Talk:Big 12 Conference/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Big Twelve > Big 12

Shouldn't it "Big 12" (i.e., should be the "twelve" be the number, not the word)? User:Ttownfeen 02:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be numbers. See [1] in the section "Big 12 ... As Easy as 1-2". I'm not sure the best way to make a change like that, however. Ash Lux 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the best way to do it would be to copy all the current info onto Big 12 Conference (currently a redirect page), and make the current page into a redirect page. I'm not going to do it personally, in case there is any dissent or steps which I may not be accounting for, but that would be the easiest way in my mind. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT do a copy+paste!

READ How_to_move_a_page. You use the "MOVE" button, at the top of most every page, this moves the talk pages, the watch pages, the links, everything. If the page you want to move to has never been edited, any user can do it. If it has, or there is content there you have two choices:

You can use: Requested moves

and/or

Go to the admin page and see who is online now, then hit one up. Or an admin you already know. It is ten to 100 times faster than putting it on "Requested moves" I have seen pages stay on there over a month.

Once the page has been moved, go to and click "What links here" in the toolbox on the left pane. Then you can begin your link fixes, fix the "re-directs" (I recommend looking at this list before the move). I wouldn't worry to much about the "user" pages, if any, that are linked to that particular page, those users can fixs the re-directs if they want to. WikiDon 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Page-move Vote

Thanks for your help, WikiDon, and I apologize for my uneducated comments earlier. I'll start out the voting for this discussion.

• Support, as this change would make the page name more in line with the Big 12's official policy (see the external link in the section above).

A VOTE IS NOT NECESSARY The name is...:

"When referring to the Big 12 Conference, please remember the conference name (which is a registered trademark) should be listed as follows:

Big 12 Conference

The following should NOT be used in text when referencing the Big 12:

• Big XII
• Big Twelve
• The Big 12

The page MUST be moved. WikiDon 04:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Move. Well alright sounds good to me! -Scm83x 05:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

MOVED I updated about half the links, the other half need to be done. WikiDon 06:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

About 20 more need to be done, but my pillow is calling...WikiDon

ALL re-directs done, except one I can't seem to do, and four Wikiproject deletion pages (which I don't care about). I thought someone else might chip in. I am disapointed in the "team". WikiDon 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

National championships

Should football championships be counted on this list? According to the NCAA, they are unofficial, which is why the football champion does not get a trophy, as in other sports.

They are not NCAA official, but the NCAA provides a list of orgs that award national championships. Schools recognize this list NCAA.org Div I-A Past Football Champs when declaring how many football national championships they've won. General125 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The NCAA official listing does not include Football [2]. The topic is NCAA Championships and the NCAA does not recognize Football Championships. Because of that, the listing doesn't match the NCAA numbers. Maybe a separate topic should be created to cover just football? That way the NCAA Championship numbers will match. Elwood83 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed men's bowling from the national championships list. It is a club sport, not recognized by the NCAA or even the individual schools' athletic departments (at least not KU). Kgwo1972 18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

College Names

Oklahoma State was Oklahoma A&M in 1945 and 1946 when it won the NCAA Basketball titled. Should this be reflected on the list of titles with an asterisk or not? Bsd987 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Football scheduling

Does the Big 12 use the same type of football schedule that the SEC and ACC use?

(i.e. 8 conference games in which 5 are intra-division, 1 permanent inter-division rival, and 2 inter-division games rotating among the remaining teams)

If so, could someone add that info to the article, to be consistent with the SEC and ACC articles.

128.192.128.123 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the Big 12 conference schedule is 5 intra-division and 3 inter-division games. –Swid 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This means that each team plays all the other teams in their division, + half the teams from the other division. Johntex\^talk 04:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Conference champions

