Talk:Big East Conference (1979–2013)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

officiating?

There was a comment on the "through job of officiating" there was no citation. i deleted it because the line was written with clear bias. trying to keep this article factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.254.2 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Arena Setup

There is a problem with the stub for Big East basketball arenas. Carnesecca Arena's original entry was filed as Alumni Hall- the correct name at the time. This title is now only held in the conference by Providence's Alumni Hall, home to the PC women's team. However, because the Alumni Hall stub re-directs to Carnesecca Arena, PC's Alumni Hall doesn't show up in the list of Big East basketball arenas.

In short: how can we get PC's Alumni Hall to show up in the stub? User:zls44|^(talk) 02:37, 16 July 2006 (EST)

Gallery?

Why not include the gallery? - User:Masonpatriot

Photo galleries are inappropriate in all circumstances. Wikipedia is not a random collection of images. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the policy in proper context:

"Wikipedia articles are not: . . . Unencyclopediac collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. Annotated collections of images or media files illustrating a topic may be encyclopediac if they provide valuable support to an encyclopediac article or group of articles."

First, this shows that your statement of galleries being "inappropriate in all circumstances." is not true. Also, showing logos and mascots is definately within reason and provide support for an article, especially for readers unfamiliar with college althetics (and the images are hardly random... if they were barnyard animals, then they'd be random). Not to mention that logos and mascots are featured promenently on a number of sports-related pages. I see no reasonable argument for excluding them under Wikipedia's stated policy. And the "if everyone jumps off a bridge" statement is kind of a childish response to a reasonable question. - User:Masonpatriot

Totally agree with User:Masonpatriot. The gallery is entirely appropriate to the article and Zoe is just aggressively pushing her personal POV on WP style. Many other articles have similar informative galleries. As for the "jumping off a bridge" comment, well, the distastefulness of that attitude speaks for itself. The gallery should be kept. --84.68.3.202 21:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Any REAL and honest discussion on this topic from Zoe would be appreciated since it's rather silly for the gallery to keep disappearing for no good reason. Thanks. --User:Masonpatriot

Exactly. --84.68.164.157 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the gallery too. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed Zoe went ahead and deleted it. I left her a message on her talk page. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked around at all the other major conference pages and it seems they've also had the problem with the gallery being removed, and then quickly restored. We obviously have some people who really don't like them, and others who do. Its my personal opinion that it greatly improves the articles. What is sports without team recognition? The logos, icons, mascots, and symbols are very integral to college sports. It makes sense to me that it be illustrated here. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Photo galleries are inappropriate in all circumstances is not a valid argument for deletion of the gallery. It is one editors flawed interpretation of policy as pointed out by User:Masonpatriot. The gallery definitely improves the article. --84.65.172.14 08:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said ScottyBoy, and well done for restoring the gallery, despite the persistence of a Rouge Admin. --84.65.67.238 16:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Rouge? I think I'm more of a pinkish coral, myself. OK, let's discuss copyright. All logos are copyrighted by the colleges. We tolerate them as fair use on the individual articles of each of the schools, but the fair use argument falls apart when you combine them altogether into one big gallery. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, if that is your reasoning, however flawed it is, I think you'll need to go take them off of the other conference pages as well. Can you explain why you seem hesitant to do so? I'll provide you the links so you don't have to go looking for them:

• Pacific Ten Conference
• Big 12 Conference
• Big Ten Conference
• Southeastern Conference
• Atlantic Coast Conference
• America East Conference
• Atlantic Sun Conference
• Atlantic Ten Conference
• Big Eight Conference
• Big Sky Conference
• Big South Conference
• Big West Conference
• Ivy League
• Mid-American Conference
• Colonial Athletic Association
• Conference USA
• Mountain West Conference
• Missouri Valley Conference
• Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
• Mid-Continent Conference
• Sun Belt Conference
• Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference
• Horizon League
• Northeast Conference
• Western Athletic Conference

If you're going to present that as you argument, it would only make sense for you to go ahead and take the other conference galleries away too? Or does only this conference gallery need to be removed? Even still...why don't you go ahead and remove the galleries and logos from these links as well as your argument seems to imply their galleries & logo images need to go also:

• National Football League
• Major League Baseball
• National Basketball Association
• National Hockey League
• Canadian Football League
• Bowl Championship Series
• Logo - If you're saying logos should only be used on their respective articles, they'll have to be taken donw from here too.

Look, clearly there's a reason you're only removing this one gallery. I don't care what the reason is, but as an admin, you need to be a little flexible and hear people out. I've now presented to you over 30 examples of other articles that either use galleries or logos. According to your reasoning, they shouldn't use said logos because "the fair use argument falls apart when you combine them altogether into one big gallery." If this is the official policy, as an admin is it not your responsibility to go and remove them from all of these other pages as well?

If you are going to continue and be selective in where you implement this logic of yours, we'll have to take this issue elsewhere (maybe to mediation or the Arbitration Committee). I'm not accusing you of abusing your admin powers, but if you continue removing the gallery from this single article and none of the others, you're not going to come out looking too good? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 05:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of the gallery. Non-free images (and yes, that includes almost all logos) should not be used for decorative purposes. See Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 08:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo, why don't you go ahead then and try removing them from all thos pages and see what kind of backlash you get. The only point I'm trying to make is that Zoe seems to be very selective in where she is implememting her logic. If it's decided to remove them, they need to be removed from ALL of those pages, not just this one. I am wondering why it has only been decided to remove it from this page and no one seems to be concerned about the other pages. I say, if you're going to remove one, remove them all or stop complaining. --ScottyBoy900Q 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to participate in a discussion with an abusive anonymous editor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who this other person is, but I am far from an "abusive anonymous editor", so you can participate in the discussion with me if you feel up to it. So far you haven't been able to give any answers aside from brief sentences which do not address the issues that I am asking your opinion on. If you'd prefer to take this to e-mail instead so you don't have to deal with the "anonymous user," that is fine with me and you can get my e-mail address of my user page, otherwise we should continue the discussion here as it is worth preserving so other wikipedians can participate and voice their opinions. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the abuse Zoe? You are not prepared to discuss this matter because you have no valid counter arguments. Perhaps you would like to address the interpretation of fair use in relation to US copyright law and WP policy set out below. Then, perhaps, we can come to some proper conclusion. Scottyboy is right though, this is the proper place for the discussion so that all editors can see it.

