coach of the year, we don't need to include the West Bumdiddle Herald's COY award in hi infobox----you can mention it in the body text, or include it in an article text section that lists all known awards. But it doesn't need to be included in the infobox any more than it needs to be included in the lede.

Bottom line: If we're not going to all-cap and bold the text for all NCAA championships and final four appearances for all coaches in all sports (and we're not), then we're not going to do it here, either, for all of the reasons I've listed above. Next topic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Italicization on NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by school

On NCAA Men's Division I Final Four appearances by school, why is NYU italicized? I would change it but I figure there is likely a reason. City boy77 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

CCNY is italicized as well. Could be teams that no longer compete at the Division I level? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's got to be it, because Oklahoma City is italicized as well.

I just edited the article and explicitly stated that schools in italics are no longer in D-I. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

**NBA head coaching navboxes discussion finally started

Hi all – The next phase in head coaching navbox standardization has come to fruition. Please visit this discussion at WT:NBA if you have any opinions on the issue. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New article - Carrier Classic - could be DYK if anyone wants to work on it

I created the article Carrier Classic. If anyone wants to get this up to a DYK for the main page, let me know. Remember (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistant Coaches on championship navboxes

With the 2011 World Series concluding today, I was looking at the Championship navbox and was reminded that all the other major sports navboxes include assistants (College and Pro Football, Pro basketball and Pro baseball). I would like to raise the issue of why college basketball is not consistent with the WP custom in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but they weren't included mainly because the thought was that many assistants aren't notable. Something that didn't come up but could be an issue is that it potentially becomes more "template clutter" for something the coach played a (relatively) minor role. I'd be OK with adding them personally, but they'd have to meet the same standard as players on these things - they have to be notable - or they shouldn't be on at all. Rikster2 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The only articles that I am extensively involved in where this is a matter are Tommy Amaker, Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and 1988–89 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. In the Amaker case, his co-assistants were Jay Bilas and Mike Brey on both national champions were he was an assistant. I don't know who the assistants were on the 1989 Michigan team. I don't know how to extrapolate this small sample from the 1989, 1991 and 1992 champions in terms of notability. At least two of the three teams that are relevant to me have a full slate of notable assistants. I think we should go along with the other sports and readd them. Does anyone recall the discussion where we decided to remove them (maybe about 2 years ago)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be in the archives. Yes, in the cases of Amaker, Brey and Bilas all three of those guys are clearly notable (although none specifically for their role as an assistant coach). If we add Assistants they are no-brainers - as would be guys like Roy Williams (1982 UNC), Chris Collins and Wojo (2010, 2001 Duke), etc. My point is that being an assistant on a championship team doesn't automatically make one notable and if the person isn't notable they shouldn't be on the template. This is how we and college football handle players since they don't have the automatic notability that the pros have. Assistants would need to follow the same rule IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying assistants necessarily shouldn't be on these - just that only the notable ones should be if we go that direction. In other words, if 2 of 3 are notable, only the 2 who are notable appear on it and the third is left off altogether. Rikster2 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose once again. Adding assistant coaches will be template clutter, and it will also open the door for users to add assistant coaches who aren't notable. I foresee people throwing in the slate of these coaches just to make the templates complete, and that goes against what the point of a navbox is. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is it more clutter here than in the other sports, if we only add the names of people with WP bios? How would it be any more clutter to a Tommy Amaker than it is to assistants in these other sports?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuck it, let's just re-argue every single point that's already been discussed. Add assistant coaches, I don't care anymore. Actually, add the athletic trainers, too. We wouldn't want to leave anybody out now would we? Jrcla2 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