In sports where there is a "regular season" champion and a "tournament" champion, I think we need to determine which one we're going to put in the conference champions table, and then probably note that on the tables so that there's no confusion/edit conflicts. Currently it seems like the de facto method is regular season champions (see 2005 men's baseball and basketball, where there were co-champions). We also have the option of listing BOTH sets of champions, but this sets up the possibility of having 3 different teams in a single box (e.g.- 2005 men's basketball, where Oklahoma State won the tourney). Obviously JUST listing the tourney champion would always yield only one team. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Big 12's website seems to indicate that the conference tournament champion is THE conference champion, regardless of who the regular season champion was. Indications of this are at [3], where the upcoming basketball tournament is called the 'championship' (as opposed to the 'Conference Tournament' or something else), and at [4], where OSU is listed as the 2005 Men's Basketball champion (the 2005 regular season champions are currently in the article) and Texas is listed as the 2005 softball champion (where Texas A&M actually won the regular season). I'm not going to make the change until I can find a Big 12 site that has all former champions listed, so this will give some time for any dissenting views to be voiced. -- EdisonLBM 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the site of the former Big 12 champions 2004-2006 Big 12 Champions They list the winners of the conference tournament or meet. For example in 2005-2006 Kansas is listed as the Conference Champ in Men's Basketball because they won the conference tournament even though Texas won the "regular season title." The regular season is used to seed the postseason conference tournament in sports like, but not limited to, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer and Softball. Some sports like Swimming and Golf need postseason tournaments to determine a conference champion. Also, in Basketball the postseason tournament champion gets the automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament as the conference champion. In football, the winner of the championship game gets the bid to a BCS bowl as the conference champion. The best record in the regular season rarely if ever has anything to do with who is regognized as the conference champion. If a school publicizes regular season champions, they are doing so only for marketing and recruiting purposes. General125 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Most schools hang "Big 12 Championship" banners for regular-season championships only. If they also hang banners for tournament championships, they are typically called "Big 12 Tournament Champions" in those. I would prefer to stick with regular-season championships. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

True, the regular season champs do tend to be advertised more - would it be ok if I added something to make it clear what the table actually is? Something to the effect of "Big XII Men's\Women's Regular Season Champions?" -- EdisonLBM 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On the suggestion of another user, I added the links to all the record books on the Big 12's website. I'm still not sure if they are organized in the best manner (splitting them up into men's and women's sublists might be a good idea, for example). However, this leads to an interesting solution to this problem: the record books contain all the conference standing data for both the regular season and the tournament for all the years of the Big 12's existence. With these lists added to this page, does this argument become moot? A reader could very easily access any information on championships that they desired directly from the Big 12, and this would allow us to remove the championship tables altogether. - EdisonLBM 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the championship tables. If we eliminated all info that could be found at external links, Wikipedia would become a link repository. :o) Feel free to add a clarification note above the champions table, as I think that would be very appropriate. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem/inconsistency with calling the charts "regular season champions" is that the charts list the winner of the football confernce championship game. I think everyone agrees that the regular season champ is generally the champ in most sports - like basketball - but the championship game winner is the champ in football. Not sure how to capture all that in a header. Kgwo1972 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Footnoted. How does that look? (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, wherever the Big 12 lists "All Time Championships" it lists regular season champions for all sports except football, just as we have here. I have finally knocked out the last of the inaccuracies in the chart. As long as nobody edits back in tournament champions, it should stay accurate, so don't touch it. Thanks. Kgwo1972 21:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent expansions by User:66.232.195.64

Hello, I have left a note for User:66.232.195.64 asking for a source for some recent expansions. It is a shared IP, so if this person does not come back after a while then we will need to do some fact-checking. I'm assuming good faith about the new informaiton for now. Johntex\^talk 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Logos

I have restored the team logos to the page. Fair use images are usable when there is no free alterantive to the image. By definition, there is no free alterantive to a logo. However, I think the logos would be better here if alongside additional commentary about the team they represent. Can we expand the article to make a brief mention of each team? Johntex\^talk 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Our policy only "permit[s] some non-free material for critical commentary." - WP:FUC. ed g2s • talk 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ed, you are acting unilaterally in your interpretation of policy yet again. There is no consensus in support of the actions you are taking. You are well aware of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\^talk 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue was discussed and decided at Wikimania. This usage is NOT acceptable. Anyone who reverts my last edit removing the gallery, or otherwise recreates the gallery, will be blocked. This is now policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Wikimania was a discussion forum for establishing Wikipedia policy. I bet a lot more people would have attended. =) If it's policy, I assume you'll direct us to the relevant policy page? Powers 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an FYI the specific policy says "Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed", so it is ok, as long as the individual team is discussed, which they appear to be in this article. Logos are ok. (Cardsplayer4life 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

