From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown 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 10:18, 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


Conference Champions

I am going to revert the edit just made by User:WillC to the conference champions list, and I just want to state my reasons before doing so.

  • It keeps the basketball champion list in the same format as the football list - as currently situated the lists have no continuity
  • The current list (as edited by User:WillC) is difficult to read and poorly organized
  • The table format provided more relevant, encyclopedic information (with the inclusion of regular season champions). I think adding tournament location to the table would be completely appropriate as well.
  • The table format matches the format used on a numbe r of other conference pages.

My goal here is not to start a revert war, but to provide the most information in the most well-organized format. Also, User:WillC, please provide a reason when making a revert, because, unfortunately, that is how revert wars start. As always, I am open to talk about this. Thanks. Masonpatriot 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Then include the locations in the chart...you are deleting info. WillC 03:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
You realize that YOU can add the locations to the chart as well? If you need help doing this just ask me. Otherwise, please recognize that you are deleting info as well (arguably more relevant information as the regular season champions are likely more pertinent than where the game was played. Please add the tourney locations to the table. Masonpatriot 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The tourney champ gets the NCAA bid = more important. you add to the chart. WillC 03:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This should end User:WillC's stubbornness regarding this. Please edit the TABLE if you want to add further information. Also, please address the legitimate points I made in my first comment if you want to revert, instead of childishly saying "so-and-so did it first." Just trying to make a better encyclopedia here, nothing more. Thanks. Masonpatriot 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Presbyterian

I honestly don't know what to do with the Blue Hose - they're confusing the crap out of me. As I understand it, however, they are not playing a full conference schedule until 2008–2009, and will instead play a partial schedule without factoring into the standings. Plenty of other schools do this (UC-Davis with the Big West and Winston-Salem State with the MEAC ring a bell from this past year), and it's generally a sign of an anticipated conference move, but not yet making the jump. Looking at this year's football schedules, this article seems to confirm that for me. If anyone comes up with something contradictory, let's please revisit this issue. Until then, though, I think considering them an independent is the appropriate move. -- fuzzy510 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Map

The map of conference schools has VMI located at least a hundred miles north and east of its actual location in Lexington, VA. Ruedetocqueville ( talk) 10:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

VMI

It should somehow be noted that VMI fields a men' basketball team but not a women's team. I haven't checked any of the other schools, so I don't know if this is the only example.-- SPhilbrick T 15:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC) reply

The Citadel, another military school which is in the Southern Conference, is the only other Division I school where there is a men's basketball team but no women's team. Jrcla2 ( talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (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) 00:16, 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

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Big_South_Conference&oldid=1205167895"