All I am saying, is let's do what other sports do. I don't see why college hoop is any different than college football or the other sports I mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No one is arguing for automatic notability for assistant coaches. Tony is just saying that if there is an article for a given assistant coach on a championship team, he should be listed in the navbox for that championship team. I agree with that. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We never came to consensus on this before - we had a lot of debate about many aspects of these templates but this particular issue was not one of those resolved. As I said, I could go either way. Rikster2 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In terms of templating, usually CBB agrees with CFB and NBA. I don't see why we are different on this issue. There does not seem to be a compelling reason. As long as we don't include assistants without articles (which I think is consistent with CFB), we should be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Summary of opinions
• User:TonyTheTiger - Proponent of adding only notable Assistants.
• User:Jweiss11 - Clear affirmative support (See "I agree with that." at 01:19, 30 October 2011)
• User:Rikster2 - Support but less firm "I'd be OK with adding them personally" at 11:43, 29 October 2011 "only the notable ones should be if we go that direction" 14:07, 29 October 2011, but later softpedaled to "I could go either way" 11:04, 30 October 2011
• User:Jrcla2 - Oppose ("template clutter" 14:14, 29 October 2011)
• If we are only talking about notable assistants, we are close to overturning, but I am not sure how to interpret Rikster. Is it mild support or neutral?
• When I reread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball/Archive_2#Championship_teams.27_templates.27_standardization_needed, it seems that there was no consensus to remove assistants. I don't understand why we did.
  • User:Jrcla2 - remove as proponent 01:14, 3 September 2010
  • User:Rikster2 - weakly remove 01:42, 3 September 2010
  • User:X96lee15 - no opinion 03:21, 3 September 2010
  • User:Grondemar - remove 05:21, 3 September 2010
  • User:TonyTheTiger - keep 17:39, 5 September 2010
  • User:Epeefleche - keep 04:33, 17 September 2010
  • User:Ryan2845 - keep ??
  • I think this was a clear no consensus to remove previously. They were mistakenly removed and and I believe there is mild support to readd them if we only include those with articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is best characterized as "abstain." This is one issue I really don't give a flip over and never have. Rikster2 (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think they should be readded because there was never consensus to remove them. The proponent just started removing these the same day he proposed the topic and before people had a chance to consider the issue. If he had waited for responses we would have WP:PRESERVEd the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry PRESERVE is for prose. However, I think previous opinion would have been not to remove the templates from assistant pages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of uniformity in how we handle such information across sports -- unless there is a clear reason to diverge. Not that everyone agrees with me -- see by analogy the ongoing less than clear discussion w/regard to whether we should reflect height and weight in baseball infoboxes, as they are reflected in infoboxes of others sports, here. That said, I would agree w/following the convention of other sports, and reflecting assistant coaches here.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I don't see any reason not to include assistant coaches, especially if they have articles. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Notification All right folks. Almost everybody who is likely to respond has. Even if Grondemar responds against, as he did before, I still think there is a majority to revert including assistants.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TfD October 28, 2011

Here is another TfD nomination that may be of interest to some members of the CBB project: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28#Template:Dislike and Template:Like. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League

Is the Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League actually a defunct conference or is it the previous name of the Ivy League - much like the Horizon League used to be the Midwestern City Conference? I ask because the NCAA record book lists a continuous history for the two when listing its all-time conference winners, but is clear to list separate entries for relationships like the Big Eight/Big 12. I looked at the reference in the article but am not convinced it is evidence there should be a separate article. Rikster2 (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Big 12 is a new conference in terms of conference records and such. I am not sure about the Ivy League. I was the EIBL page creator, but don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Just taking a look at the historical info on the Ivy League site (found here), it DOES appear that the league claims its founding in 1954 (separate from the Eastern League). Good to know. Rikster2 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

National Champion assistant coaches

Based on the discussion above, I am adding notable assistant coaches to the National Championship navboxes. The following teams do not have assistants in the infobox, so I did not include them in the navboxes:

2001–02 Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team

1996–97 Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team

1989–90 UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball team <done> (Note that non-notables belong in the infobox. This is the only infobox with 2 instead of 3 ACs. One must be missing.) yeah, I know - took me a little while to fiund the third but it's there now.

1988–89 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

1983–84 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team

1982–83 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team

1979–80 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team

1961–62 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team

1960–61 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team

1959–60 Ohio State Buckeyes men's basketball team

1958–59 California Golden Bears men's basketball team

1953–54 La Salle Explorers men's basketball team

1951–52 Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball team

1946–47 Holy Cross Crusaders men's basketball team

1945–46 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball team

1944–45 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball team

1943–44 Utah Utes men's basketball team

1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team

1941–42 Stanford Indians men's basketball team

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team

I will add to the list above as I work my way backwards through the years. Put a check mark next to any infoboxes that you fill in and I will try to take care of the navbox and add it to the proper bio articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The following infoboxes do not have a full slate of three assistants, which may mean that some are missing:

1976–77 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team (actually this team does not have an article and is just a section of the Marquette Warriors men's basketball page).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on link mouseovers, this is the only NCAA DI hoop national championship team without its own article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That pisses me off because it used to have its own page. Someone had suggested merging it with the overall hoops article and despite at least two objections the merge was done anyway and the project never notified. I am going to break it out and recreate the article as it was Rikster2 (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1974–75 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1972–73 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1971–72 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1970–71 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1969–70 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1968–69 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1967–68 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1966–67 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1965–66 Texas Western Miners basketball team