• I have decided to file a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2. Johntex\^talk 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, joy. =) Powers 01:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Conference tournaments

There is now a new page showing the current big 12 men's tourney in brackets. Should we just expand it and provide a link to it rather than posting the tourney on this page? Also, are there other tournaments in the past that could be linked to? Wrad 20:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the new Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament page. I'm just wondering if there is any information we may want to merge, or how we want this page to link with the Big 12 page. Wrad 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above article is up for nomination as a good article. Please look over it to see if you can add to or improve it. Wrad 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Big 12 map

I think Texas and Oklahoma should be filled with a color other than gray on the map. The map would look clearer that way when the image size is reduced, as it is in the infobox. Thoughts anyone? --Blueag9|^Talk| 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs to be something less similar to the gray of the non-Big 12 states. I have no idea how to do this, though. ~ João Do Rio 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. I changed the color to blue. --Tea and crumpets 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is still gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.181.102 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Tourney

I just created an article on the Big 12 Baseball Tournament. We have a nice project just getting started at Wikipedia:WikiProject College baseball. If anyone is into college baseball and would like to help us then we'd love to have you. We've only got one Big 12 fan as a member. We could use more. Seancp 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OSU enrollment

Just where did the number of 32,000 for OSU enrollment come from? Cuase I'm about 99% sure that is wrong.

The listing doesn't state the years that those numbers represent. 2005-06 the enrollment was 32,721 and for 2006-07 32,402[5] Elwood83 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Big 12 Conference/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Big Twelve currently does not include mens soccer. There is a movement to petition the conference to add this as a sport. [http:// www.petitiononline.com/big12men/] and [6] Interesting that the Big 12 Conference includes women's soccer though. [7] ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 19:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Rivalries

• Is there a good reason why rivalries involving Big 12 schools should not be listed? (instead of just between schools in the conference) The SEC article lists rivalries just involving schools, and while I don't necessarily think copying another article's style is always appropriate, there should probably be some level of conformity among similar articles. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the list of rivalries should be limited (1) so that only rivalries between Big 12 schools are included (because this is the conference website) and (2) limited to verifiable rivalries. (Part of this is my editorial belief that shorter lists are more usable.) All of the rivalries already on the list that are named or have trophies are clearly "rivalries." However, I believe that unnamed entries on the list (such as KU-NU) should be sourced (if challenged) to avoid original research. (See Wikipedia:Lists.) On the topic of this one particular series: as a KU alumn, it was my impression that NU was not considered a rival in any sport. The fact that KU-NU is one of the most-played football series of all time but was never named or given a trophy also seems to indicate the same. I can see that it is a topic that merits further discussion, however. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• On the other hand, my question is, how is is that Missouri has the majority of the rivalries? Is a rivalry considered one just because they exchange a trophy? Honestly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Mizzou fan that cares about a game against Iowa State. Krpratt (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point, especially considering how lopsided some of them are, yet are included just because they have a trophy. Not to mention that OU leads over MU 65-23-5, NU leads over MU 63-35-3, and I also doubt any MU fan thinks ISU is a rival. Maybe we should change the criteria to named games only? Ryan2845 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I love Mizzou and I think that ISU is a rival, though that's just me. We do however have great hatred for OU and NU. Named games are not always important, such as the Arch Rivalry (MU and Illinois). No one i know would be heartbroken if MU lost to IU, though I do consider it a rivarly, just not important. Go Mizzou 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs)

• Just an question/observation: the Texas Tech/Texas A&M rivalry game is being listed as "The Raggie Clash". This is certainly not the official name for the series (as far as I know there is no official name for the series) and can find no reference to it anywhere but this page. Has anyone else ever heard of this name being used? Suggest that it be removed unless there is some sort of citation for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.213.24 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Referenced

