Talk:List of college athletics championship game outcomes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sports (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College Basketball 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Baseball / College (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject College baseball (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Lacrosse (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lacrosse, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of lacrosse 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

The basic, primary, number one criterion for this article is: "Intercollegiate championships (conducted before or at the same time as each sport's first NCAA championships) that were decided by ACTUAL COMPETITIONS (NOT CONSENSUS OR RETROACTIVE SELECTIONS)." Therefore, any selections by the Helms Foundation are of NO consequence to the facts as they pertain to this article. Any mention of Helms selections will be deleted. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aim to acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject and be WP:COMPREHENSIVE. Also see WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. Helms championships are the major pre-NCAA basketball championship and are recognized by most athletic departments in their publications. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Helms may have declared retroactive champions, but they did not conduct championships. The teams recognized in this article won championships by competing in a game or games that determined a champion, and the players on those teams knew at the time that they were playing for a championship. By the time Helms declared retroactive champions that were not earned in a game on the court or field of play, many players were deceased. Helms has an article of its own. It does not belong in this article.Jeff in CA 21:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Pre-NCAA intercollegiate championships" not "Collegiate championships conducted, but not retroactively awarded, prior to the NCAA". The narrowness of a criteria restricting information in the article to "conducted titles" neither matches the topic of the article that is defined by its title, nor (as previously stated) would it comprehensively cover the topic per WP:COMPREHENSIVE. Such comprehensiveness does not diminish any understanding of the topic for the reader since the retroactive titles are identified as such in the text in order to allow the reader to form their own opinions on the material discussed. However, removing such sourced material would damage the article as the goal of Wikipedia is not to pre-judge information, but to be comprehensive and neutral, providing information in an encyclopedic fashion, thus allowing readers to make their own judgements on the information provided. In light of the goals and policies of Wikipedia, and considering the article topic, there is no basis for excluding any information on pre-NCAA championships, regardless of how they were won or awarded, particularly ones such as Helms that are widely recognized by independent, third-party sources such as schools, media, and particularly, recorded in the NCAA Official Records Book itself (p.80). Lastly, comprehensiveness of this nature also has precedence in other articles under the umbrella of collegiate sports, such as the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, which is comprehensive in all aspects of college football national championships despite the fact that absolutely none of them are awarded by the NCAA nor conducted on the field. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The original title of this article was "Intercollegiate Sports Championship Competitions pre-dating NCAA." This title did match the topic of the article. It was changed by another user who never offered another edit. The original criteria for inclusion in this article have been stated in the lead paragraph since shortly after its inception. Such narrowing of criteria for lists is very common on other lists in Wikipedia (e.g.: list of states with limited international recognition). Nevertheless, I have edited the lead paragraphs to incorporate the material that has been newly suggested. Jeff in CA 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Info on football polls is wrong. Polls began in the 19th century, retroactive polls in the 1920s. Helms is only one of several major selectors per NCAA Records Book.[edit]

The concept of a national championship in college football dates to the early years of the sport in late 19th century,[1] and the earliest contemporaneous polls can be traced to Caspar Whitney, Charles Patterson, and The Sun in 1901.[2] These polls predated mathematical ranking systems, such as the Frank Dickinson's math system that crowned national champions from 1926 to 1940, and included predated rankings for 1924 and 1925, that was one of the first selection systems to be widely popularized. A number of other mathematical systems were born in the 1920s and 1930s, but the Associated Press poll of sportswriters in 1936 to obtain rankings, followed by a poll of coaches started by UPI beginning in 1950, and these eventually became to dominate the national perception of the annual national champion in college football. It did not happen overnight, as other selectors popular mindshare subsequently waned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazypaco (talkcontribs) 21:14, 1 November 2012

Move to “List of College Championship Game Outcomes"[edit]

“List of College Championship Game Outcomes” captures the scope of the descriptive name I gave this article when I created it. However, Strikehold moved it to another name, thus extending the scope of the article, and never touched the article at any other time. This article was meant to be a listing of results of actual athletic championship games between competing teams that were physically contested on the field or court of play. Thus, the article’s purpose is to list only the objectively determined, genuine and undeniable championships that were settled by the winning of games in their contemporaneous settings. It was specifically not intended to include retroactive selections of historic teams by pollsters, nor any subjective, conjectural or speculative results whatsoever. Predictably then, after the prior move, the introduction of subjective and somewhat disputable claims of championships based on polling has indeed happened. There are existing independent articles about the history of athletic polls that are appropriate for that information. This present move re-captures original scope and intent.

