Talk:List of NCAA Division I men's basketball champions

Table issue

Help finish the championships by conferences table. The same table for college football championships can be found here: College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.43.143.240 (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You stated that there's no guideline to not have unsourced info in FLs. This isn't true; the relevant guideline and policy are WP:Citing sources and WP:Verifiability, which state that content must be verifiable (can be cited) and actually cited. If the new table can't be verified, then it shouldn't be here in my opinion. However, that's only my opinion; I'll probably end up asking for further input at WT:FLC, as the people there will have greater knowledge on what's acceptable in FLs. Meanwhile, where are you getting this information? If there's a reliable source you're getting this from, problem solved. If not, I'm not sure why unsourced information is being added in general, never mind the status of the page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Would this table be more apporpriate on NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship?? 79.43.143.240 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be sourced, it shouldn't be there either. If it can, perhaps it's worth posting a talk page comment there to see if it would be considered helpful. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Giants2008 is spot on. Info in any featured item needs to be properly sourced and verifiable. Not to mention WP:FIVEPILLARS. PumpkinSky talk 15:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No source, no go. — KV5 • Talk • 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what page it's on, or whether that page is FL or not; WP:V and WP:CITE always apply. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the table to save others looking for what is being discussed:

Team	Wins	Years won
Pacific 12 Conference	15	1939, 1942, 1959, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1995, 1997
Atlantic Coast Conference	12	1957, 1974, 1982, 1983, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010
Big 10 Conference	10	1940, 1941, 1953, 1960, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1987, 1989, 2000
Southeastern Conference	10	1948, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1978, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2007
Big East Conference	6	1984, 1985, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2011
Missouri Valley Conference	4	1945, 1946, 1961, 1962
Mountain States Conference	2	1943, 1944
West Coast Conference	2	1955, 1956
Metro Conference	2	1980, 1986
Big 8 Conference	2	1952, 1988
Metropolitan New York Conference	1	1950
Big West Conference	1	1990
Big 12 Conference	1	2008
Independents	5	1947, 1954, 1963, 1966, 1977

There are two relevant issues. The first is that WP:V requires that I should be able to look up a source that confirms that a Pacific 12 Conference team won in 1939, for example. Where do I find that? If citations that allow me to do that are not provided, then the table is not acceptable for Wikipedia. The second issue is the relevance of that particular table to this article. Knowing little about how basketball is organised in the USA, I must admit I cannot see how the Pacific 12 Conference (for example) relates to a list of teams that won the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. Even if that relationship were explained, I am doubtful that the information would be sufficiently relevant: this article is a list of teams, not a list of Conferences. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you all are missing the point of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, but I seem to be the only person to think so. I will remove the equivalent table from College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS to comply with wikipedia's guidelines and the general consensus. 79.46.142.91 (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the main point of WP:V#Burden of evidence is that the onus is on you to say where you got your information from if asked. There is a suggestion that some time should be granted to produce the source(s), unless the text may be damaging to a living person. I can also tell you that you'll get very little leeway in providing sources for featured content, as this is defined as "Wikipedia's best work" and unsourced material has no place in our best work. --RexxS (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not following the spirit of the guideline. The fact is that zero time and zero warning was given to the editor to find references. A deadline would have been much more appropriate. Additionally, none of the editors above followed good practice "to try to find and cite supporting sources themselves." I do appreciate you, however, for posting the table here so it could eventually be sourced and added back. 79.47.84.77 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A bunch of the references in the new table aren't mentioning anything about NCAA basketball championships; they just talk about who's in the given conference. The official SEC page doesn't even give when the school joined, which is needed for any kind of verification. These are not strong enough to support all of the information they attempt to cite (champions and years). There was one Cincinnati Enquirer story that gave national champions from the Big East; this is a much better type of source for this purpose. More like it are still needed for this table to be a viable addition. I'd like to see stronger sourcing like this soon (read: imminent) or I'll be in favor of removing the table again until such time as it is added. Oh, and this is a volunteer website. Nobody is obligated to do anything, though it is nice if people make the effort. I do so quite often myself, but not when I don't think the effort will pay off in the end. This is one of those times, although it would be nice if I was proved wrong. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that we should continually search for better sources--like the reference for the Big East, for example, that you cite. While that is the ideal, sources indicating conference membership by year should be sufficient as the champions by year are already sourced above. If that constitutes original research we would also need to remove the multiple champions table until it is sourced directly. I don't think either are original research, but if I'm wrong (please show me), then we'll need to source both tables. Nonetheless, I've added some new refs and will be looking to improve some others soon. On a side note, I'm glad to hear that some editors put forth a better effort with other articles. I'm not clear on how being a volunteer makes a difference between posting a notice and removing content. :) 95.239.4.135 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes www.sports-reference.com a reliable source? --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

hmmm.... good question. It's a pretty large and well-known site. Has it been used to source anything else on wikipedia? Here's their about page: http://www.sports-reference.com/about.shtml. The main page lists all their categories, including the college basketball one. 95.239.4.135 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly used quite a lot on Wikipedia (Google ' site:en.wikipedia.org "www.sports-reference.com" '), but although it's an indication, that doesn't actually establish it as a reliable source by our definition. I had a look at the site before I asked the question but I still don't see evidence of the kind of editorial oversight or peer-review policy that I'd normally expect for a WP:RS. A whois on the the domain shows that it dates back to 2000, so it's been around for a while. Does it get cited regularly by other reliable publications so that we could confidently say it has a "reputation for fact-finding and accuracy" (per WP:RS#Overview)? --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's currently being used elsewhere on wikipedia, has this discussion already been had on another page? 95.239.4.135 (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think that the Sports Reference family of websites is reliable. The baseball, pro football, and pro basketball websites run by them have passed muster (see User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet), and the Olympics website they run has been proven reliable as well (can't remember the FAC/FLC, but it was found acceptable after questioning). The college sports sites came after all of these, but I think they are sufficiently reliable as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Giants, that'll save me some work. 79.37.49.67 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

thank you. i have added the table back because i don't think it is OR. if it was so would the multiple champions table at the bottom of the page. if you don't think my refrences are good enough we can find new ones that list out conference memberships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B9Wolverine (talk • contribs) 16:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it again because the content still isn't verified adequately. Note that I'm not concerned about listing the champions themselves; that content is repeated from the main table, and is the reason why the multiple champions table is not OR. That is just a simple count. The table you added has sources that not only don't mention the championships, but list current conference memberships by team logo, which is not verifiable for people who aren't college basketball fans. We should be making things easy for people to verify, not hard. I'm not even a fan of the current conference table, and don't think that another table addition is a good idea in general. This is especially true with the insufficient sourcing this has. Please don't re-add the table again without better sourcing that doesn't require logo knowledge. Ideally, we'd be going for references that mention which years teams from a given conference have won titles; that is the standard we should be reaching for, and the other conference table has such sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

you dont have to be difficult. instead of deleting you could help better refrence the table. i will work on it if you stop deleting it. just because you "dont like" tables doesn't mean they should be on here. similar tables are on all championship wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B9Wolverine (talk • contribs) 16:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of the directors of the featured list process and love tables. In fact, I worked on this list. It's just that I want tables to be well-referenced and well-formatted; the formatting is fine, but not the referencing. Please start improving the referencing soon, or the table will have to go at some point. I'm disappointed that you re-added the table before improving sourcing, but will try to be patient. Oh, and just because other stuff exists elsewhere doesn't mean that those articles are doing things the right way, or that they set a standard that should be followed. We have many unreferenced articles on Wikipedia; that doesn't mean it's okay for other articles to not have citations. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

instead of talking about how important you are you should try helping out instead of criticizing. i have now added better refrences. i will try to be patient with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B9Wolverine (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I added some references and with a few more the table should be just well-referenced enough to stay. Is that helpful enough for you? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

yes thank you. the table looks good and informative. i hope next time we can be helpful to each other from the beginning.B9Wolverine (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Map

Jhn31, love the map! Can you make one for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachZZZ (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Giants

Giants, if you don't have anything productive to do here please go to another page. --Jets6969 (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that Louisville and Maryland aren't joining the conferences your edits have them in until the 2014–15 season? Doing a correction such as this is perfectly productive and implying that I'm not a productive editor here (and elsewhere) is a borderline personal attack. Please don't cast aspersions like this on users in the future. I reverted the first edit you made because of the conference inaccuracies. I don't like the table you added with the second edit and still think it's indiscriminate information, but since people seem to want it so badly I won't remove it again. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

than just fix that part. stop taking the dates out too! --Jets6969 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is fixed now, and I didn't take out the dates you were so concerned about. Next time, please don't re-add incorrect information when fixing another item. It leads to more work for other editors, and more aggravation for them. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NCAA Division I men's basketball 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921051734/http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/18257068/kentuckys-run-to-title-much-like-the-season-was-all-about-kentucky to http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/18257068/kentuckys-run-to-title-much-like-the-season-was-all-about-kentucky

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 11:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NCAA Division I men's basketball 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213172937/http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/021908aaa.html to http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/021908aaa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 05:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of NCAA Division I men's basketball 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727072935/http://www.wyomingathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/022803aaa.html to http://www.wyomingathletics.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/022803aaa.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wvgazettemail.com/Sports/201006091302

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Louisville

The 2013 Louisville championship team should not be removed from the table. It should be noted as vacated as was done with the other teams that had the wins vacated. --HeelTar (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The 2013 championship is being forced to be vacated by the NCAA therefore there should be zero record of who the team was because they won it against compliance of NCAA regulations. It is a void championship so it does not matter who won because it does not exist anymore and should be treated as such. Zgrace17 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree as the event still happened. Including it and noting it as vacated is a better record of the actual events. This is also what we've done for all of the other vacated teams on this page and others. --HeelTar (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The event happened sure, and there is plenty written about it to say that it happened. But the fact of the matter is that they are no longer the champions of that year and do not deserve to even be mentioned alongside the other schools who actually won within the rules of the NCAA. It should be erased from the NCAA champions records, it should however be written about in a different setting that does not give them any acknowledgement of actually wining which this site does.Zgrace17 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't just pretend it never happened as if it is erased from history. It needs to be described in a way that discusses the facts, including that they won and that they lost the title. This is an encyclopedia, which is meant as a data base of information. Regardless of personal feelings and objections, they need to be mentioned. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hickory, agreed. I'm not sure why so many want to treat this vacated team differently from every other vacated team on the page. --HeelTar (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To Vacate or Not to Vacate...

Should Louisville's accomplishments be removed from the lower tables or included and noted as vacated? The individual team pages consistently include the accomplishments but note them as vacated (here is an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA_Bruins_men%27s_basketball). I lean towards the latter as the events did occur and the determination to vacate them was made later. --HeelTar (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My idea for resolving this is to have them in the table but strike the team and coach's names. This is the style seen at List of Tour de France general classification winners, a featured list that has to account for numerous stripped titles over the years. That acknowledges that the events happened but doesn't imply that they are currently considered champions by the NCAA. We could do this for the runners-up that have also had records vacated. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That is interesting that the wikipedia practices are completely different in college basketball than they are with professional cycling. What you're suggesting would require changes to a plethora of college basketball pages, including more changes on this very page. To me, the NCAA and conference pages don't hold weight in this argument. Of course a governing body doesn't recognize an event they've vacated. However, we're not the governing body. We're an encyclopedia. To most accurate way to record events as they happened is to acknowledge the events, as they did happen, and note that they were later vacated. To remove them from the record of reality is not accurate. --HeelTar (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)