From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

As you can see, I changed the template (which, oddly enough, was created by an anonymous vandal. If you have problems, contact me on my talk page. -- fpo 21:14, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Members table

School type/religious affiliation

The religious affiliation or designation as "non-sectarian" is not so clear cut. For example, Duke University describes its ties with Methodism as "formal, on-going, and symbolic" [1] while Wake Forest University maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" [2]. Both schools can be considered "non-sectarian" in that they are no longer under the direct auspices of their founding religious organizations. Likewise, Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order (and thereby the Catholic Church) in the 1960s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows," half of whom must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown University). All of this is to say that I think the nature of a school's religious affiliation is beyond the scope of this article, and that "public" or "private" suffice in the context of the members table. -- 24.63.125.78 10:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

24.63.125.78 has coppied and pasted this on almost every college conference discussion board. Please refer to Talk:Atlantic Coast Conference so we can keep all the discussion in one place. Thanks. -- Masonpatriot

Logos

There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\ talk 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Chadron State/Montana State

Is there really a rivalry between these two schools? I know the Chadron State defeated Montana State in football, but is their anything more to it? Can that one game even constitute a rivalry? (In my eyes, no.) - Colslax 22:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Just curious

In the section Current members (and year joined), I can't seem to figure out what order the schools are listed. To me, it would seem better to organize them, perhaps by year joined, alphabetical, number of students, etc. Sean118 ( talk) 03:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Facility size - inaccurate claim

For Washington-Grizzly Stadium, the phrase "largest in I-AA" appears after the capacity. This is incorrect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_stadiums. Five of the eight Ivy League schools, which also play Division I FCS, are larger, and all are on-campus facilities. Franklin Field (Penn) seats more than 52,000 and the Yale Bowl seats more than 64,000. Several stadiums in the MEAC and SWAC are larger than Montana's, although I'm uncertain whether they're on-campus facilities. The two largest FCS stadiums, LP Field (Tennessee St.) and the Georgia Dome (Georgia St.) are actually NFL stadiums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverSpring8 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Proposal to make timelines more consistent

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

for example, a school with a yellow bar means:

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

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

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

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

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

Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing this discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Standardize facility sections

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

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences

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

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency. Mdak06 ( talk) 23:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Sky Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Big_Sky_Conference&oldid=1206328816"