1964–65 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1963–64 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team

1962–63 Loyola Ramblers men's basketball team

1957–58 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1956–57 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team

1955–56 San Francisco Dons men's basketball team

1954–55 San Francisco Dons men's basketball team

1952–53 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team

1950–51 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1949–50 CCNY Beavers men's basketball team

1948–49 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1947–48 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team

1940–41 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team

1939–40 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team

Also note that the following assistants who appear on some of the championship team infoboxes appear to meet the automatic notability standards:

Andre LaFleur (2010–11 and 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team) - Award winning international pro player (also listed at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career assists leaders, which suggests he formerly held the NCAA DI career assists record until Sherman Douglas surpassed him)

Shawn Finney (1997–98 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Tulane

Delray Brooks (1995–96 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) HC at Texas–Pan American (Other WP articles mentioning him include Indiana Mr. Basketball, USA Today All-USA high school basketball team#Boys' Basketball Players and Coaches of the Year, {{USA Today National Basketball Player of the Year}})

Jene Davis (1980–81 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team) - HC at Furman

Joe Dean, Jr. (1977–78 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at UCF

Jerry Lyne (1962–63 Loyola Ramblers men's basketball team) - HC at Loyola

I will also add to this list as I see search results indicating their name would be a valuable link in other WP articles. (Not showing assistants who went on to be assistants in the NBA).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The above list is not necessarily complete. It is derived from search result pages that show where this bio would be useful to an existing page. Other assistants may have gone on to be head coaches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you can add Nate James from 2010 Duke as well - he was also a key player on their 2001 championship team. Certainly anyone who later became a head coach. Rikster2 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Key player is likely to pass WP:GNG, but key player is not automatic notability, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

He'd pass GNG and received ample news coverage during his time as a player at Duke (which would pass notability for college players). He's redlinked on the 2001 template and I have him on my list to create the article so we might as well add him. Rikster2 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You can note him here. He is not going on the template until he has an article. It would set a bad precedent otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that he's already on the 2001 template but whatever, it's not a federal issue. Rikster2 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the {{2010 Duke basketball}}. He does not belong in the assistant coach area until he has an article. I am not dealing with redlinked players on these templates. Several templates have a few. That is not an issue addressed above and is probably being impacted by WP:CRUFT-based decisions of individual editors less involved in the project as a whole.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did probably 90% of the determining who is on those templates guided mostly by automatic notability then trying to make a call on GNG based on what I know prior to doing the actual research (so some could still come off). Rikster2 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

O.K. Well a lot of redlinks exist that have not been created yet. Since most championship teams go 8 or 9 men deep these are probably mostly 3rd guy off the bench types who definitely had a hand in the championships but did not go pro or become an HC, IMO. These guys should pass GNG with some work. It is just that the pre-internet era ones will take a lot of effort. I have done articles for these types of guys (e.g., Rob Pelinka). They take some work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I have been working on these and have probably created over 25 articles to fill these in over the last few months. One guy can only do so much. Rikster2 (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you're doing yeoman's work on this, but I have to suggest that for any coach who has won a championship as a head coach and as an assistant (examples, Roy Williams & Denny Crum), their head coaching championship templates should come first as opposed to just showing them in chronological order. The magnitude of the former is just much, much higher than of the latter. Rikster2 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, many of the pages you have listed with one assistant are complete (like 1953 Indiana and 1957 UNC). Staffs didn't include 2-3 assistants until much later (late 60s/early 70s maybe). Rikster2 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I only said may be incomplete because I am aware that not all teams throughout history had 3 assistants. Strike all sub-3 lists that you know to be complete.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know which year 3 assistants came in vogue, but when Jerry Lyne took over in 1975, he used the singular to refer to his assistant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Others likely to meet notability include (This is just a partial list):

Dave Hanners (1992–93 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team)-NBA assistant

Troy Weaver (2002–03 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team))-NBA assistant

