Talk:List of teams with the most victories in NCAA Division I men's college basketball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College Basketball (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

orphaned[edit]

I have added this list to the Louisville Cardinals and Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball pages within a table containing all time win %Tedmoseby (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

please update the win count 173.49.50.45 (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of teams on list[edit]

I returned NC State to the list at #26. Someone deleted NC State earlier, for reasons not given. NC State it is only 1 win behind #25 Bradley and may claim #25 soon. If for some reason you (whoever deleted #26 NC State earlier for unstated reasons) want an even number of teams on the list, do some work yourself and add #27-30 instead of deleting #26. Err on the side of more good information on here, not less (especially when there's no good reason for the deletion). And, yes, I plan to add #27-30 sometime, when I have the time for it. If you don't want to wait, do the math and data entry yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.245.34 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

UNC 2010 wins[edit]

If pre-season games do not count towards total program wins, then fake post-season wins should not count either. North Carolina's NIT wins do not count as program wins, and the program should not be listed as having more wins than Kansas. They had 2000 wins before not making the NCAA (the real post-season) and they still have 2000 wins.

Of course they count. If you want to remove NIT wins then you have to remove Kansas's NIT wins too, which puts UNC back in front anyway. Ryan2845 (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And how many NIT wins does KU have? Or are you just blowing shit out of your ass? When was the last time KU played in a post-season NIT game? Hell, ESPN doesn't even list NIT games.
KU hasn't been to the NIT in decades, but this is an all-time list, not a recent wins list. These numbers come from the NCAA record books, so take it up with them if you disagree. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh and ESPN definitely lists NIT games, check for yourself on UNCs schedule Ryan2845 (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
They don't list the games on the basketball homepage during the game. Of course they're listed on the team's homepage. Also, the NIT used to be much more reputable before rules, qualifications, the current NCAA tournament, etc. arose.
Yes, I guess you are right. I know realize that the statements I made before were wrong. NIT games shouldn't be counted in overall program wins.

WP:OR[edit]

For some reason, the editors of this page have decided to completely ignore WP:OR. This is unacceptable. If you don't have a source that you can cite for the win totals, THEY DO NOT BELONG ON WIKIPEDIA. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could one reference ESPN or another source that contains the current season's records as a way of updating the list, by adding the "through 09-10 season" totals to a team's '10-11 record? This comes very close to WP:CALC (a little different, but in the same spirit).
I'd be willing to entertain a discussion on it. The biggest issue that I have is that it puts a much heavier burden on the reader to verify the accuracy of the information. I'm fairly certain this would be classified as improper synthesis under WP:SYN. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that WP:SYN is only improper in regards to pushing an argument or agenda. That was the case when only the top 3 programs were being updated, but if a complete and accurate top 25 list could be maintained, I'd see no argument against the implied facts of adding win-loss records from the current season. I would be willing to keep a simple excel spreadsheet to update the top 25 teams (keeping in mind the potential for movement by teams that may move in/out of the list) on a weekly basis. I could cite an ESPN article that incorrectly referenced UK and UNC as being the two all-time wins leaders as evidence that this list should be updated, with proper citation and dating.
Your proposal still fails WP:VERIFIABILITY, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah yeah lock it up this is stupid. Just need to update once a year when the record book comes out. 75.208.146.52 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The stupid thing to do would be to leave it with stale information instead of up to date information. Keeping it updated is better and better serves the purpose of Wikipedia. Using the record book for past years plus a good current-year source like ESPN makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.248.130 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the ESPN results as the season progresses? We have the results from up until the beginning of this season from the urrent source, but why can't we additionally use the ESPN team schedules for the extra sources? We could easily go to http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/2305/kansas-jayhawks, http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/96/kentucky-wildcats, http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/team/_/id/153/north-carolina-tar-heels (for example) and combine the sources. I can see the potential trouble with only the top several totals being updated, but any mistakes will be fixed when the updated official NCAA list is published. Lieutenant pepper (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is better and more informative with full, up to date information. Thank you to whoever has updated it, and kept it updated.