BTW, you are frequently less than polite yourself. [1] --84.68.245.124 09:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So has this gone to the Village Pump yet? I'm interested to see what others would say. -- User:Masonpatriot

I listed it several days ago under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use under United States law

From Fair Use:

The doctrine only existed in the U.S. as common law until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, excerpted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[2]

I would argue that the use of these images in the article (and ALL the other articles cited by Scottyboy) qualifies as fair use by virtue of the fact that the purpose of their use is in line with the example uses cited - comment, scholarship, research and nonprofit educational purposes.

It is disappointing that Zoe, having lost the original argument, jumps ship and sails off in a different direction to attempt to justify her unilateral image deletion on the back of another spurious interpretation. --84.68.154.47 08:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use under United States copyright law doesn't matter here. What matters are the policies at Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 08:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and your point is? From Wikipedia:Fair use:

There are a few blanket categories of copyrighted images whose use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith. These include:

• Team and corporate logos. For identification.

Their use in this article is for identification and therefore in compliance with both Wikipedia:Fair use policy and the fair use provisions od US copyright law. This is a style debate with Zoe. She has already lost one argument and will lose this one as well. The gallery should be kept. --81.79.32.76 08:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo, why don't you or Zoe go ahead then and try removing them from all those pages and see what kind of backlash you get. The only point I'm trying to make is that Zoe seems to be very selective in where she is implememting her logic. If it's decided to remove them, they need to be removed from ALL of those pages, not just this one. I am wondering why it has only been decided to remove it from this page and no one seems to be concerned about the other pages. I say, if you're going to remove one, remove them all or stop complaining. --ScottyBoy900Q 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Rivalries

Is it just me or does the rivalry section look very sloppy. I cant figure out how to spruce it up. It just seems like they were added with every minor and insignificant rivalry mentioned. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the rivalry section is a bit cumbersome. I tend to believe that the "hopeful new rivalries" section is a bit much. --User:Masonpatriot

The rivalries aren't even accurate. For example, South Florida's rival is Central Florida. South Florida is listed as having Miami as a rival, but they are only scheduled to play 2 games with Miami. In addition, South Florida is simply too "small time" for Miami and there is no interest at Miami in having a regular "rivalry" or regularly scheduled games in any sport against South Florida. In that regard, I'm going to change the South Florida-Miami entry to South Florida-Central Florida, which, if you speak to students at either school, will be told is the real rivalry. Only those with delusions of grandeur would consider Miami, UF, or FSU as their rival. 68.204.200.39 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, South Florida (USF) and Miami have agreed to a 4 game series, not two, and are negotiating a long term annual series to be played on Thanksgiving day and televised by ESPN according to reports from the Tampa Tribune. USF does not consider UCF to be a rival, although UCF does. Tribune.http://www.tbo.com/sports/bulls/MGBBO32N1QE.html

There is apparently some debate as to the USF-UCF rivalry. This rivalry has existed for a number of years in baseball and basketball. In addition, any person following the football program of either school should be quite aware that both the fans, the players, and the school administrations consider the game a rivalry. As much was apparent at the USF-UCF game this past September. There is, in fact, a trophy for the winner of the game, which I believe is called the Florida High Tech Corridor Cup. http://www.floridahightech.com/NewsLetter/october2005.htm --about 1/3 down that page. Clearly there is an athletic rivalry between the two schools and no revert should be made in regards to the USF-UCF rivalry being listed. 68.204.200.39 05:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

USF does not now nor has it EVER considered UCF a rival. The two schools have not played in basketball for at least a couple of years, and are not scheduled to play in football beyond 2006. You say that a "rivalry has existed for a number of years in baseball and basketball" and yet USF has played as many or more basketball games vs. Jacksonville (44), FSU (31), Florida (22) and Stetson (22) in state than they have UCF (21). In baseball, USF has played Stetson (142) and Miami (110) more often than they've played UCF (94). If you truly want to look for a rival, consider UAB. USF has played them more often in basketball (53) and football than they have UCF. If you asked a USF fan whether they considered UCF a rival they would laugh. Just because an Orlando-based organization offers a trophy and a few UCF fans want it to be a rivalry doesn't make it so. Please stop propagating this myth.

And yet if you speak to the involved players, the involved coaches, and the school administrations, they consider it a rivalry. And please sign your entries. 132.170.162.119 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Also, a review of your edit history shows that you have previously vandalized UCF pages and/or inserted disparaging statements that violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. 132.170.162.119 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that content must be verifiable. I have verified that UCF and USF are not rivals with irrefutable facts. Unless you can provide facts that show otherwise, you are violating the rules of Wikipedia. That would be impossible, because you couldn't find anybody who works in the USF administration who would state what you are claiming.Calfan 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of games played is irrelevant to a rivalry. If you view other rivalries listed on this page, you would find that many of those teams have not played in years or have played other teams not considered "rivals" more often, yet those games are still rivalries. UCF and USF have played each other often in every sport but football, and this is only due to USF's not starting a football program until the late 1990s. There is a trophy which was presented to USF as the winner of this past year's game. It was accepted by the USF administration. Clearly, if the USF administration did not perceive a rivalry, then they would have declined to be part of the trophy. Further, UCF & USF recruit head-to-head against each other in all sports. The media has further declared these two schools to have a rivalry:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/03/news_pf/Sports/USF_UCF_comes_to_frui.shtml http://sports.tbo.com/bulls/MGBJ8NPXNDE.html http://sports.orlandosentinel.com/default.asp?c=orlandosentinel&page=cfoot/news/AFN2572684.htm http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050917/SPORTS/509170342/1002 http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/NEWS/508250340/1002/SPORTS