I have completed my run through for the most part

National Championship navbox title links

It is currently very difficult to get from the national championship team template to the team's season article on almost all national championship navboxes. I think we should establish a policy where the team's season article is linked at the top of the template. comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is non-controversial and it had even been mentioned a long time ago to do just that; I say go ahead and make those updates. I'm closing this as resolved right away because I can't see anyone objecting or caring so much that they'll raise a fuss over it. If they do I will remove the resolved tag and we can discuss this further. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the title be split between the team's season and the seasons NCAA tournament article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is yes, but that's just me. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be a minor point, but I think we are making a mistake by splitting navbox titles into two or more links. We are asking a single phrase to do more than it should, and more than a typical WP reader will ever discern. Rather than complicating the title of navboxes with multiple piped links, I suggest we make sure that the team's main article and the NCAA tournament article for the given season are both prominently linked in the lede of the team's championship season article. Problem solved—without junking up the navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Let's do that - only link the team's season article. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that in a title such as "Michigan Wolverines Men's Basketball 1988–89 NCAA Champions", we could reformat it to handle two links in a couple of ways:

1. 1988–89 Michigan Wolverines Men's Basketball team (1989 NCAA Champions) - different links inside and outside the parens
2. Michigan Wolverines Men's Basketball 1988–89 NCAA Champions - link split between basketball and year.

I don't understand why this is such a problem?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is being way overthought. DL made an excellent point that within the season article is a link to that year's NCAA championship either in the lede and/or the infobox. It's redundant layering. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, just link the season article. The other links will be on that page should the user want to go there. Rikster2 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party here, but yes, a navbox title should have one link that it is a specific as it can be. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Coloration for award navboxes

Hi all. I think it's time we discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the array of colors currently used for the men's and women's college basketball award navboxes. See Category:American college basketball award navigational boxes for the full collection. Please note that I'm not talking about the conference players and coaches of the year because those have very specific rationales for their coloration – they match the conferences' official color schemes.

I mean templates such as {{Associated Press College Basketball Player of the Year}}, {{Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award}} etc. There's little reason they should be purple and dark green, respectively. According to its talk page, the reason {{Maggie Dixon Award}} is black and gold is because the creator chose its colors based on the school (Army) where Maggie Dixon coached. While this does show some forethought, it's my opinion that choosing the colors based on the school is more of a tenuous connection than it is directly related to the award itself.

I'm still on the fence about this issue, personally, but part of me wouldn't mind seeing all of these awards get set to default blue. After all, the award articles themselves are all part {{College Basketball Awards}} or {{Women's College Basketball Awards}}, and aren't we striving for consistency? Plus, one of the knocks on college sports' award navboxes by outsiders is the ridiculous number of colors they present at the bottom of players' articles as well as their seemingly arbitrary coloration (which I tend to agree with). I am hoping we can come to some sort of consensus on this one way or another, if for no other reason than to point back to this conversation in the future as precedent for our decision. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No official colors? Default blue. Next? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Go with the default colors. Even if the Wooden Award or USBWA has "official colors" I don't think they are prominent enough to color the infobox a certain way. Garish combinations of colors on these things is a consistent complaint about our project. Rikster2 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a related question as it does pertain to award navbox coloration, but shouldn't WP:CFB be doing the same as us when it comes to default blue? Actually, I'll notify them about this thread now. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that this project sort of extends to elite high school basketball awards. {{McDonald's All-American Game Boys MVP}}, {{Gatorade National Basketball Player of the Year}} and {{USA Today National Basketball Player of the Year}} are all presented in sponsor official colors. Should navboxes with very official corporate color affiliations be changed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think those three navboxes you mentioned should keep their colors due to name brand recognition and sponsorship of the award. The colors are not, therefore, arbitrary. In fact they're very easily identifiable. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think conference POYs should retain their conference colors too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved? Is there any reason to promote corporate colors—McDonald's firetruck red and yellow, or Gatorade's orange and green? Does including these colors really impart any additional information to the reader? Would it not be better if all award navboxes were in default blue, so that the awards would all be consistently formatted and easily discernible from the team award and succession navboxes? As for conference colors, quick—tell me what the ACC's colors are? Big XII? Big East? I'm not sure conference colors add much, either, other than contributing to the "M&M Effect" for which WP:CBB, WP:NBA, WP:CFB and WP:NFL have been criticized. I'll fight for team colors; corporate and conference colors, well, not so much. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for jumping the gun on the resolved tag. Now that I've heard your rationale for the McDonald's, Gatorade and USA Today navboxes, I may agree that neutral blue would be a good way to go. I'm on the fence about it, so one way or another I won't care. I will, however, argue to the bitter end that conference navboxes need conference colors. It's not arbitrary at all and it doesn't "promote" anything either. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