WP:MOVE – Reasons for moving a page

It is an article at a descriptive name, and the scope of the article has been reduced, extended or otherwise changed.

WP:STANDALONE – Selection criteria

Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

Common selection criteria include:

“Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria.” These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles.

WP:FLCR – Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list".

WP:AT – Titles:

The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. … the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA – Precision

Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talkcontribs) 15:14, 9 November 2012

  • I can go along with the use of the phrase "college athletics" in the title of this list. It is important to note that this is a list rather than an article. Several of the criteria mentioned above specifically apply for lists. As such, the word "outcomes" was carefully chosen as part of the specific list criteria, which adheres to WP:STANDALONE, WP:AT and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. -- Jeff in CA 05:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

NIT champions[edit]

To explain my recent edits, I will need to describe how this list article had previously been constructed in a way that shows a bias towards NIT national champions over NCAA champions and therefore confered more legitimacy to the former than the later. Wikipedia is to be factual, without bias and without WP:UNDUE, and most importantly, adhere to WP:NPOV. What we think of the NIT is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not to be used as a soapbox for those opinions or beliefs.

Foremost, section 1 of the article has been titled "Championship game outcomes prior to the NCAA". According to this section title and the definition of the lists in the original article lead, the NIT champions post-1938 should not have been included in this article in the first place since they are not "prior to the NCAA".

However, the NIT champions from 1939-1950 were included in the section "Championship game outcomes prior to the NCAA". Such placement of the post-1938 NIT champions within this section implied to the reader that all of the listed NIT Champions were, or are today, given preeminence or are considered to be the collegiate champions for those years while the NCAA champions are either not considered as such or there is a consensus that they were inferior. That is false. Anything else is just opinion, no matter how many referenced opinions (WP:CITEKILL) are thrown onto a statement to make it look factual. This is not to say that the NIT didn't necessarily have the better tournament field, or that the NIT champion wasn't actually the better team for any particular year, but it is not appropriate to convey such opinion (and it is opinion that is debatable on a season-by-season basis) as fact by the way the article is constructed or how sections are titled.

Therefore, I have moved the post 1938 NIT information into a new section entitled "Championship events in competition with NCAA championships". In this section, the relative considerations of the two rival tournaments can be better explored without compromising the integrity of the prior section. In this section, information can also be provided to the reader, hopefully without bias, allowing him/her to judge the historical relevancy of these competing titles. Therefore, summaries of the differences in tournament fields, contemporaneous perceptions, results of teams playing in both tournaments, War Charities Benefit outcomes, claims of schools themselves, and historical research by recognized third-parties are included to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions for which NIT champions may be perceived to be superior, inferior, or equivalent to their corresponding NCAA champions.

I hope this makes sense. It is not my intent to put down the achievements of teams participating in the NIT during the 1940s, but I am trying to cleanse the article's presentation of information from contemporaneous or nostalgic perceptions in order to allow a reader to formulate their own opinions based on factual information. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