After that, let's quote USF Coach Jim Leavitt, as cited in the last linked article "It's a high-interest game, no question about it," said USF coach Jim Leavitt. "It doesn't matter whether both teams are very powerful, having a great year or not. It's going to be one of those typical rivalries that will develop because of geographics." 68.204.200.39 16:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The Football rivalry between Rutgers and Louisville is fictional. The article refers to an incident in a game played in 2005, and other issues aside, I think we can all agree that a single game in a series of 5 games played between the teams since 1976 does not constitute a rivalry. I'd also add that Rutgers has claimed that it was not an intentional logo-stomping, so the incident remains in dispute, and the reference is biased. --AlanK 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and I also question the Louisville-West Virginia rivalry. While they are the dominant football powers in the conference, I do not believe their match-up has achieved rivalry status. Also, what the heck is the "Braxton Trophy?" I can't find any references to it, and it was not mentioned during last year's game. Adamkik 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Members table

School type/religious affiliation

The religious affiliation or designation as "non-sectarian" is not so clear cut. For example, Duke University describes its ties with Methodism as "formal, on-going, and symbolic" [3] while Wake Forest University maintains "a dedication to the values rooted in its Baptist heritage" [4]. Both schools can be considered "non-sectarian" in that they are no longer under the direct auspices of their founding religious organizations. Likewise, Boston College maintains its Jesuit identity in spite of the fact that it severed its formal ties with the Jesuit Order (and thereby the Catholic Church) in the 1960s when it was independently incorporated under a lay board of trustees. Unlike the Catholic University of America, which is under the direct auspices of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or the University of Notre Dame, which is governed by "fellows" who must be priests of the Congregation of Holy Cross, The Trustees of Boston College (BC's governing body) operate independent of any religious jurisdiction. This arrangement is probably similar to that at Duke or Wake Forest, except that the BC trustees have voluntarily chosen to elect members of the founding religious organization to the presidency (though they are not required to do so). In fact, similar arrangements exist at other Jesuit colleges and universities, where both women and non-clerics have been elected to presidency (most recently at Georgetown University). All of this is to say that I think the nature of a school's religious affiliation is beyond the scope of this article, and that "public" or "private" suffice in the context of the members table. --24.63.125.78 10:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps to avoid this...we can keep it simply to Public or Private and avoid the religious aspect altogether. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Completely understand what you're saying. I think there is a perception difference when it comes to BC, though, as they are definatley popularly viewed as a Catholic institution. Also, as a failsafe, I usually check the USNews and World Report profile of each school (most of the information is provided by the institution itself) and BC describes itself as Cathloic while Duke and Wake Forest describe itself as having no religious affiliation.

Also, I don't think it's completely outside the scope to put something small like that in an informational chart, as it tends to show what type of institutions each conference represents. If people want to find out more about how that affiliation affects and guides the instituion they can go to that school's wikipage or actual hopepage to examine further.

Also, is it necessary to post this on EVERY conference page... kind of overkill in my book. -- Masonpatriot

Please refer to Talk:Atlantic Coast Conference so we can keep all the discussion in one place. Thanks. -- Masonpatriot

The author of this seems to have a real obsession with making The Big East a Catholic League. I have never heard of state schools being described in terms of Catholic/Protestant of its location before. I have never seen such an obsession on religion in regards to football, and it cheapens the entire article. 173.171.10.95 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Marquette Logo

I recommend changing the image for the Marquette Golden Eagles from the eagle logo to the new interlocking "MU" monogram. Having attended every Marquette men's basketball home game, I can attest that the eagle logo has been nearly completely eliminated; the monogram is used at center court, on warm-up jerseys, on the cheerleader and dance team uniforms, on the band uniforms, on all scoreboard graphics, and on the tickets. The eagle remains on the the tubas and on the base of each basket. Even BigEast.org uses the monogram. --Maxamegalon2000 21:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Loyola College

It flew totally below the radar, but in January the conference added Loyola College as an associate member for women's lacrosse. I went ahead and added them in the enrollment and logo categories, as well as adding a spot for associate members. Loyola had an updated logo on it's athletics website, but the best version I could find had a teal background, which would have significantly messed up the flow of the logos on the white page background. I went ahead and used the logo from the MAAC page. --Zls44

I removed Loyola from the listing table and the logo gallery, mainly because those are areas that are really relevant for full members of the conference. I have no problem having a section to list associate members, however. I think this course of action keeps the Big East page more in line with other conference wiki articles. Sorry, I just don't think playing Women's Lacrosse in the Big East means Loyola should be listed equally with the other members as it just introduces unnecessary confusion to the article. Masonpatriot 06:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BigEast.org doesn't even have Loyola on the top of their page with the other logos. --Maxamegalon2000 14:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Future Plans

The following statement is currently located in the article:

Other schools rumored to be a part of further Big East expansion plans include the University of Memphis, the University of Central Florida, Miami University, the University of Toledo, East Carolina University, and Navy, though Navy has allegedly twice refused an invitation.

