Talk:Big East Conference

Big East Conference changes

If the Big East is continuing on as a basketball conference, shouldn't the history be updated rather than a new article being created?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This conference is a new entity that has merely decided to take the name of its predecessor, it is not "continuing" from the previous Big East, especially since the "Catholic 7" had to actually leave the Big East to establish this conference. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's really hard to claim that the "Catholic 7" are "leaving" or "...had to leave..." the current Big East. The reality is that the non-FBS "Catholic 7" schools and the FBC schools that were not already departing for another conference are parting ways, with the "Catholic 7" retaining the name and MSG as its men's conference basketball tourney site, while the remaining FBS schools are "merely" keeping the largest part of the money in the Big East coffers. In truth, the "Catholic 7" are more truly the "real" Big East of the two groups; they have four of the original conference's charter members vs. one for the FBS schools; and, of the FBS schools in the planned new, unnamed conference, only five are full members of the current Big East. In light of the foregoing, it is not inconceivable that the current Big East article could be updated and continued. Probably the final determiner will be what the "new Big East" decides to claim as their founding date. GWFrog (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, the consensus has been that when the new conferences decide what history to claim then we can move or merge our current articles accordingly. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of future members based on sources

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ESPN as source for ongoing NCAA conference realignment, where the consensus is that inclusion of Butler, Xavier, etc. based on reporting by ESPN is accepted as a RS with in-text attribution (hence the "ESPN reported..." text).

Please discuss rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks.

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source if the schools reported to be joining repeatedly refuse to comment and multiple staffers at ESPN are making differing claims??? Especially in view of the fact that, too often, the edits are being made based simply on the latest that someone heard, while not even adding a tag of "ESPN reported..." Despite the reputed reliability of ESPN, it seems to me that claims made in this article should be limited to those things that someone other than a reporter or commentator from ESPN states while trying to "scoop" their fellow reporters/commentators... GWFrog (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with the WP:RS/N discussion, the in-text attribution needs to be included, so I would remove any content about Butler, Xavier, etc. that doesn't have it. The fact that the schools are refusing to comment doesn't really affect anything, in fact it suggests that they are considering changing conference.

Anyway, the article text as I originally inserted it has been edited so much that it's not that close to what I wrote. Other sources have been added, so I would think that it is acceptable to remain in the article. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Any map yet?

Will the article of the new Big East have a map yet to locate the members of the Catholic 7 and company? jlog3000 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Sports" Section

I don't think it's necessary to have listed the number of teams offered in each sport in the old version of the conference, especially considering how fluid membership was in its last few years. I also think it would be helpful for the chart to indicate which of the current members (as of July 1, 2013) offer the various sports. With this in mind, I propose two changes. Change A: remove the figures representing the teams fielded per sport in the old version of the conference. Change B: Add to the chart the teams fielded by each school. I will go ahead and be bold and make change B, but I want to get some input on change A. City boy77 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was waiting until things settled down before using the chart I used for the B1G... GWFrog (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Membership timeline

I recently reverted an edit that placed members of the Big East (1979-2013) in the membership timeline on this article even though they will not be part of the new version of the Big East. With this in mind, I think the membership timeline needs discussed. I don't think these members should be included in the timeline on this article because, except for a brief discussion about the history of the Big East name, this article is about the Big East from 2013 onward. I arrived at this conclusion primarily because the title of this article is "Big East Conference (2013)" and not simply "Big East Conference." Along the same train of thought, I also think the timeline should start at 2013. To see the history and timeline of the conference prior to 2013, readers can go to the appropriately named 1979-2013 article. Thus, I propose and seek consensus that:

• A - the membership timeline on this article is limited to those schools who are or will be members from July 1, 2013 onward. This provides a clear image of the membership beginning at reorganization, which is the timeframe referenced by the article's title.
• B - the membership timeline begin with the year 2013. This helps to reinforce that this article does not intend to provide a thorough overview of the conference as it existed from 1979 to 2013.
• C - the membership timeline include a footnote with a link to the membership timeline section on the 1979-2013 article.

City boy77 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As on the article's current timeline:

• Those schools that are going to be in the American Athletic Conference should not be on this timeline at all...
• Those schools coming from the "old Big East" to the "new Big East" should be shown as members of the old conference on this timeline to show the relationship of the two conferences, even if, technically, the American Athletic Conference will be the successor of the old Big East...
• Those schools that will be charter members of the "new Big East" should be on this timeline only from 2013 onward... GWFrog (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with having the (1979-2013) time period is that, A) it should be on there to reflect the history, but B) only having schools in the (2013) conference on there makes it look like they were the only schools in that conference so is misleading. The other full members of the (1979-2013) conference should be highlighted on the timeline as it visually well illustrates the connection and growth between the two. It should not have a detailed description about football only schools, just some frame of reference to what was going on so it isn't misleading about the construction of the old Big East. The edit reversed made it clear those schools were not and had not been part of the (2013) conference. Also, since (2013) is getting the basketball history of the (1979-2013) conference, it makes sense to have them highlighted. 143.215.204.33 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a continuation of the "old" Big East?

What's the basis for that conclusion? Because I've got (emphasis mine)

The "old" Big East remains housed in an office building next to the Amtrak station in Providence. That league will unveil a new name in the next month or so and be led by such schools as Connecticut, Cincinnati, Memphis and Southern Methodist. The basketball schools purchased the rights to the Big East name, its logo and will even retain the basketball record books.

http://news.providencejournal.com/sports/college/2013/03/big-east-unveils-new-structure-in-new-york.html

That very much suggests this isn't a brand new conference, but rather a continuation of the previous one (which ceases sponsoring football, sheds the AAC members, etc) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, what happens to baseball,softball, golf and the other Olympic sports records?.......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you? Obviously basketball is the highest-profile sport of this conference, and the one that will get the most news coverage. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:07, 17 May

2013 (UTC)

Nope, guess we'll just have to wait......It will be interesting to see where the Rutgers mens lacrosse team goes next year, as well as the field hockey and/or womens lacrosse teams of UConn, Temple, and Cincinnati the following year....... Pvmoutside (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The way in which sources seem to be considering this event, and the way which makes the most logical sense, is that this is a split into two daughter conferences, each of which retain some connection to the old Big East conference. There is the "new" Big East conference (the Catholic 7 plus a few new schools) which retains the name, and the use of MSG for the basketball tournament, and the American Athletic Conference, which gets the rest of the schools, the old Big East Commissioner (Michael Aresco) and the Football status of the old Big East (including the AQ bid to the last remaining year of the BCS before the playoff takes hold). There isn't a clear single successor, and there are also clear connections between the two new conferences and the old Big East, so the Wikipedia articles should reflect this (admittedly somewhat complicated) reality. --Jayron32 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

1979–2013 period in the timeline

So anyone want to keep talking about this? Two editors today removed the 1979–2013 period from the membership timeline, and I thought the consensus here was that this gave the timeline some needed context. Was that wrong? I think its fine as long as there's a clear demarcation between the 1979–2013 and 2013→ Big Easts. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but people keep trying to make it be that what was is what remains, when this is not the case. The difference needs to be displayed. If someone does away with it, revert it... GWFrog (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Dominion

Old Dominion is NOT joining the Big East for women's lacrosse, only Field Hockey. According to [1] they are joining the Atlantic Sun in 2014-15 and will be an Independent next year. I have removed mentions of ODU joining for women's lacrosse, but if someone with more wikitable experience than me could add then as a future associate member to the Atlantic Sun Conference article that would be awesome. Thanks! Smartyllama (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ODU added to A-Sun, as requested. Billcasey905 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Big East website

Well, the new Big East got the old Big East's website (http://www.bigeast.org/), but there's nothing there but an announcement that a new era begins on July 1... GWFrog (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

page move

was there any sort of consensus to include "present" in the title of the article? as far as I know that is not how the MOS suggests to title this article, and its original title--which disambiguates by including the year of establishment in parentheses--is the preferred form. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to matter... User:Rreagan007 made the move to Big East Conference (2013–present) without any discussion... Seems to me that "Big East Conference" would suffice... GWFrog (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When there is another article titled Big East Conference (1979–2013) it just makes sense that this article be titled Big East Conference (2013–present). I think GWFrog is right that eventually this article will be moved to simply Big East Conference anyway as it will likely become the primary topic as the new conference establishes itself and the other conference fades into history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend moving this article to Big East Conference with a hatnote of "For the 1978–2013 conference..." or similar. That's where its going eventually. The suggestion at WP:NAME is that the most commonly understood topic with that name should be at the precise title, with others in parenthetical disambiguation. If there isn't a most common, we have the disambiguation page, which is the situation right now. As for the "–present", one basketball example is the American Basketball Association (2000–present), which, as the lesser known league with that name, has the parentheses, while the league that merged with the NBA is still at American Basketball Association. I can understand that right now, its still a gray area as to what the "Big East Conference" might refer to, but in a year, two, there shouldn't be. So we can wait, but we actually don't need to if we decide this is the most common "Big East Conference." A move replacing a disambiguation page would require an admin and a move notice on the top here, so there could be plenty more discussion then. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still for "Big East Conference." With the added "For the..." note. There is going to be some confusion... Believe it or not, it seems like lots of folks who follow college sports with less than intense interest are still unaware of the Big East breakup (as well as of all of the multitude of other conference switches)... GWFrog (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs Clean up

- It needs to be up to date. - It needs to be the article the "Big East" directs to. - It needs to have a link at the top to the "old" Big East and the disambiguation page. - Also make note that this is technically a new league and that the AAC is the official successor to the old Big East. - Perhaps a link at the top to the AAC for the next year or so.