How is an award given by a conference more emblematic with the conference than one sponsored by a company?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it makes no sense have one or two conference-specific navboxes be neutral blue, when dozens more within that conference use the conference's colors. Think of all the Big Ten templates there are that use the Big Ten colors (answer: many). Now how many McDonald's sports templates are there? One. Whereas a company-specific award can be neutral blue since it doesn't break the chain with a slew of other templates, removing the colors from the ACC Basketball Player of the Year will be, frankly speaking, stupid, if you consider all of the other ACC templates out there. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

For the reader who is a regular reader of a subject, it is easier to search for a specific navbox by color for the many athletes who have dozens of them. Suppose I go to the bottom of the Kobe Bryant looking for his Gatorade NPOY template. It is easier to find if it is green than default blue. Same if I go to LeBron James looking for McD MVP or USAT NPOY. I prefer variation in colors because I use navboxes to navigate. This is especially true for football where many top players have 2 or 3 dozen templates. The more the variation is reduced in template colors the less useful the navboxes are because it takes you longer to find the one you want to use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone look for the Gatorade POY on Kobe Bryant's page more often than the NBA Finals MVP or NBA MVP awards - all of which use the default colors? I think there needs to be a good reason to go away from defaults. My other question might be why so many HS awards suddenly rate templates in the first place, but that's a question for another day. Rikster2 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by more than these other templates? What I am saying is that when I use certain templates I find them looking for colors. Gatorade is one of them. Am I the only person who feels the when about 20 templates are there it is easiest to look for the green one than read all the titles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is official color branding for an entity, then we should reflect that color in the navbox. The McDonald's All-American Game has official logos and branding. That these colors are identical or affine to McDonald's own corporate colors, so be it. Those are also the colors of the game. The "M&M" criticisms notwithstanding, the colors provide context and allow a user to make quick reads to sort through a stack of navboxes. There is utility in that. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In that example, McDonald's may have a branded color but Gatorade and USA Today don't. There are things we get criticized that are worth fighting for and there are some that aren't. The colors fall in the latter bucket to me. Rikster2 (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the key is whether the colors extend to the collateral for the award or game itself. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Team season articles

I am glad to see we have all the NCAA champion team season articles up. I am frequently disappointed looking for final four team info. I think we should have team season articles for all final four team season. Today, I was trying to look up the Billy Donovan-led 1986-87 Providence Friars men's basketball team that included Delray Brooks who had transferred from Indiana by that point. They have no information. The Friars have only been to two final fours. Those teams should have articles. Should we do a checkup on where we stand in this regard. Also, all NIT champs should have team season articles, IMO. Thoughts. I could make a list at some point if people agree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there are too many initiatives for the project going on and limited resources that are willing to work on them. Just on this page we have suggestions for completing conference POY articles, Championship assistant coach articles, NCAA season articles, etc. I am also trying to complete articles for all notable championship team members. I think we need to drive some of this stuff to the ground instead of adding new priorities. Focused work on a couple of these means we might actually complete something. Personally, I feel a push to finish articles for those who appear on templates as that kills 2 birds with 1 stone. I am not willing to work on Final Four teams at this point in time. Rikster2 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rikster. We don't have the manpower that the college football project has to take on this many initiatives. My personal opinion is that, while Final Four team season articles are notable/needed, they're so low on the priority list that notable players and coaches (especially ones who fall on 2+ templates) are much more important to make for this WikiProject right now. To wit, I haven't gotten to making it yet, but Rashad Phillips is a two-time Horizon League POY as well as the 2001 Pomeroy Award winner. His article creation trumps the 1986–87 Providence team season. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this wouldn't be a worthwhile thing to undertake. I just think if you start 100 initiatives none of them get done. The truth is that there are tons of notable college basketball subjects that don't have articles. We could be busy for the next 20 years doing this stuff. Rikster2 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you may have already seen this, but Category:NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Final Four seasons has all of the Final Four articles currently created. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That category gives me a good perspective of things. Assuming that the category is included in all the articles that it should be, We are only set going back to 2007. Before that just about every season is missing some teams.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to be honest. For me, it's hard to see why Final Four team articles are a high priotity when half the national champion pages are bare bones affairs with little info/prose on them. If anything the priority should be on improving those first. Rikster2 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:United States men's national basketball team members