Historical record (NCAA record book) + Current season record (ESPN or other similar site) = well-sourced, credible, useful information, appropriate for Wikipedia Enough said. Leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.4.25 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would anyone complain about the statistics on this page being kept up to date, especially since impeccable sources are used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.16.187.230 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger with List of teams with the highest winning percentage in NCAA Division I men's college basketball[edit]

Both articles seem to have almost the exact same content and are pulling from the same single source. The fact that the list on the current page can be re-sorted by winning percentage should be enough to just delete the other article entirely in my opinion. However, I would be ok with just putting the list from the other article on this page if that is deemed necessary by proper consensus. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think this is a good idea for a few reasons. They are not 'almost the exact same content'. The top 50 in all time wins will not be the same as the top 50 in all time winning percentage. It's nice to have a long list for at least one of those topics. I don't see how you're going to synthesize the two lists to that extent; are you going to find the top 50 programs in terms of winning percentage and list those? That list won't overlap completely with the all time wins list. And there's certainly no reason to curtail the length of what is a good reference list. Are you going to leave out some programs that rank ahead of others in one category but not both? Another reason is that the two lists are entirely different subjects and will be linked for different reference purposes.LanternLight (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The only team in the top 22 in winning percentage that is not listed on the all-time wins article is UNLV. I'd say that makes them "almost exactly the same." We can put a special note on this page indicating that UNLV, even though it doesn't have enough wins to make this list, is #4 in all-time winning percentage.
Whether numbers 23-25 are important to include is another matter. I would say they are not necessary because they are far enough down the list that if someone were actually looking for them they would probably want to go to the original source anyway. These schools are Murray State, DePaul, and Weber State - not teams that have any real national recognition anyway.
Either way, it is dishonest to try to paint these articles as being substantially different in any appreciable way, outside of the lone UNLV discrepancy. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
1) The list of all-time wins now covers the top 50 teams, not 25; are you going to do the work to expand the winning percentage list to 50? If so, do you think UNLV will remain the only problem? 2) "whether numbers 23-25 are important to include is another matter" = "let's delete useful, accurate information in order to merge articles like I suggested". There's no reason to delete and limit information on Wikipedia instead of expanding it, especially solely for the purpose of merging articles. 3) they are substantially different; they measure two completely different things, and the order and composition of the two lists are both different. "dishonest", if it applies at all here (or is an appropriate or civil charge to levy in what should be a cordial discussion), applies to the claim that they're the same thing. They aren't. If they were the same thing, you'd have two pages that were the same. The two pages are different in several ways, some of which are mentioned above.74.129.4.133 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
1) This is not a discussion of the inadequacies of merging non-existent information. If you go expand that article, then sure, there might be more inconsistencies, but as of right now, they don't exist. Stay on topic.
2) "Whether numbers 23-25 are important to include is another matter" actually = "I'm open to discussion on whether they are critical to include." Don't put words in my mouth here. You have already been warned for violating WP:OR, there is no need to escalate this to WP:CIVIL as well. Regardless, you should try actually reading the proposal. If you did that, you would see clearly that we could combine both lists onto a more general page with both sets of records.
3) They are not substantially different. They are both built on exactly the same set of data from exactly the same source. One just presents it in a slightly different way. In order to have a winning percentage, you have to have wins/losses (which are already on this page). 98.165.151.225 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
"This is not a discussion of the inadequacies of merging non-existent information." No one said it was (talk about putting words in someone else's mouth...); the point is that you're wanting to merge a list of 25 items with a different list of 50 items, which will result in an unnecessary mess, unless you want to delete half of one of the lists solely for the purpose of merging it with something completely different. That makes no sense and benefits no one. And you should lay off the catty, misguided and unnecessary comments like "Stay on topic" and "Regardless, you should try actually reading the proposal. If you did that, you would see clearly..." before issuing lame warnings. I didn't violate WP:OR - go back and check.
2) I stand by "Whether numbers 23-25 are important to include is another matter" = "let's delete useful, accurate information in order to merge articles like I suggested." That's not putting words in anyone's mouth; it's an explanation of what would result. I read the proposal. There's no reason for it, and it would mash together two different lists of very different lengths that serve two different purposes.
3) They are substantially different. They're two different things, the two lists include different teams (and would have more differences if they both included 50 teams) and they serve as references for two different things. And I don't see any reason to merge them, or any purpose that would be served by doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.4.133 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You most certainly did violate WP:OR and were warned accordingly. Just because you blanked your talk page doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Like I said before, the diffs speak for themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.129.4.133&oldid=402796146 98.165.151.225 (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. It is not in any way relevant to this discussion, but I didn't. Check the article yourself. Someone posted that in error; someone else inserted the up-to-date information in the article before I edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.4.133 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong? Again, here you are adding unsourced information in violation of WP:OR: 1, 2, 3. I don't know why you are trying to deny this. The diffs clearly show you doing it multiple times. And, as to the relevance, your disruptive history (blanking your talkpage, edit warring, and acting uncivilly: 1, 2, 3, and 4) on Wikipedia shows that you do not have a sincere desire to help this project become reliable given your blatant disregard for WP:OR, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:IRS. I could probably throw in WP:COI and WP:NPOV since your IP and the IPs of the vast majority of the edit warriors are all from Kentucky and you all seem to have some weird agenda in keeping some "race" (a race with no possible finish, I might add) up-to-date. Here it is, one more time: IF YOU DON'T HAVE A SOURCE, LEAVE IT OUT. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge it up boys it's the same stuff. 75.208.146.52 (talk) 09:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, I'm doing this right. Never involved myself in a wikipedia discussion before. Anyway, I, for one, feel that, while these entries come from the exactly same source, whichever is ultimately the "default" position could result in a mild change in the way people perceive the teams. Suddenly UNLV would be a better team than Duke. Suddenly Kansas would be dramatically worse than UNC, rather than approximately equal to them. (Depending on the list, of course.) To that effect, presenting a single list SHOULD create quite a firestorm as it relates to who is perceived as better. I personally would have no problem seeing two lists, side by side on the same page. One list showing win percentage. Another list showing win total. If, however, I am overruled on this, I'd suggest defaulting to win totals, rather than win percentages, as ESPN, the historic big four of Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, and Duke, and the NCAA all are more likely to refer to win totals than win percentage. Additionally, this obviates the need for a "minimum wins" requirement to be included on the list. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.45.236 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Having read the arguments pro and con above I am convinced that merging these two is not a good idea and Wikipedia is better with them as two separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.193.191 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not merge them. Keep both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.34.173 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There most certainly should be two different articles for these two topics (all time wins, and all time winning percentage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.151.213 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't merge these two articles. They should be separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.248.130 (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

These are two very different things that signify different things historically and are of different statistical significance and interest. The two separate pages should be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.4.25 (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

These two pages each have different criteria, different teams listed, and represent different accomplishments. Merging them is not a good idea, and would serve no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.16.187.230 (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected 3 days[edit]

I have semi-protected this page for 3 days due to an edit war amongst IP users. In the meantime, users are required to discuss changes here. Please note that any future edit warring on this can lead to blocking. Regards, –MuZemike 01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This article should be permanently semi-protected. Because there is only one source, and because that source is only updated once a year, this article needs to only be edited once per year when that source is updated. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.217.151.63, 29 December 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} What is so wrong with simply updating the top teams on this list? Due the closeness of the all time wins race, this would seem to be practical and fair. This is my request.

68.217.151.63 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

....so what's your requested edit? CTJF83 chat 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →GƒoleyFour← 23:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, make sure to cite the source of your proposed edit. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Random Changes[edit]

This page has become a mess. I have reverted the table back to how it was at the end of the 2011-2012 season as the first sentence of the article and the source indicates. If somebody wants to do the work to update the entire table based on season standings, then I don't see a huge problem with that as long as the source(s) are added. Keep in mind not to include any victories teams may have had this year over division 2 opponents. I noticed some teams were updated, some teams only had wins updated but not losses, and some people changed the order of teams in the table without updating all the teams. I think updating the table is fine, but the way it was done resulted in an incorrect table and had no sources added for the changes. MochaFlux (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Syracuse[edit]

