Jump to content

Talk:ACC–Big Ten Challenge

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Acc challengelogo.gif

[edit]

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

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

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


BetacommandBot 04:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name order should be Big Ten/ACC Challenge

[edit]

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

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

I agree and can make the change in the text, but cannot change the article title. Since Wikipedia does generally follow a "first use" norm for naming things, Big Ten - ACC Challenge does seem appropriate. If someone has evidence that this isn't correct, please edify me and revert. Moretz (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it should remain as the ACC-Big 10 Challenge since it is alphabetical order. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is alphabetical order the primary determinant of naming for Wikipedia? I haven't seen that, but it may well be the case. It's not a bad reason in any event. Any other opinions? Moretz (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the person who started the article used the reversed order, so I'm reverting my own edit. At least with spelling issues, articles usually stick with the order of the article initiator barring some compelling reason to change. I like the argument that it was initially called the Big Ten - ACC Challenge, but I'll wait for some more discussion. Moretz (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Challenge"

[edit]

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

Hardy har har. Seeing as the ACC - Big Ten Challenge is the official and most commonly used name for the event, it is appropriate to call the event by its proper name.
What can you expect from IP address run by fruitings? 150.212.40.194 apparently stopped editing after that single crack - maybe s/he is still following the challenge (and maybe s/he sees it as a "challenge" now, too) Moretz (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table Format

[edit]

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

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

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

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

I didn't notice this before posting my new section below, but it looks like there may be some minimal consensus regarding the format. I'll add a pointer below, as well, in case anyone else wants to chime in. LUxlii (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical error?

[edit]

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

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

I added the missing losses, but I also do not know the home/away breakdown, so those numbers probably don't add up. Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota each had one too few losses (all Big Ten teams should have either 11 or 9 games through last year). Moretz (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to go back and find the home/away status for the missing losses. Initially I thought this would not be hard since teams alternate home and away each year. However, since some games are neutral site (and some teams are left out), it's not so straightforward. Alas.

9 games in each of the first 6 seasons

[edit]

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

Reference to ACC - Big East Challenge

[edit]

Does this article really need a reference to the ACC - Big East Challenge? There isn't a Wikipedia article on that series and I'm not sure why it is significant for this article. Was it important beyond the association with the ACC (maybe the first inter-conference series or something)? The reference to it doesn't seem to fit where it is and seems a candidate for dropping from the article unless someone can find a better home for it. Moretz (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this article is about to get a lot less attention, so I'm going to pull the reference in hopes that anyone who really wants to keep it will speak up. If anyone really thinks it needs to be in this article, we should probably find a better way to work it in. Moretz (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first reference

[edit]

Since the reference to the tie scenario appears after the discussion of the 2012 tie, a source from 2011 seems inappropriate. Perhaps this was intended as a reference to the tie procedure, but it doesn't really fit the discussion of the actual tie result in 2012. Does anyone know of a better source? Or perhaps it should simply be dropped.

There is also a [1] external link that is not included as a reference. I am not sure what the manual of style has to say about sources, but they should probably be included as < ref >s and appear in the reference list. I will make that change, but feel free to change it back if my assumption is wrong.LUxlii (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Leader???

[edit]

The challenge leader column is a bit silly hanging out there in the tables. The format for the tables from 2007 and earlier is much more "accurate" (for lack of a better word). The leader concept is only really of much interest as the challenge is unfolding, which is not the point of an encyclopedia. It really adds almost nothing after the fact. In fact, since games move at different paces, that "stat" is sometimes inaccurate even during a particular year's challenge.

What say we revert to the old ACC and B1G winners columns and show the total at the bottom as in 2007 and earlier?

Comments? LUxlii (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update/revision: I noticed an old discussion about the same issue from a few years back in the "mathematical error" section above. That discussion didn't really fit the section header, so I'm leaving this as a new section to see if anyone wants to comment. LUxlii (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland conference change

[edit]

I think Maryland should have unique entries in the "Team Records" table for when they are members of Big Ten and ACC.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 50 external links on ACC–Big Ten Challenge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decided by single game

[edit]

There is a sentence in the lead about the number of Challenges "decided by a single game". I have always disliked this stat, because of the different ways this can be interpreted. Some would say that the difference in wins must be one, while others (me included) would say that the difference in wins can be one or two. When the final result is 8 games to 6, as it was this year, then it was decided by a single game. The change in outcome of a single game could change the result to a 7-7 tie. However, the lead was recently changed to remove the six instances where something like this occurred (2001, 2014-2015, and 2019-2021). I would prefer to just remove this stat altogether, due to the persistent confusion, unless the wording can be adjusted to remove the ambiguity. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACC–Big_Ten_Challenge&oldid=1204477360"