Does a FIBA U-19 player belong in the Category:United States men's national basketball team members?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Further query What does that say about Goodwill Games, Pan American Games and other international non-age divisioned competition?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My thought - Generally, USA Basketball considers the Olympics and the World Championships - as well as the qualifying tournaments for each - to be our "National team" (see this link). I think the category should reflect that. In other words, no PanAm team members. Rikster2 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the prose in an article about an age-divisioned representative or a Pan Am game team member. Do we say they were on Team USA for FIBA U-19 or on the national team or what? I.E., even if the category is limited to the definition you mention, how do we describe their service in terms of prose. Since we use medal boxes more liberally (E.G., Christian Laettner or Grant Hill) than the categorical definition, what is proper for prose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, its only my opinion that this is what the category should include. If others agree (and frankly this is probably more for WP:Basketball than for here) the prose should say it's for US senior national team members - defined by USA Basketball as the Olympics, FIBA WCs andtheir qualifying tournaments. I don't think that has to marry up with the medal boxes - those are legitimate tournament results - though deciding where to draw the line on those probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Rikster2 (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging and updating all current editorial calls

Two-time POYS

America East

• Jamar Wilson

Atlantic 10

• Earl Belcher
• Greg Jones (basketball)

Big West

• Richie Adams
• Jerry Green (basketball player)

Horizon League

• Rashad Phillips (Pomeroy Award) → Jrcla2

Ivy League

• Ugonna Onyekwe

MEAC

• James Ratiff
• Stephen Stewart (basketball)

Patriot League

• Brian Ehlers

Southern

• John Taft (basketball)
• Regan Truesdale

Southland

• Larry Jeffries
• Ryan Stuart

SWAC

• Randy Bolden
• Adarrial Smylie

National champion assistant coaches

To head coach

Shawn Finney (1997–98 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Tulane

Delray Brooks (1995–96 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) HC at Texas–Pan American (Other WP articles mentioning him include Indiana Mr. Basketball, USA Today All-USA high school basketball team#Boys' Basketball Players and Coaches of the Year, {{USA Today National Basketball Player of the Year}})

Jene Davis (1980–81 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team) - HC at Furman

Joe Dean, Jr. (1977–78 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at UCF

Tay Baker (1960–61& 1961–62 Cincinnati Bearcats men's basketball team ) - HC at Cincinnati & Xavier

Tom Abatemarco (1982–83 NC State Wolfpack men's basketball team) - HC at Drake, Lamar and Sacramento St

James "Buck" Freeman (1956–57 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team) - HC at St. John's

Marty Marbach (1984–85 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team) - HC at Canisius

Nolan Richardson III (1993–94 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team) - HC at Tennessee State

Other

Andre LaFleur (2010–11 and 2003–04 Connecticut Huskies men's basketball team) - Award winning international pro player (also listed at List of NCAA Division I men's basketball career assists leaders, which suggests he formerly held the NCAA DI career assists record until Sherman Douglas surpassed him)

Dave Hanners (1992–93 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team)-NBA assistant

Troy Weaver (2002–03 Syracuse Orangemen basketball team))-NBA assistant

National champions infobox assistant coach research

None listed

1983–84 Georgetown Hoyas men's basketball team

1958–59 California Golden Bears men's basketball team

1953–54 La Salle Explorers men's basketball team

1943–44 Utah Utes men's basketball team

1942–43 Wyoming Cowboys basketball team

1941–42 Stanford Indians men's basketball team

1938–39 Oregon Ducks men's basketball team

Less than 3 listed and unconfirmed as complete

1976–77 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team

European basketball research

I am not skilled at researching the European careers of American players. Can anyone help me find out what team(s) Kit Mueller played for in Europe?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony- it isn't all in one place. If the player doesn't have a profile on eurobasket.com (or the sister sites like asiabasket or latinbasket), this one sometimes has good info: http://en.basketball.doudiz.com/ . Some leagues like Australia and Spain host their media guides on-line while Italy and Germany have player databases hosted on their sites. Language is often an issue. Also, euroleague.com has good info and the Turkish league has a good fan site. My advice is put what you know in and just let other wikipedians fill in the gaps. Rikster2 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List NCAA Division I Basketball Coaches Who Coached Their Alma Mater to a National Championship

FYI. I'm sure there's something that could be done with this information, but it doesn't seem to fit as an article. A category, perhaps? In any event, input is welcome. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the AFD opened on Nov 1, and is scheduled to close tomorrow November 9. I've asked for an extra day, to permit comment from this project, if any. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Team season navboxes