The NCAA has vacated 101 wins for Syracuse. The changes have been noted on the NCAA site. If you check this page http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careerteamwinloss it will show the new records and how many wins were vacated in the affected seasons. It also shows that Syracuse has a new win total of 1819 and a win percentage of .681. This page should reflect these changes that the NCAA has now made official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.195.211.45 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Official Record book for the 2015-2016 season, which was published at the start of the season, includes the wins and is the primary source for this article. The win total reflects what is in the NCAA record book, not what is on some individual team pages, and the book was published after the NCAA announced sanctions against Syracuse. Ncjon (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The NCAA record "book" is nothing more than a compilation of the various records that the NCAA maintains as part of the records of college basketball. It is accurate as far as the NCAA can make it at the time that it is published, but the records within change during the course of a year. Refusing to keep this site up to date with the day-to-day changes in records throughout the course of a basketball season is understandable, but refusing to update the records to stay consistent with NCAA rulings is not. Furthermore, while the NCAA record book may be your primary source, it is not the primary source for the NCAA. The NCAA maintains the records and then compiles them into the record book. The individual records maintained by the NCAA are much more definitive than whatever is published in the record book once a year. The Syracuse wins vacated by the NCAA are no longer subject to appeal because the NCAA has issued its final ruling. Syracuse had 101 wins vacated and the NCAA records have been updated whether those updates are in the published record book or not. The NCAA shows the following.

2004-05 12-7 (15 wins vacated) 2005-06 0-12 (23 wins vacated) 2006-07 2-11 (22 wins vacated) 2010-11 20-8 (7 wins vacated) 2011-12 0-3 (34 wins vacated) This data is taken from the NCAA website under "Syracuse's year-by-year W/L record, or Syracuse Men's Basketball Won/Loss History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.40.174 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not data taken from any random website. It is data from the NCAA. It is the official record of the NCAA for Syracuse men's basketball. If the NCAA record book is your primary source, you should be open to changes from other sources as long as they are viable. Most other sources should not be considered viable, but this source is the NCAA itself and it is the data that supplies the records for that record book you regard as your primary source. The NCAA has ruled on Syracuse and the appeal is over. They have vacated 101 wins for Syracuse men's basketball and this site should reflect that reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.40.174 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You have some good points, IP editor. Here's the dilemma, the NCAA has published two different sources that reflect different records. It has the Syracuse specific records on the website, that you are citing, and it has its official record book, which is what the article is based on. The record book, by the way, was published in November, more than six months after the NCAA announced Syracuse's penalties. My position - as it is with all the other updates people want to make to this page in-season - is that those should wait until the NCAA updates its official record book, and not be done in season. The article states that the numbers reflect the record book, and that's exactly how they are presented. Ncjon (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The NCAA did not make the changes official until after the appeals process was concluded. That happened after the record book was compiled. However, the appeals process has concluded and the NCAA has updated the Syracuse pages to reflect the changed numbers. They show the altered records as I noted above and they show the total number of victories at 1819. They also show the winning percentage to be .681. The conclusion of the appeals process sets the punishments in place and that solidifies the vacation of the 101 wins in question. I fully agree with the policy of changing this site only to reflect the numbers as of the end of each season, but we now have solid and incontrovertible information that the Syracuse record is something other than the number indicated on this page. Accuracy should be the #1 goal of this page and we know that the number for Syracuse is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.40.174 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Syracuse University itself acknowledges the vacated wins and notes the official record as 1842-864. This is published in their final version of the media guide from last year. Here is the link and you can find the all-time record on page 31 under "Syracuse Hoop History." http://cuse.com/documents/2016/4/14/FinalNotes16.pdf

Note that the 1842 wins is the 1819 wins that I tried to annotate on this page last year added with their 23 wins from last year for a total of 1842. Can we now adjust this page to reflect the reality that Syracuse itself has accepted and published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.41.228 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Just one quick correction. The information can be found on page 8 of that link, not page 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Updated with current NCAA record book as noted by the NCAA. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/2017/D1.pdf check page 72. 108.199.41.228 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)