Could someone please provide an external reference to back this statement up. I have never heard of any of these teams being considered for future expansion. --ScottyBoy900Q 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy Moses, the conference is considering adding MORE teams? The Big East is way too big already.J.R. Hercules 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess is if the statement is true, the Big East is planning on splitting into football and non-football conferences, so the Big East may be looking into taking 4 football schools to 12 so it could have a football championship game like the ACC, Big XII, SEC, and so on. However, I also haven't heard anything about any new plans of expansion. --S. Ellis 09:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the entire paragraph as speculative and non-sourced. We don't do original research and we sure don't do the crystal ball stuff. Mike H. That's hot 08:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call, actually Commissioner T (tranghese? sp) stated that the Big east is not actively persuing adding anyone, and specifically said that anyone interested would have to pick up the phone and call him...because the people ready to do business right now (UCF, Eastern Carolina, Navy) in his words are not "attractive" enough. the interview is on the bcs official website. also, that bit about Navy turning down the big east twice, that was years ago.

Logos

The logos are not covered by our fair use policy on this page. The logo only needs to be shown on the article about the team. Fruther reverts will result in page protection, or blocking. ed g2s • talk 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute this assertion. Ed, this is your opinion, it is not policy. You are not authorized to make such statements. You should discuss this at the request for mediation. Johntex\^talk 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is our policy. We have already established that you think our policy is "if it's useful and legal, it's okay", but that is simply wrong. ed g2s • talk 18:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is highly uncivil to threaten editors that have an honest and good faith difference of opinion regarding this issue with blocking... especially from an editor that was recently blocked for engaging in the same type of draconian and individualistic interpretation of policy elsewhere. -- Masonpatriot 19:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The block was overturned. Such action is only necessary to prevent an edit war. ed g2s • talk 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• We obviously disagree on what the intent of the policy is, so let's clarify it. I have proposed a policy clarification on use of sports team logos at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the logos becuase the discussion on the above page hasn't yeilded any consensus that says they must be deleted. Johntex\^talk 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic and Research Achievements???

What does Academic and Research Achievements have to do with an article about a collegiate athletics conference??? The links to the member schools are supplied, this information should really be placed on those pages. Suggest removing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.139.156.122 (talk • contribs) 13:48, November 14, 2006

Agreed. Relaxing 13:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that reflecting certain achievements (especially those that have come from partnerships between schools within the conference) have a place on the page, but the section in it's current incarnation seems a bit slanted... To tough to die 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I know anonymous commenters don't carry much weight around here, but I too find the "academic and research achievements" section silly. Academic partnerships between schools have almost no correlation to athletic ones. If there's any overlap, it's probably an artifact of geography/stature, which has no meaning for this article. 65.82.126.100 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BCU

I can't believe that there are so many topics of discussion and nobody noticed that in the first line of about the league ".....Syracuse invited Seton Hall, Connecticut, and BCU to form a conference...."

So what is BCU? Boston College University? I'm not changing it to BC (Boston College) myself just because maybe there is a BCU (British Columbia University?) that I'm just not aware of, that was part of the original Big East. 128.252.188.235 04:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

South Florida

I notice that South Florida's football achievements have been glossed over completely, not mentioning the 2005 win over Louisville or the 2006 win over West Virginia that knocked them out of BCS contention. I think that needs to be remedied. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an intentional glossing-over of South Florida. Most of the season recaps deal only with the teams that were ranked, won the conference title, and how teams performed in bowl games. In particular, since mentioning the 2005 game would make it the only game that season listed in the article, I do not think it belongs, as it certainly was not the most important game in the conference season that year. Also, South Florida's win over WVU isn't discussed, because South Florida was not in contention for the Big East title. I don't think it is necessary to list the games that knocked teams from BCS contention, particularly when the article is about the conference, not the BCS or the 2006 Big East season. Boneillhawk 13:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What about South Florida's up and coming status as a football team? On our football team article we have sources that mention it. I'm not trying to push for POV about my university, but I do think something needs to be said. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the football team article is an appropriate place for discussing USF's status, but going into it to a large extent seems bad. I'd recommend adding something to that effect in a short paragraph about the (very young) 2007 season. Maybe something like "One of the major storylines going into the 2007 is the rising status of South Florida in the conference." Preferably with some citation to a pundit or something. Boneillhawk 03:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. I didn't want an entire section, just a mention. CBS Sportsline ranks us #18 right now, and we just missed the AP Top 25 poll. I'm sure there are more things out there. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Basketball

"Since the late 1990s, basketball in the Big East has been led by UConn, under the guidance of Jim Calhoun and Pittsburgh (since the early 2000s) under Ben Howland and later, Jamie Dixon."

This seems to be a bit subjective for this article; this sentence should either be objectively explained (exactly how Pitt and UConn have "led" the conference) or removed. Otherwise, you risk getting into a "whose team is better" debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.233.38 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Realignment article?

I think that the section on the ACC/Big East/C-USA realignment morass is too large for this article, and yet significant enough to warrant its own article. Anyone care to start it? Unschool (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. I'm going to add it to the wikipedia project Pittsburgh int the hopes that someone can fill it in. Slingstone (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Realignment should definitely be included as a separate article since it started a nationwide chain reaction, going so far as to drag even the Sun Belt into the mix.Traffic Demon (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All caps for conference name?

Does the conference name really need to be in all-caps throughout the article (i.e. "BIG EAST")? Is there a style rule on this? Boneillhawk (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rule at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks):

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":

• avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
• instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

I've undone the change. Good catch. Oren0 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bowl Tie-ins?

A list of Football Bowl Tie-ins would be convenient for this article. I know that the Big East Champion is guaranteed an At-Large bid in one of the BCS bowls (assuming the Conference champion is not already in the BCS National Championship game), and I noticed from other articles that the Big East has tie-ins with the Gator Bowl and Meineke Car Care Bowl. A comprehensive list would be nice.

DaDoc540 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The info is available at automatic bids to non-BCS bowls, feel free to add something about it here if you'd like. Oren0 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Split off article?