Should {{Princeton Tigers basketball}} and/or {{Princeton Tigers men's basketball teams}} be on individual season articles? Should both exist?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For now I would just put the season navbox on the individual season articles. I'm in favor merging these navboxes. You can see what I recently did with Template:Michigan Wolverines football navbox to merged what was once two navboxes. I intend to offer this up for more discussion and then hopefully get buy-in to roll something like this out across college football and basketball. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of merging the navboxes and standardizing them as we had discussed on this talk page earlier. Also getting rid of the retired number navboxes as a part of the effort. Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins

List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins needs some management here. I sit on and protect the analogous football lists (List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage, List of college football coaches with 200 wins). What tends to happen with the football lists is that IPs and newbies will come along and make fragmented updates that ignore lower profile coaches and put the list all out of wack. The same thing seems to be happening with this basketball list. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You make an excellent suggestion. I think that once this season is 100% over, I will go over the list to and update everyone. For now, unfortunately, I don't have the time or energy to fact-checking it. I'll let anons run it amok and then go in and do damage control retroactively. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Basketball rivalries

After starting Penn–Princeton basketball rivalry, I am wondering if there should be Michigan–Michigan State basketball rivalry and/or Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry articles. Should these exist? Where can I find information on the overall head to head records?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Michigan-Michigan State is probably worthwhile, Duke-Michigan probably isn't. IMO of course. This stuff is typically in the progam media guides. Rikster2 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as M-MS goes, I am wondering if I should just do a general rivalry article. The Paul Bunyan Trophy game and the ice hockey game might actually both be larger rivalries. Also since it is so common for University of X and X State University to be rivals (Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Iowa and maybe a few others), I am wondering if there should be an instate rivalry article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Not sure if this holds for Pennsylvania (public vs. private), Montana (not sure of both DI), and Idaho (not sure of both DI).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late jumping in here, but there is no Duke–Michigan rivalry. It was a flash-in-the-pan rivalry during the Fab Five's era, only recently highlighted because of the 30 for 30 documentary where Jalen Rose called black Duke students "Uncle Toms." There isn't enough coverage about this specific match-up to call it an established rivalry. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, Michigan has played more games against Duke when both teams were ranked than against conference rival Michigan State (see ). I count 10 vs. 6. In addition, in 2008–09, Duke was part of the first time Michigan beat top 5 teams in back to back games. There may be more to it than you think. They have played 7 times with both teams in the top 10. Michigan and Michigan State have never played while both ranked in the top 10.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is not a Duke/Michigan rivalry - at least not one worthy of an article. Duke has played Virginia a jillion times but there is no rivalry there either. Duke really doesn't have an out of conference rival. UNC and probably Maryland are about it. Rikster2 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree (duh) – just because they happen to have played Duke under circumstances where they were both ranked does not constitute a rivalry; that's a non-existent criterion for rivalries. How many rivalries do you think Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky would each have if you counted the number of times they've played a team that was ranked? As for the 2008-09 mention, that's also just circumstantial. One event of them beating a top 5 back-to-back times isn't enough for a whole article on their "rivalry". Tony, you do a lot of a great work, no one is questioning that, but I think the whole Duke–Michigan rivalry mention is the Michigan fanboy in you coming out (and I mean that in the nicest way possible, for the record). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While you guys were replying I was crunching numbers. See the chart to the side.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that a part of the rivalry is the competition for recruits. Michigan just landed Mitch McGary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And before McGary who was the last top recruit Duke and Michigan went after? Tony, you are reaching. At least go find some sources that refer to such a rivalry. Rikster2 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember that according to the rivalry Duke generally goes after the Uncle Toms and Michigan takes the street hoods. I think this is a Catholics vs. Convicts type of thing. Look at the numbers Michigan and Duke have faced each other more as top 10 teams than any other Michigan rival. This number is probably even large for Duke. I doubt more than 3 of their ACC foes have faced them more than 7 times as Top 10 foes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony - why do you ask this stuff if you are just going to do what you're going to do? And YOU brought up the competition for recruits, not me. Look, there is a top teir of rivalries like UNC/Duke, Ohio State/Michigan and Auburn/Alabama that books are written about and documentaries are made. There is a whole second set that have official names ("The Border War," etc) or trophies associated with them. I don't think there is a real rivalry here, other than a long series (which was probably extended once UM was no longer relevant because a K disciple was their coach). If you can find multiple sources that document this rivalry, then go for it. I'm not sure you can though. Just playing each other a bunch of times doesn't make it a rivalry. UNC and Michigan State have hooked up a ton - several times in the Final Four - and that isn't a rivalry. Rikster2 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Duke and Michigan might be playing again next Tuesday. For some reason, they accept invitations to the same tournaments fairly often. That aside, why don't all the articles last spring count as rivalry articles?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What does "why don't all the articles last spring count as rivalry articles?" mean? Not being facetious, I just am unsure what you're referring to. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a controversy regarding The Fab Five (film). Jalen Rose and Grant Hill were going at it in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. P.S. not expanded and revised counts in the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I still fail to see how this is a rivalry. Statistics can be manipulated, bent, twisted and distorted to be used in many ways. I can be convinced of this rivalry if there is independent coverage of it as a rivalry. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the following sources provide sufficient support for a rivalry:

1. New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/sports/ncaabasketball/21duke.html
2. Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ncaa-tournament-duke-michigan-focused-on-their-on-court-rivalry/2011/03/19/ABDR9Hx_story.html
3. Detroit News - http://detnews.com/article/20110319/OPINION03/103190403/Michigan-gets-chance-to-rekindle-Duke-rivalry
4. Michigan - http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/120999aac.html

Amaker era stories don't have rivalry in the headline, but do in the articles such as

1. Michigan Daily - http://www.michigandaily.com/content/players-pleased-martins-decision
2. Michigan Daily - http://www.michigandaily.com/content/amaker-treading-unfamiliar-territory

Earlier

1. Duke Chronicle - http://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-michigan-do-battle-round-nine-fierce-rivalry

Bottom line. Look forward to a new article in the coming days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. being a Los Angeles Dodgers fan, this rivalry has the look and feel of a Yankees-Dodgers rivalry, which may go on hiatus for long periods but still be considered valid. In my youth they played in the World series 3 times in 5 years and that was a rekindling of an earlier rivalry that had gone dormant. This article will be pretty good and easier to do than the other three rivalry articles I have written because there are only 27 games (plus about a 40-50% chance of another one on Tuesday). Looking forward to writing this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad you were able to find sources to substantiate it Tony. Rikster2 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

High school template categories

Since a lot of the high school basketball editorial manpower comes from this project, I thought you might want to be aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#High_school_template_categories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

McAdoos

How is NFL athlete and Tar Heel Michael McAdoo related to NBA athlete and Tar Heel Bob McAdoo and/or his 2nd cousin once removed current Tar Heel James McAdoo?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I got an answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#McAdoos.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeat Male Athlete of the Year

Three (2.5) ACC basketball players repeated as ACC Athlete of the Year according to the unsourced article. However, that means that Christian Laettner and Phil Ford were overall ACC AOY more than they were the Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year. That does not make sense. Charlie Ward is the third guy. I'd appreciate assistance from anyone that knows a source for this award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't confirm the ACC Athlete of the Year names, but the men's basketball POYs are correct. This stuff doesn't always make sense, particularly when you have different voting bodies. Heck, in 1966 Steve Vacendak of Duke was ACC POY but was second team All-Conference. How does THAT work? Rikster2 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for renaming discussion

Please visit this CfR discussion for renaming NJIT's athletics categories. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Brad Redford for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brad Redford is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brad Redford until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rikster2 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Navbox categories for discussion

I've nominated three navbox categories for renaming. Please comment here: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 17#American college basketball championship team navigational boxes. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports rivalry navbox discussion notice

Please be advised of college sports rivalry navbox discussions going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Rivalry_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports rivalry infobox discussion notice

Be advised of discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#New_infobox_template_for_rivalries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

2011–12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team

This article, originally 2011–12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team (using an endash) was moved to 2011-12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team (using a regular figure dash), and is now located at 2011—12 Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball team (using an emdash). I believe the endash is the accepted style but since the article has been moved twice in the span of a week, there seems to be some confusion. Since I wasn't around for any previous discussion, if there was any, I don't know if the use of the endash came about through consensus or otherwise, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Also, if someone could contact the two editors who recently moved the article (Wicka wicka and TheHoosierState89), I would appreciate it since I don't know the template to use on their talk pages. Thanks! City boy77 (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The endash is the proper punctuation for number ranges; see Misplaced Pages:DASH. I've put in a request the article moved back to original location. If you want to get in touch with those editors to let them know what's up, you might just want to drop them a friendly note in plain English. No need for a template. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire life, it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to search for this page with the endash or whatever the fuck. I have several accounts and will be changing the article back to it's proper, logical location. Good luck dipshits. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Project-Class college basketball pages
• NA-importance college basketball pages
• WikiProject College basketball articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists