Talk:ACC–Big Ten Challenge

Fair use rationale for Image:Acc challengelogo.gif

Image:Acc challengelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Name order should be Big Ten/ACC Challenge

Since the inaugural event was called the Big Ten/ACC Challenge in 1999, Wikipedia rules on first use would indicate that the title should be changed.

Regarding "source" for this, simply looking at Wikipedia reveals that, with named order changing each year, and this year's contest being called the Eleventh Annual Big Ten/ACC Challenge (and by the ACC, no less) <http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/042209aaa.html>, and since the Tenth Annual was the ACC/Big Ten Challenge <http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/041508aaa.html>, the first must have been the First Annual Big Ten/ACC Challenge (Odd years Big Ten leads, even years ACC leads). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.96.226 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and can make the change in the text, but cannot change the article title. Since Wikipedia does generally follow a "first use" norm for naming things, Big Ten - ACC Challenge does seem appropriate. If someone has evidence that this isn't correct, please edify me and revert. Moretz (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me it should remain as the ACC-Big 10 Challenge since it is alphabetical order. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is alphabetical order the primary determinant of naming for Wikipedia? I haven't seen that, but it may well be the case. It's not a bad reason in any event. Any other opinions? Moretz (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the person who started the article used the reversed order, so I'm reverting my own edit. At least with spelling articles usually stick with the order of the article initiator barring some compelling reason to change. I like the argument that it was initially called the Big Ten - ACC Challenge, but I'll wait for some more discussion. Moretz (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Challenge"

Since the ACC has won this every year, should it really be referred to as a challenge?

Hardy har har. Seeing as the ACC - Big Ten Challenge is the official and most commonly used name for the event, it is appropriate to call the event by its proper name.

Table Format

Why did the table format change for the 2008 and 2009 season? 198.144.199.101 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

---I have to agree. While the addition of attendance is...nice...I think that the checkmarks/ bolded "X"s do a much better job of conveying the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.149.254 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---I agree too. It would be much better to have everything the same format. McBrayn (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, though having the score is nice, as well. Perhaps we can just add the X columns and keep the additional information? I think it would be nice to have consistent table sizes, too. Moretz (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Moretz

Mathematical error?

Is there an error somewhere in the series records? As of 2010-07-01 the table for the ACC teams says that those teams have a 67-40 record in the series, but the table for the Big Ten says that those teams have a 40-64 overall record. Since no team has departed the Big Ten since this series began, shouldn't the two overall records be inverses of each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.147.8 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There definitely is. The Big Ten is missing three losses, I can tell you that much. I'm trying to find them, but don't want to put them in until I can fully correct the table - and am having trouble determining home/away/neutral status for every game. Twinsrulemlb (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the missing losses, but I also do not know the home/away breakdown, so those numbers probably don't add up. Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota each had one too few losses (all Big Ten teams should have either 11 or 9 games through last year). Moretz (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to go back and find the home/away status for the missing losses. Initially I thought this would not be hard since teams alternate home and away each year. However, since some games are neutral site (and some teams are left out), it's not so straightforward. Alas.

9 games in each of the first 6 seasons

Does this require explanation that one game was canceled (the infamous ice-rink game in Richmond in 2001) Moretz (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)