Talk:Vacated victory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose of article[edit]

I had been under the impression that this page was going to be fashioned into an essay that summed up what's known and what isn't about how "vacated" victories in NCAA contests should be treated, and describing whatever consensus Wikipedia editors reach on how to treat such contests in NCAA-related articles. I'm not sure how useful the exercise is as a standalone article, inasmuch as the universe of known information is captured in one official statement of NCAA policy plus one on line article describing the views of someone at the NCAA, and two similar ones without sources. Much of what is in this article right now largely sums up our discussions in one or another forums, which doesn't seem to have much of a place in an actual, properly sourced article. I'll hold off editing the article either way until it's clear what the mission is. What're folks' views? JohnInDC (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the confusion, but this sandbox is purely meant to be an article about vacated victories. The essay, which you are obviously welcome to expand (I only created it to get the ball rolling), is here. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case I think that a lot of material that's here now is not properly sourced or is OR, or includes commentary and or synthesis that isn't appropriate to an article. E.g., the listing of various glitches & anomalous results, or the parenthetical observation that the 2009 articles appeared at a time when vacated victories were in the news a lot. Maybe instead note that three articles appeared discussing the Alabama situation in 2009, and all concluded that "series records" should write the game off entirely. I haven't seen much of anything about how streaks should be calculated (does the winning team reset at zero or just subtract one win?) and so that discussion may not have a place here either. Also, my edit summary comment about distinguishing "vacated victories" and "vacated games" should be disregarded, since the sources (sadly) don't draw that useful distinction - the NCAA sort of wraps up the concepts all into one and then applies them as they see fit. Discussions about specific rivalries affected may best be relocated to a "see also" section linking to related WP articles, inasmuch as a vacated victory will affect the series records of all opposing teams played by the penalized team, not just the big rivals, and I see particular reason to identify, in article text, only a subset of the many records affected. Certainly the higher profile rivalries will gain more media attention so maybe there's a way to work the concept in that way. Anyhow, all that stuff is valuable explanatory material, I think, but much of it may not be suitable in an article that is intended to summarize what's been illuminated or established by reliable sources. Oddly enough we seem to have done more serious thinking about this issue, and its implications, than anything else I've seen, so we may have to wait a bit for the sources to catch up! Anyhow those are just some thoughts for shaping the article; I'd make the edits myself but I think Levdr1 and perhaps you, Nolelover, are a bit more enthusiastic about this particular article and I may better serve the undertaking by staying out of your way. JohnInDC (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, history is good. Thanks for that suggestion back at the project page. A summary of all NCAA forfeits and vacated games would be a huge undertaking but also a useful list for a lot of readers. And the retrospective point of view of such a section would be, I think, far better suited to the encyclopedia than an article describing how some kinds of victories "will" or "should" or "may" be treated in the future. (Which, now that I think of it, may be the reason that I feel that that discussion is better included in an essay than in an article - "prediction" really isn't the province of WP articles, I don't think.) JohnInDC (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood and thought this was the place for the essay, which is why I wrote it in the manner I did. cmadler (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) First off: you staying out of my way?!? Heck no! :) I'm really not a writer, so I'll need all the help I can get. Anyway, I agree that the sources might actually be here yet (although as cmadler said, by Nov. 26...), but hey, we have no WP:deadline. ;) We'll work on it, and yes, at this point there's lots to do (I wouldn't think of moving it in its current state). Lastly, as to history, note that someone just suggested something to that effect, so we probably won't need a comprehensive list. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the essay. JohnInDC (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The NCAA policies apply to all of the sports it oversees. Why confine this article to NCAA football? Indeed it is more likely to confuse, rather than enlighten, the naive reader who may come away from the narrow article thinking that the NCAA would treat different sports differently. It would make more sense to write an article entitled "Forfeits and Vacancies (NCAA athletics)", with an internal section about whatever additional is known specifically about "series records in college football". Though even then I can't imagine that the practices would be any different for basketball, baseball, lacrosse or what have you. (I also think that page titles in sandboxes are altogether provisional anyhow so I'm not going to clutter up folks' watchlists by making the move now, and before discussion.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed as I think about it some more, in the absence of some source to indicate that the NCAA would treat football differently than other sports under its comprehensive statement on statistical policy, I think the article can't be limited to football. Food for thought. JohnInDC (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back from a long weekend away, and I was just coming here to make the same point. I think the eventual title of this article should be as suggested above. cmadler (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I never really intended for this to only be about NCAA football. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the NCAA's practice of vacating victories has been said to ask sports fans to pretend games never happened? Source: "Those opposed to the punishment note that the NCAA is effectively asking fans and schools to pretend that the game never happened." -- NYTimes
    • ALT1: ... that the NCAA has vacated a national championship because players were given stripteases? Source: "The NCAA has vacated wins as a punishment for academic misconduct, impermissible financial benefits, and player sex scandals." -- NPR
    • ALT2: ... that after the NCAA vacated their national championship in men's lacrosse, Syracuse made a new trophy without the NCAA logo? Source: "Syracuse later commissioned a replacement trophy, without the NCAA logo, that the university still displays." -- ChicagoTrib
    • Comment: First DYK, hence three possible hooks, so any advice or critique is much appreciated.

Moved to mainspace by Alyo (talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - For the main hook, "Those opposed" in the article seems sourced to only one article titled "Pretending They Didn't Happen". It doesn't seem a plural "those" in the article is accurate without more sources. For ALT1, there is no mention of stripteases in the article (though it is in the sources). For ALT2, use of "simply" seems like WP:EDITORIALIZING.
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Typically for the nomination, the text provide for each hook after "Source" should be the text from the actual source that back the hook, not the text from the article. —Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and note about future noms! For hook 1, I've changed added a ref to this cite, which is a lot more flowery in calling the punishment "collective and deliberate amnesia", the "Phantom Zone", and the "Land of the Lost". I can probably find more along those lines if needed. For ALT1, I'm inclined to not add the language about stripteases into the article unless reviewers here think that's the best hook. For ALT2 I've struck "simply" above. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo: For the main hook, I think "pretend" will be problematic in Wikipedia's voice without a source(s) that claim to summarize the collective opposition's view. Otherwise, it seems like the individual writers' POV, which is fine if treated per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or MOS:QUOTEPOV. I can approve ALT2, unless you wanted to explore other options, but it should be tweaked to clarify that it was Syracuse's title being vacated (hence their new trophy).—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: So, assuming I source this in the article, would that look something like "...that Charlie Pierce called the NCAA's practice of vacating victories a "Phantom Zone" and compared it to George Orwell's unperson?" I do think that the weirdness of vacated results leading to a bizarre existential commentary on memory is the most interesting part of the topic, but I'm not exactly sure how to make that appropriate in WP's voice or for DYK. A better writer than I could probably walk that line, so I'd take any suggestions. Otherwise I'm fine going with ALT2 (changing "a national championship" to "their national championship"). Alyo (chat·edits) 14:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approved ALT2. I don't have other suggestions.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 18:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vacated_victory&oldid=1203206650"