Does anyone else think that the section on the realignment should be split off into its own article? (Perhaps entitled "ACC-Big East Realignment" or "2003 college football realignment" or something similar) I wasn't sure if there was enough meat there to split it off or not, so I wanted to get some other people's opinions. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely be in favor of this. We could then just leave a brief synopsis on the Big East page. I would run it by the group over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to see if anyone would like to help, but I definitely like "2003 college football realignment" or "2003 college athletic conference realignment" because there were more teams moving around than just those within the Big East. The shift of teams from the Big East to the ACC cause the Big East to raid Conference USA, who raided the MAC & WAC, who raided the Sun Belt, who picked up some I-AA/FCS schools. There would be a lot to write about, and I'm sure there are many other college football guys that would contribute, including myself. Although the realignment deals were signed in 2003 they didn't come into effect until 2004 so that may also affect the article's title. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think creating a separate article to cover this would be a good idea as it pertains to multiple conferences and not just the Big East. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The membership timeline

The membership timeline is almost impossible to read, with blue link text set against a red background... Btornado (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Member Map

Seems to be missing a small little Catholic school in northern Indiana that's gone to 29 NCAA basketball tournaments and won the Commissioner's Trophy just about every year. 208.67.167.69 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

16 or 17 teams

the opening said that there are 17 school but the charts in the aritle only have 16 teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.161 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Football section

Paragraphs 3 and 7 in the Football section has essentially repeated information on Temple. Suggest rewriting to combine sentences from both paragraphs into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.230.221 (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitt & Syracuse

I updated certain parts of the page to reflect the news that Pitt and Syracuse are headed to the ACC. But there are some things which I do not know how to edit, or that even need to be edited. I know the graphics are going to need some editing. Once again, not something I know how to do. I imagine that with the massive conference realignments going on right now in college football, this page is going to need quite a bit more editing in the next few years. Mwhit42 (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pitt & Syracuse information in the Members section has been updated based on comments made by Big East Commissioner John Marinatto. He told the New York Times (19 September 2011) that the two members would not be able to leave until June 2014, so that is how it is listed for now. That doesn't mean it won't change again in the future, but that is the current information as far as I know. Mdak06 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

TCU

Remove TCU from the future members section until they refuse the invitation they have received from the Big 12. I would say it's highly unlikely the Horned Frogs come to the conference. DavidSteinle (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's just speculation. They currently have an agreement to join the Big East. Unless and until that agreement is undone then TCU is to be considered a future member. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Revisions to the Members section

I've revised the Members Section of this page. This is a basic summary of the changes.

New "Full Members" Section

An introductory line stating the membership as of the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year was added. This introduction should be updated whenever teams change.

Previously, there was no introduction, and the section simply started with the table of full members. This table has been placed into its own sub-section.

"Former Members" Section Divided

This sub-section was divided into two sub-sections: Former Full Members and Former Associate Members. Each table contains the appropriate institutions and has notes (below the tables) if a member was once the other type of member. Some institutions that are or were full members were first associate members, and it is more helpful to the reader if all of that information is available.

Timeline Colors Changed, Loyola Added

The dark blue bars for the full members that play football was changed to green. There were several complaints about the readability of the blue text on the darker blue bars; this corrects that problem.

Two colors were added for associate members: orange (for football-only members) and yellow (for other associate members).

The previous timeline was somewhat misleading since it had Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Temple listed as having joined the Big East as "football members" in 1991. Miami was the only full member at the time; Rutgers and WVU joined as full members in 1995, VT in 2000, and Temple was never a full member. The additional color makes this clear.

Loyola University Maryland (associate member in women's lacrosse) was added to the timeline in yellow. Loyola's date of joining the conference is listed as 2005 because they joined for the 2005-2006 academic year. If there are/were other associate members in other sports, they should have yellow used to mark their membership timeline.

Temple's bar was also changed to indicate its full membership in the Atlantic 10 (its football affiliations are still listed). Mdak06 (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of Members

The new map that was recently added (showing the locations of the member schools) seems to go a bit overboard on color. I think it is nice that it distinguishes football and non-football members, but having one of the school's colors as the text of the school name makes it difficult to read in some cases (and confusing when the "school" color is a mismatch for the "football or non-football" color).

Using black as the color for water is also a problem, since there is text that is based on white crossing over to text that is on top of black. It's not easy for some folks to read and it just looks bad. The ocean should be either a light blue or light gray (which is what it was before).

In short, the map would be better if the ocean was a lighter color and the text color for each school was either black or was a match to the football/non-football color. Mdak06 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WVU Assumption

Firstly the map should not show the locations of the schools in 2012. It should show the current year. Secondly we cannot assume WVU is leaving after the current season since until said otherwise they cannot leave until 2014. Does not matter about opinion. This is about facts. 24.36.110.176 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline including previous memberships

Someone updated the timeline to add a bunch of previous conference memberships for conference teams. While this information is interesting, I think it made it difficult to read the chart, especially since the timeline started in the 1910's, over 60 years prior to the formation of the Big East. IF this information is added back, I think it shouldn't go back much farther than the formation of the Big East. Cogswobbletalk 18:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, WVU is under contract to play in the big east in 2012. Until the courts determine the penalty for beach of contract and WVU agrees to pay that penalty, they will be in the big east. The penalty should be based upon the financial harm to the league (TV contracts, BCS standing, rescheduling costs, etc), and I don't see WVU coming up with enough to cover that. Then again the are trying to have the case heard in sympathetic courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.199.30 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to make timelines more consistent

I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.

for example, a school with a yellow bar means:

• An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
• A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
• A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
• A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
• A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
• A full member of the Big Sky

Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered. To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines

I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)

I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added. Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.

I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.

Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing thie discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Loyola University Maryland

I can't find any info about what kind of relationship Loyola has with the Big East, but I see that they won the Women's Lacrosse Championship. Even if they're some sort of affiliate member just for Women's Lacrosse, shouldn't they be added in some manner to the maps or timelines? I have no affiliation with the university, so it's no big deal, but they're playing precisely the same number of Big East sports as will Boise State and SDSU.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is true then it should be added in an appropriate manner. Feel free to do so. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a little one paragraph blurb in there. But I'm not even going to try to attempt to add them to the charts or the map. That's just too scary! SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a very light WP editor these days. I don't spend time on things like that anymore. It's rare that I even commented here, but I've had WP up on my browser the last few days. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why they were removed, but they had previously been listed on the timeline and as an associate member.Smcollin33 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Serious error to article

As of this date, Boise State has neither informed the Mountain West Conference nor the Big East Conference that it is officially moving. According to this article, Boise State is awaiting a decision as to where to place its so called Olympic sports. Since Wikipedia cannot predict the future this article should not state or imply that Boise State is an official member. Moreover, if Boise State does not go to the Big East, SDSU has an out in its contract with the Big East to back out of its commitment to the BE. However, that would definitely be predicting the future, so the article. But, San Diego State is NOT a member of the Big East as of today. I'm not sure when it is official, but I believe it's July 1. Unless there's a massive uproar, I feel as though we should change the status of Boise State to "potential" or something. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You are only partially correct. Yes, Boise State has not officially informed the Mountain West Conference that they are leaving. However, Boise State has made an agreement with the Big East Conference to join them. Details of the agreement were reported here in the Idaho Statesman. This article from CBS Sports confirms that San Diego State has officially notified the Mountain West of its departure, Boise State has not notified the Mountain West of its departure, and Boise State has "signed a contract to join the Big East."

Having Boise State and San Diego State listed as "future members" of the conference is similar to how other future members of collegiate athletic conferences are listed on other Wikipedia pages. If nothing changes, then there will be a contractual conflict, as Boise State will be both obligated to be in the Mountain West for football and in the Big East for football. However, given the fact that Boise State has an agreement with the Big East and is trying to find a home for its Olympic sports, I think it makes sense to list BSU as a future member. If Boise State changes its mind, and pays whatever exit fee is required and does not join the conference, we can update the article at that time to reflect it. But right now, the contract says that Boise State is joining the Big East for football. Mdak06 (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with "future members". I think either I stated my concerns wrong, or they were misinterpreted. The map and the list of stadia showed Boise State and SDSU as already members. Neither are, in fact, members. I'm not arguing the point that both schools are "probably" going to join, but, in fact, both schools have a set of outs which might cause this article to be out of date fairly quickly. For example, the Big East Conference may sign a lousy deal for TV first and second tier rights. Boise St. may lack a home for their olympic sports and stay in the MWC, and SDSU would have to follow suit. That's why we are not allowed to predict the future. I think you think I want to excise everything, all I wanted to do is fix the map (don't know how to do that), and remove the stadiums (I did that). Here's an example. The NHL Board of Governors had voted to change the divisions in hockey. Everyone jumped on the NHL article to change the new divisions. A bunch of people reverted (I didn't even have time to revert, because someone else would). Then the NHLPA voted down the new division alignment (annoyed me to no end, I think it's dumb that Florida plays Winnipeg in the same division), so it never happened. Wikipedia has a very strong guideline that we should not predict the future. When and IF Boise and SDSU join the Big East officially, which won't happen until June 30, 2013, they are future members and should be deleted from maps and other stuff. And remember, their contract with the Big East has a boatload of outs (one of which is value of contracts) that cost neither school any money to remain where they are up until June 30, 2013. This article should stick with what is today. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we probably agree more than we disagree. I don't really care either way about the listing of the stadiums/arenas/etc. I'd just follow whatever the convention is regarding that. From what I've seen, it's common to highlight departing or joining members in certain colors and list everything. As far as the maps, I agree that the map should reflect the current lineup of the conference (regardless of whatever it is expected to be). Right now, it should have 8 non-football members and 8 football members. It should be the same once we reach July 2012 with the exception of removing West Virginia and adding Temple as a football-only member.

I'll also agree that both Boise State and San Diego State have several ways they can get out of the Big East before they join for either little or no money. But as of now, they have both have signed a contract to join the Big East, so I'd say that they have to be considered "future members" with no "potential" qualifier.

If someone can tell me what the font is that was used for the names in the map, I'll change it myself. I'm no graphic artist but I can make the changes needed with what I've got (assuming I have the font on my computer).

I don't see the comparison with the NHL as the same. I agree that the folks who jumped to edit the NHL's page jumped the gun, because the NHLPA hadn't agreed to the changes at the time. In this case, both Boise State and San Diego State have signed a contract with the Big East. In Boise's case, it's still a bit muddled because they haven't notified the Mountain West of their departure, but I think it's legitimate to base their "future" and not "potential future" status on the fact that they did actually sign a contract to join the Big East.

The one thing that does need to be changed about how the article is today (other than the map) is the statement "Boise State has not informed either the Mountain West Conference or the Big East Conference that they will be moving ..." The part about not informing the Mountain West is accurate; the part about not informing the Big East is incorrect.Mdak06 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't already, I'll fix that. There must be a former version of the map on Commons. We appear to agree on 99.9999% of the stuff, so I'm not too worried. "Potential" future members sounds silly, so I hope I didn't suggest that anywhere. I was just thinking about the map. If we were to keep it with BSU and SDSU, then we should technically remove Pitt and SU, though the exact date of departure is still up in the air there too (though I read that Pitt has or will file a lawsuit). I just got a headache.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted both maps (I think your error when you tried was that the file name is case sensitive). User Monte17 had created the new maps and did a good job (even though we've changed them back to prior versions). Perhaps we can have him make the changes next month when West Virginia is gone and football-only Temple has rejoined.

