Talk:Clemson Tigers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Atlantic Coast Conference articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I created the article Carolina-Clemson Rivalry, it needs major expanding. So if you don't mind, add something to it (with citations, of course). Zchris87v 09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Clemson Football[edit]

Since each year has its own article, is there enough information to start a Clemson Football article? Zchris87v 05:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Basketball References[edit] -1939 Championship Reference

NCAA Basketball[edit]

Articles referencing NCAA Division I Regular Season Championships:

National headline[edit]

  • Embedded text in this section:

national headlines don't go away because you wish they would unfortunately. Also, 2+2 on wikipedia does not equal 4 without a reference which you don't have. You need a reference to state what the athletic department said, if true. BOTH statements stay in here however since it was a national headline. Another point is this. Only trivial articles have no contention in them somewhere. It proves credibility. No one will believe a university where everything is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong. That simply broadcasts the idea that there is a lot of censorship and the college is too weak to undergo objective scrutiny. This is not a .com page!

  • Visible text in this section:

Clemson requires female athletes on scholarship to sign a document acknowledging that they can lose their scholarships should they become pregnant. Critics suggest that this forces pregnant athletes into abortion.[1] Clemson University has generally denied the accuracy of the report generating the criticism.[2] Specifically, Loreto Jackson, Director of Student-Athlete Performance, states that the university does not have a policy in which grant-in-aid money can be affected by an athlete's pregnancy, and that the university educates athletes that a scholarship will not be taken away because of a pregnancy.[3]

  • My comments:

It's not clear that any of this has enough factual truth to it to leave it in, but I'll let others decide.--Robapalooza 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • My response: if you read the first article, it is about MEMPHIS, not CLEMSON. Yes, Clemson is among the 26 stated schools that have a policy regarding such a thing, but would it be fair to find a single school and add in a section regarding the number of college dropouts because of loss of scholarship due to injury? I don't think so. The Memphis article contains some bias, as well. The article states that "As a result of being featured nationally in an Associated Press article, the school discontinued the policy" (on loss of scholarships), but the reference says "in the wake of" regarding the decision, which is an assumption by the editor of the Memphis article that the policy was discontinued out of fear of looking bad, rather than any realization of the repercussions of the decision. To the Clemson article, at LEAST add in that this was actually a real case at Memphis, which is the entire reason it was brought about. Zchris87v 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the section is inappropriate for this article. Primarily because it's not specific to the Clemson Tigers. This is an NCAA issue, and would more appropriately be discussed in a separate article. If the Clemson case becomes notable, it should be treated like the highly publicized Duke Lacrosse Scandal, which doesn't even appear in the Blue Devils article. Furthermore, the Bluffton Today reference is a blog, which is an inappropriate source on Wikipedia. The Anderson Independent-Mail reference reports that the team policy no longer exists, so at best this section should say "The track and field team at Clemson University used to have a policy..." and should include the quote from the athletic director who said that they are of the opinion that the former policy was inconsistent with the NCAA rules concerning scholarships. Mescad 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly inappropriate for the article. In fact, I think ViperNerd is the only person who disagrees with that. Enigma message 21:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Burnt Orange[edit]

Could someone please fix the Burnt Orange reference in the infobox? It's correct in the main Clemson University wikipage. I've tried several fixed, but can't seem to get the code to work. Thanks. --Robapalooza 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

graduation rate[edit]

It may be easier to read if the data at the beggining of this section was converted to a table format. Only problem is i do not know how. If some one could do this i feal it would make the article better Thanks. --Hugothehorrible33

Football history[edit]

This article is missing some general football history; i.e., when the first game was played and so on. Here are some game notes from the Furman game this past year, which was Clemson's first game 112 years ago. Zchris87v 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Conference Recognition of Regular Season Championship[edit]

The point made by repeatedly inserting "Not recognized by the conference" is a POV edit intended to diminish what is a nationally recognized regular season ACC championship. Regular season championships don't have to be conference sanctioned in order to be a championship. The NCAA Division I football championship is not sanctioned by the NCAA, but it is still a championship.--CobraGeek (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but I didn't write the ACC bylaws, so the edit is not POV. The conference does not recognize a regular season champion, it's got nothing to do with "nationally recognized" or being sanctioned by the NCAA. Don't like it? Then petition for Clemson to join another conference that does things a bit more logically, like the SEC maybe. Clemson is a member of the ACC and as such must deal with the rules they have in place, as silly as they might seem. Answer this question and things might become clearer for you... Was Clemson given a trophy for the ACC regular season championship? That's what I thought. If you want to list the championship in the article, that's fine, but accept that it's essentially a creation of the media and really doesn't mean anything as far as the ACC is concerned. You can't have your cake and eat it too, that is the very definition of POV. ViperNerd (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png[edit]

The image Image:Clemson-University-claw-logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clemson Football graduation rates[edit]

I've updated the section pertaining to Clemson football and the team's graduation rates, although I must admit I'm unsure why it is included in this article to begin with (why aren't similar sections provided for the other major sports?). I would guess that at one time it painted an overly rosy picture of academics and Clemson football, though that certainly isn't the case any longer. I wouldn't blame someone for removing the section altogether. ViperNerd (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


ViperNerd, you should really discuss this stuff instead of repeatedly edit-warring with several different accounts/IPs to reinsert the information. Enigma message 20:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed, just look higher up this page. I'll restore the sourced information until someone can provide a relevant reason why it shouldn't be included in the article. Thanks.ViperNerd (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance at it, it appears that no one agrees with you, but you're determined to edit-war with the rest of Wikipedia over that paragraph. Enigma message 21:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah,'s just me. Whatever. Go find something constructive to do. ViperNerd (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It says it all in that section. Enigma message 03:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)