Talk:List of Pac-12 Conference football champions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Division Champions[edit]

I think we should change how this is presented. There's frequent mention of "Divisional champions" but I'm not really sure this is a real thing. At least, the Pac-12 media guide simply shows divisional standings for each season, as well as championship game participants. It lists how many conference championships a team has, but does not mention how many divisional championships it had. Right now, I don't think we get the full story from the chart that is shown. If it's based fully on record, we need to include USC from 2011. If we do not include USC because they did not go to the championship game, then we need to exclude all the schools with similar records that did not attend the championship game (for instance, Utah this season). Embowaf (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are asking. The Pac-12 Football Championship Game tiebreaker explanation says:

Two-team ties If two teams are tied for a division championship, head-to-head results between those two teams are used as a tiebreaker to decide who participates in the Football Championship Game.

The winner of each Division will be determined by the record in all games played (both divisional and cross-divisional) within the conference. In the event of a tie, the following procedures will be applied to determine the Pac-12 Football Championship Game representative.

So what is your concern? UW Dawgs (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the official records. The Pac-12 media guide. It makes no mention of divisional champions. There is no list of times a team has won a "divisional championship" only a "conference championship." There's no trophy. Divisional Champion is a made up term. You win the conference or you don't. The divisions are organizational. They don't matter for bowl selection or anything like that. We should list championship game participants. Other information is deceptive.Embowaf (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above citation refutes your statements, with the Pac-12 directly referencing divisional championships in football. Additionally, the existing team and standings articles universally and appropriately reference divisional co-championships:
* 2011 North: Oregon, Stanford, and Standings
* 2012 North: Oregon, Stanford, and Standings
* 2013 North: Oregon, Stanford, and Standings
* 2015 South: Utah, USC, and Standings
While I'm happy to continue the discussion, the existing content in this article has been reverted to the consensus treatment seen in the earlier version per WP:BRD. Consensus can change and ongoing discussion is explicitly welcome. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably follow whatever is decided at the wider discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Conference_divisional_co-champions.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to USC in 2011, there were some past discussion at Talk:Pac-12 Football Championship Game regarding why UCLA was called the South champs that year, with some quotes from Pac-12 officials.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2003 and 2004 USC Pac-10 championships vacated[edit]

There is inconsistent treatment of USC's 2003 and 2004 teams wrt to Pac-10 championships, in the following Pac-12 articles:

My initial Google search was fruitless, while the 2015 Pac-12 Media Guide pg 89 is vague. Can anyone clarify (source?) whether the 2003 and/or 2004 Pac-10 titles were vacated? Note, am not asking about BSC or similar national championships, just the conference title. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's another thing that's unclear. The Pac-12 seems to treat them as sorta vacated. By which I mean, they say the seasons were vacated, but still count them in USC's total. Unlike wins and like National Titles, Conference titles are awarded by the Conference, which is separate from the NCAA. The NCAA does not, as far as I know, have the power to vacate conference titles. The BCS/Coaches Poll and FWAA did vacate USC's title in 2004 independently of the NCAA, but the AP refused to. It's likely we should follow this standard for the Pac-12 Conference Titles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embowaf (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2015 Pac-12 Media Guide, pg 92 clearly states 2004 and 2005 were vacated. These two standings templates in particular, should be reviewed against similar retroactive situations (contrasting with pre-emptive "ineligible"). UW Dawgs (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://pac-12.com/content/football-pac-12-championships List USC as champions in 2004 and 2005. It has a ^ after them, but ^ is not defined. I get the feeling the Pac-12 doesn't really care. Also of note, there was only 1 Pac-12 game vacated in 2004, and even with that game vacated, USC's record would be 7-0. Next highest would be cal at 7-1, which by the Pac-12's rule would still put USC in first place. That doesn't mean they couldn't vacate the title, but if the only justification was vacated wins mean USC no longer "won" the conference, in 2004, they still would have. Embowaf (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason to not consider the lack of a footnote on that page an oversight, and defer to the media guide (above) where the same ^ is defined as "vacated"?—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, appears to be a simple transcription omission. I'd still like to find a citation which could be used in the relevant 2004 and 2005 templates and articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's consistent with the 2015 USC Media Guide p. 69: "Not including 2 wins in 2004, 12 wins and 1 loss in 2005 and both Pac-10 titles vacated due to NCAA penalty". Also San Jose Mercury News in 2010 says "the Pac-10 would just vacate the conference titles and no new champions would be named."—Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you on the Mercury News citation, including "Barbour also said the Pac-10 would just vacate the conference titles and no new champions would be named." So I read the vacation of the two Pacific-10 championships as a Pac-10 action, not a NCAA action (which makes intuitive sense, contrasted with the Wins being vacated by the NCAA). This Pac-10 vs NCAA attribution nuance is NOT present in the current 2004 and 2005 Pac-10 standings templates and this "List of champions article," but should be. Do you read it this way, as well? UW Dawgs (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Barbour was Cal's AD, so not sure if she speaks directly for the conference. Clearly the conference titles being vacated stemmed from the NCAA sanctions. Whether the Pac-12 acted on their own in stripping the titles is unclear. I don't know if we need to get to that level of detail unless the Pac-12 official made a statement.—Bagumba (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an issue with 2003? Sorry, it's hard to remember when USC was not on probation :-)—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not believe so. I originally wrote 2003 and 2004, when 2004 and 2005 appear at issue in hindsight. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update on divisional champions[edit]

The NCAA seems to recognized USC as the divisional 'champion' in 2011: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2015/conference.pdf

Considering that we seem to be set on showing divisional winners based on their conference record, and what we know about what happened that year, the Pac-12 media guide, and this NCAA resource, the only thing that really makes sense, in my opinion, is to show USC as the 2011 South division winner, and note that UCLA participated in the championship due to USC's postseason ineligibility. Embowaf (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At #Division Champions above, I mentioned that the USC case in 2011 had been discussed previously at Talk:Pac-12 Football Championship Game#Division Champions. There's definitely conflicting sources on USC's status in 2011, but let's establish that there is a new consensus before changing this. The previous discussion had quotes from a Pac-12 spokesman that USC was not the champion, and I'm not convinced yet that one conflicting source should necessarily override that.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I can find for the Dave Hirsch quote is a Ted Miller piece on the ESPN Pac-12 blog. There does not seem to be any sort of Pac-12 Press Release. And as I've noted before, the Pac-12 media guide only lists game participants, conference division standings, and conference championships. It does not refer to "Divisional Champions" at all. The Dave Hirsch quote feels like an off the cuff remark he made, considering that there is no listing of official "Southern Division Champions." Or at least no one has found anything. I think it really makes sense to either have this table show Championship Game Participants, or the Divisional Leaders. Showing some weird mix of the two is inherently confusing.
Here's some more things I've found:
  • The year in review for 2011 makes no mention of divisional champions: "The new era of the Pac-12 Conference and 2011-12 campaign kicked off with the Conference's first-ever Pac-12 Football Championship game, pitting OREGON for the North Division and UCLA from the South Division. The Ducks won the inaugural championship game, 49-31, in front of a sold-out stadium (59,376) in Eugene, Ore."
  • This Game Recap of the championship game in 2011 also makes no mention of Divisional Champions, saying "While USC (10-2, 7-2) finished atop the Pac-12 South, the Trojans are ineligible to play in the postseason because of NCAA sanctions, which put UCLA in the title game."
  • Only reference in ESPN post game recap of the USC-UCLA game to divisional champions is about USC.
  • As shown above, |NCAA's Records
Embowaf (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Pac-12 Conference football champions. 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) 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Pac-12_Conference_football_champions&oldid=1201172434"