I think one policy we should follow from this point on (which I did when I made changes) is for the caption of the map to say that it is for "the 2011-12 academic year" (or whatever year it happens to be for) in any cases when there are expected future changes. If no changes are expected (e.g. Big Ten) it doesn't matter, but if changes are expected, it helps to clarify what people are actually looking at.Mdak06 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job. I couldn't figure out the history of the maps, and that "PNG" is different than "png" seems counterintuitive, but glad you figured it out. I agree with the AY mention. That makes sense. This article will have to be updated every July 1 at least! SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

USF Facilities

I noticed that the USF facilities are not listed in the conference facilities list, can someone please update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.111.136 (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WVU gone

West Virginia is offically out of the Big East. Time to take them off the map by uncoloring the state outline of WV. DavidSteinle (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Also changed the map that shows the locations of each school to an excellent one that Monte17 created a while ago. Mdak06 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Errors

The opening is riddled with grammatical errors at the beginning when talking about football ranks. Someone needs to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Boise's out.

They've decided not to leave the Mountain West after all.[5] 69.73.47.181 (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Loss of the Name

Any suggestions on how we should treat today's news that the "Catholic 7" schools are planning to leave in July 2013 and are going to take the Big East name with them? Should we treat the Catholic 7 going forward as the "true" Big East and switch it around with the football schools leaving (which seems inaccurate since it is still technically the Catholic 7 departing). Or should we simply create a new Big East article for the Catholic 7 and note the name change in this article (and when the time comes change the name of this article to whatever name the football schools go with) and move the "new" Big East into the spot occupied by this article? Gateman1997 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Three articles. One on the present Big East (1979-2013), one on the Catholic 7 Big East, and one for whatever the FB schools change their conference name to. I have a feeling we'll end up with something weird like the Catholic 7 buying the basketball history and the MSG tournament while the FB schools retain the FB history and the ESPN TV contracts.Froo (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We'll probably have to wait a little longer to see how it all works out. Right now it's uncertain if either of the new conferences will claim the history of the current Big East as their own. When the Big 8 became the Big 12, they did not claim the history or the Big 8 as being part of the same conference. If neither of the 2 new conferences claim to be a continuation of the current Big East, then 3 separate articles would be appropriate. However, if 1 of the 2 "new" conferences claims they are just a continuation of the current Big East, then 2 articles would probably be more appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If no conference retains the history of the Big East, that pretty much is a convincing argument for three article.s SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, three articles now and if one of the new conferences claims the history of the current BE then merge this article into that one. What if both conferences claim the BE history... (Off topic but the B12 doesn't claim the B8 b/c it's really the B8 + some of the SWC, and Texas came from the SWC) --96.32.138.125 (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever decisions are ultimately made, the ongoing turmoil pretty much trashes this article as badly as it trashes the conference... GWFrog (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Big East Conference Dab links

I think we should wait to change all the links until they make things (names and who moves where) official. There has been no moves yet. All teams are still in the Big East now, conferences have not changed yet and wont tell June 30, 2013. Slow down people. Theworm777 (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's official as of today. . I would wait until the end of basketball season before using the redirect page thoough.

I'd wait until July 1. There is still baseball and softball season, lacrosse season, and track...Pvmoutside (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Timeline edit war/consensus

There has been a timeline edit war going on here for over a week. We need to come to a consensus on how the time line should be. I think it should show where all schools are going from here to make it easy for people to find where teams are when they come to this page after July 1, 2013 when the moves and changes happen. But some people mostly with IP accounts keeps making it end in 2013 so it cant show where teams have went. Please vote on how you think it should be. Theworm777 (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It should match the article structure, there should be no war regarding the timeline. With three articles just chop the timeline off to reflect that same structure. Where everyone goes is messy and to have some of the teams remaining in the conference is just bringing up the exact same argument about how to organize the articles. Right now, the unnamed conference is the business continuation and the Big East (2013) has the name. There's no confirmed reports on the history as far as I know, but it was announced at the last UConn-Providence game that the history and records were going with the name. It's an unknown, it should be three articles right now, and as such the timeline should not have any members past 2013, much less new members. Once the articles are decided based on who is the continuation, then the timeline can be changed to reflect it.

There will not be a "continuation". The 3 pages will stay. This will be the history of the Big East (1979–2013) like the title says and it should show where teams have went from here. It is not "messy" its how the timeline should work and just cause the page says (1979–2013) that doesn't mean we should end the time without showing where teams are at. It would also be nice if you sign your posts so people know who they are talking to. Theworm777 (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The decision was made for 3 separate articles and this article ends at 2013. If, at some point in the future, the decision is made to merge this article with the Renamed Big East Conference article, then the timeline can go beyond the 2013 split. There is no more need to show where teams are going on this article's timeline than there is a need to show where teams are coming from on the "renamed" article timeline or the Catholic 7 article timeline. Those articles' timelines begin at 2013 and this article's timeline should end at 2013. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be some reflection on the future teams for this article since those teams affected have been invited to the present Big East a number of months ago and list the invite on their respective pages until things change.......Pvmoutside (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to say where they are going in the article, but having the timeline go past the cut off date for the article isn't really appropriate. We don't start the timeline a year before the conference creation date to show where teams came from, so why would we extend the timeline to a year after the conference fell apart to show where teams in the old conference are going? And it's especially not appropriate to have the new teams which aren't even coming in until later this year or next year to be in the timeline when they were not even in this conference as it currently exists. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

normally, I would agree with you, but this league makeup and future membership is complicated. Technically, the old Big East is not forming a new League, but changing their name based on their reported legal agreements with the New Big East. If you look at the future football schools, they all mention joining the Big East, with the year they are joining. The timeline can still reflect that...........just my 2 cents.....Pvmouside

Well that's an argument for merging Renamed Big East Conference back into this article. If they are both really the same conference, then we should not be maintaining 2 separate articles on the same conference per WP:Content forking. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Who owns the records, trophies, etc?