"... this list article had previously been constructed in a way that shows a bias towards NIT national champions over NCAA champions and therefore conferred more legitimacy to the former than the later."
(First a clarification: lists are not articles; articles are not lists.)
It seems far from clear that any such bias existed. This list is not an attempt to argue which team was better or more deserving of a title than another team. This list is simply to record what history tells us happened on the days that these games were played. This is an important criterion under which this list exists. Wikipedia is to be factual and adhere to NPOV. In this regard, our own opinions and beliefs are irrelevant.
This list simply names the teams in each sport that won contests that recognized or determined a national champion, especially in the days before widely available transcontinental travel, in an era in which nationally organized athletics were emerging. As for the early years of the NIT, players, coaches, sportswriters and fans during those years, as history shows, considered both the NIT and the NCAA tournament with high regard. At those annual moments in time, huge numbers of the college game’s participants, spectators, others intimately involved and the attentive public all perceived and regarded the winner or winners of the annual major tournaments as legitimate overall national champions or co-champions. This is not an opinion.
The list criteria specifically exclude the NCAA winners that were crowned in later years, because the concept and basis of this list are to name the teams that won titles before there ever were any such thing as NCAA titles in a sport. In most sports there was little or no overlap with a rival championship contest once the NCAA began to conduct them on its own. Hence, it is clear that the NCAA champion in such a sport from the outset could lay undisputed claim to a national title. However, in the case of basketball it was not so clear until the early 1950s, and the rival tournaments up until then each produced a champion that in its day was as highly regarded as the other champion.
"... 'Championship game outcomes prior to the NCAA.' According to this section title and the definition of the lists in the original article lead, the NIT champions post-1938 should not have been included ..."
The title that you do not like adheres to WP:AT – Titles ("The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. ... the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.") as well as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA – Precision ("Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously identify the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise.")
If a more precise title is desired, one could suggest, "Outcomes of championship games held prior to the inception of, or in the case of rival pre-established tournaments, concurrently with NCAA championships, until they were no longer rivals." This then would also serve the purpose of a precise warning at the outset regarding the rival national championships staged in each of 16 women’s sports by both the AIAW and the NCAA in all three divisions during the 1981-82 year. But that would seem rather overwrought and silly, as the context and footnotes provide such clarity. The point is that not listing such teams that earned a rival championship title during the period of overlap would fail to convey the historical fact that during those several years, many participants, experts and observers alike at the end of each season acknowledged one or the other or both of the rivals as collegiate champion.
"... implied to the reader that all of the listed NIT Champions were, or are today, given preeminence or are considered to be the collegiate champions for those years while the NCAA champions are either not considered as such or there is a consensus that they were inferior."
Ironically, the shoe fits the other foot, as it is exactly such sentiment in reverse that in part inspired this list. To the uninformed and partially informed, the parade of NCAA basketball champions that began 75 years ago implies that they have always been given preeminence or considered indisputably to be the collegiate champions for all that time, while on the other hand the NIT champions are either completely unheard of, ignored or not considered at all, or else that there is a consensus that NIT champions were inferior.
Recently you stated that the notion that the NIT winners in those early years were regarded as highly as the NCAA winner is mostly an urban myth. History declares that this is not a myth.
"This is not to say that the NIT didn't necessarily have the better tournament field, or that the NIT champion wasn't actually the better team for any particular year, but it is not appropriate to convey such opinion (and it is opinion that is debatable on a season-by-season basis) as fact ..."
The sampling of citations that you discarded shows that the level of prestige attached to the NIT did not precipitously wane once the NCAA surged as the leader. But that really is beside the whole point of this list, which is just to name winning teams. (By the way, including interesting material in several footnotes, among the hundreds of footnotes, is not on its face far-reaching, as is readily seen in a vast number of both academic and popular works.)
I find it remarkable and telling that you casually wave away the words ("thrown onto a statement to make it look factual") of the Hall-of-Fame players, coaches and writers (e.g., Bill Bradley, Ralph Miller, Leonard Koppett, Marty Glickman) who were in these very tournaments in Madison Square Garden in the 1940s, as though they mean nothing. In writing a paper about the Civil War, would one discredit the descriptive words of Abraham Lincoln regarding a Civil War event because one alleges them to be a mere opinion of Lincoln?
There has been no attempt to convey in any way that any tournament or its champion was better than the rival tournament or its champion. The reason for listing the twelve 1939 – 1950 NIT winners is that history shows that during those several years, many participants, experts and observers alike at the end of each season acknowledged one or the other or both of the rivals as collegiate champion. That is the only reason they are included in the list. In this regard, current opinions and debates on relevant merits do not matter. What matters most is the people who were involved in the games on the days that the games were played and what they knew was at stake.
"... the relative considerations of the two rival tournaments can be better explored," along with "the differences in tournament fields, contemporaneous perceptions, results of teams playing in both tournaments, War Charities Benefit outcomes, claims of schools themselves, and historical research by recognized third-parties ... to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions for which NIT champions may be perceived to be superior, inferior, or equivalent to their corresponding NCAA champions."
As it seems to be your desire to do this, may I suggest that it be done in a Wikipedia article, for which it would be much better suited than a Wikipedia list. This list is not for drawing conclusions; it’s for seeing who won.
"... but I am trying to cleanse the article's presentation of information from contemporaneous or nostalgic perceptions in order to allow a reader to formulate their own opinions"
This is a list, not an article. The only things this part of the list is supposed to convey are that from 1939 – 1950, there were two highly regarded rival tournaments, as well as the names of the 12 winners that were not the NCAA winners.
Given that the attempt has been made to "cleanse" an article where there is no article, I suggest that the remedy is to ensure that this list is simple and lean, so as to avoid confusion about what it is. Therefore, I have changed the presentation of the basketball part so that it stands as a Wikipedia list and adheres to its list criteria, for it is not a Wikipedia article.
Jeff in CA 18:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and your edits that have simplified the presentation in to avoid the confusion of commentary. I find the current format without intentional or unintentional POV. Believe it or not, we agree on more than we disagree, and I actually appreciate your work on all the sports on this list a great deal. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).