I'm still confused by this article and Big East Conference. Who owns the records? If a SMU basketball player breaks the season scoring record, is it for the new, unnamed league? Or is it a record that includes comparisons back to 1979? Or does the new Big East Conference own those records? None of the articles seem to make it clear if this conference is dead, and the two new ones start with a clean sheet of records, championships, etc.

I was at the second Big East Tournament in Syracuse, remember getting upset with the NCAA for not giving an automatic bid to the Cuse, and now watching it ripped apart. On to the ACC I guess. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It is unknown who will keep anything right now. But I would think the 7 basketball schools who keep the name will keep the basketball records. The football schools will get the football history but I am not too sure. Once the football schools get a name and web site we will know more. Not too sure how the website will change hands. We should know by July 1st the date set for the 7 basketball schools to form their new Big East and the new football schools come to the football conference. Theworm777 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Facts: The "Catholic 7" (including 4 charter members of the conference) and the 3 new schools (only 2 are also Catholic) keep the Big East name. The "FBS schools" (including only 1 charter member) retain most of the money in the Big East treasury. The ownership of the conference history remains to be seen, but the "new" Big East seemingly has a much stronger claim than the other, as-yet-unnamed, conference. GWFrog (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, they could all just start again with new records. That would be sad. Technically, given that BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Va Tech, and eventually, Louisville will be in the ACC, I could argue that the ACC gets those records! OK, I'm not super serious. I hope that the records from all those seasons just don't die. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FLASH!!! It looks like most of us missed the fact that, in Wednesday's news conference, the schools with the Big East name seemed to be laying claim to the legacy. "Today we relaunch the Big East..." and “We are rebooting the Big East...” came from the president of Providence, and there was an emphasis both on the fact that four of the schools have been there from the beginning and that the new members were joining a conference that, while new for them, was not a new conference... GWFrog (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the conference legally dissolving?

I saw eleventy billion hits on my watchlist from links being changed. My question is this: we know that the Catholic 7 will be keeping the Big East Name, but I thought that the football side of the conference was keeping the conference. If it's the same conference as opposed to the old one dissolving, then our article structure makes that very confusing. If the conference is legally being dissolved and two new entities created, then that's fine, but I haven't seen a source. (It may be there and I just haven't seen it.) --B (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO article titles don't necessarily follow the associated legal entities. For example, see all the pro sports franchises which were relocated and renamed, and had new articles created. i.e. Atlanta Thrashers -> Winnipeg Jets, etc. The article structure discussed above works best IMO because the all sports/football conference is changing names along with significant membership changes, even if it is legally the same entity. Otherwise we would have to use something like hatnotes on the new BE page to refer to the "American 12" (or whatever name they decide), and persistent disambig problems when people link to the wrong conference, which would happen when someone who is unaware of the history links to "Big East" when they mean "American 12" or "Big East (1979-2013)". --Above others (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we get confirmation that the BE is legally dissolving and the new BE will not be considered a continuation of the first, re-merge the articles and make the history section of the old article a History of Big East Conference article. Signficant membership changes IMO is not relevant, the WAC has had arguably more membership changes (8 of 10 members leaving compared to 8 of 15 members leaving). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

See the "Loss of The Name" section above. The consensus seems to be that for now we should have three articles, and when it is determined which new conference(s) will keep the history of the current BE or whether it will be split, we should merge the relevant articles. I don't see what's wrong with the established consensus --Above others (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The membership timeline should match the organization of the articles. The articles are split in three, but the membership timeline currently reflects a two article organization where the basketball schools leave and the football schools remain. For now, this timeline should terminate in 2013 with no continuing members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.204.33 (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the latest indication is that the FBS football schools are departing (along with the largest part of the conference's monies) while the other schools (and the three (so far) additions fully intend to continue being the Big East that has existed since 1979, but as the primarily-basketball conference it was intended to be from the beginning. This means that the Big East (2013) article will probably have to be merged with this one, while the article on the new conference of FBS schools (Renamed Big East) will need to begin from scratch. This seems to be where things are going, despite current commissioner Mike Aresco's claim that the new FBS conference will be a re-branded continuation of the Big East. GWFrog (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

New members to New Big East???

User:72.208.35.197 entered Xavier and Butler to the timeline as new members of the "New" Big East, although this is only a rumor which neither school has confirmed or denied, so I deleted the change. If it comes to pass, they can be added to the timeline of whatever article ends up being created for the new/old conference... GWFrog (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9000502/catholic-7-schools-keep-big-east-name-new-league-next-season-according-sources Butler & Xavier joining new BE was reported by ESPN so in my judgment it can be included --96.32.138.125 (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's rumor still. Until we have sources from Butler and Xavier, your judgement means nothing in the scheme of how we rank sources for articles. See WP:RS SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL, there is barely any of my own "judgment" here, it has been accepted by WP that ESPN is a RS. But w/e, I'm done here --96.32.138.125 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ESPN is a RS, but (and it's a big but) they reported it as a rumor from the very first, and continue to state that "...it is reported..." and not that it has been confirmed. GWFrog (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it appear to be a bit more certain after the weekend. We should know more Thursday. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2013/03/04/catholic-seven-7-negotiations/1963671/

The discussion at WP:RS/N says that ESPN can be used as a source with in-text attribution. --Above others (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI: ESPN or any other source is not a RS when reporting rumors. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News Organizations states: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." GWFrog (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"Big East Conference"

The usage of Big East Conference is under discussion, see talk:Big East Conference (2013–present) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)