For the section of sports that teams within the conference take part in, are we mentioning only varsity sports or varsity and official club teams? If its the latter, the list is incomplete and I wouldn't mind looking into it. I just want the go-ahead because I'm not sure how long a list that would become.Jklharris (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently club sports are being included. I don't know to what degree, though. Texas Tech, for instance, participates in 27 club sports. So, when you consider all the club sports from all 12 schools, the list may get a bit too big for this article. In that case, I would support a spin-off (something like Big 12 Conference club sports). →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree club sports should be covered separately. Ice hockey definitely should be removed from the list for this reason (particularly since the sport is NCAA-sanctioned but the listed schools do not participate at the NCAA level). Not entirely sure what to do about listing rodeo, since it is not an NCAA sport. (Rowing, rifle and skiing are NCAA sports (right?) and equestrian is an NCAA Emerging Sport.) -Kgwo1972 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

Does the endowment table belong in the article? (Currently, it has been removed.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if included it should be part of the members table, like what is done at Big East#Members. I just don't personally think it needs its own section on a sports related page since university endowment is separate from athletic department funding. Ryan2845 (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with someone merging it into another section, but the data should not be just deleted. It is included on most other "major" conference pages. (SEC, etc) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"...but the data should not be just deleted." True, but the data should not just be added as well. A change like this should get a general consensus for addition. Just as if it it had happened vice-versa. If it had gained acceptance, then I would need a consensus to delete it just the same. Almosthonest06 (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the information was first added on July 16th so it is more proper to discuss it's addition than it's deletion. My opinion is go ahead and add it, but make it part of the members table. Does that work for everyone? Ryan2845 (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

add it to the table per Ryan. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with it being added, so long as it is added to the members box. I still don't understand the need to add it nevertheless. Also, I think if it is to be added, the endowment of that particular school, not the school's system, should only be included. Almosthonest06 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It definitely should be the endowment of only the single school and not the system. This was a problem in the past for attendance. For some, it was reflecting students for the entire system, until I corrected it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, but this information may be hard to find and decide what to include. I pulled up the annual financial report for KU and it says their system-wide endowment figure includes "Lawrence campus, Edwards campus, KU Medical Center, KU Center for Research Inc., KU Unions and Kansas Athletics Inc."

So are other universities including the athletic department in their total endowment numbers, even the ones that don't call it a "system"? If that is the case then wouldn't it make sense just to list the portion from the athletic department and not the academic components? If so then the numbers that were on this page for the "non-system" universities are inaccurate as well.Ryan2845 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I say we either list the endowment of the athletic department or possibly the university itself. If we cannot find accurate information for one of the two and are looking to add the endowment of the university systems, I vote we should leave it off altogether. Almosthonest06 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it is OK to add to the table, and also that it needs to be the specific university, and NOT the system. (For example, why would the endowment for University of Texas at San Antonio be included on the Big 12 page?) However, I'm not sure those numbers are out there for all the schools -- in fact I seriously doubt it. We could list them here on the talk page and see how far we get. Another thought: athletic budgets might be easier to find and more relevant? -Kgwo1972 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree on the table concept. The information is valuable. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This website I located has a database of total revenue for all the athletic departments http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/ Only problem is that it is from the 04-05 year, so not up to date...Might have to go with that though unless someone finds something better. I'm assuming that each school reports its finances yearly, just like any other company, so up to date information should be out there somewhere... Ryan2845 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Football Schedule

How do I get a football schedule for one of the Big 12 Universities?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.130.24 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Most teams have articles for this season. Use this format: 2008 University Name Team Name football team. For instance, 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The official Big 12 website has a composite schedule here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought s/he was asking for one inside the [Wikipedia] box. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And of course, each school's athletic department has a website with current and often future schedules available. Wschart (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

More National Championships

I am adding AIAW Championships to the total for each school. This is easily done, as there is already a distinction between national championships and NCAA championships on the page. As an editorial note, it is a shame that the NCAA does not recognize these titles earned prior to 1982 simply because they refused to properly sponsor women's athletics. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is done, but now I'm confused about some of the discreprancies between NCAA Titles and total Titles for some teams. I understand UT (4 football, 4 AIAW), Iowa State (5 AIAW), CU (1 football), and A&M (1 football, 1 AIAW). But I don't understand how OU has 8 non-NCAA titles (only 7 football), or how NU has 7 non-NCAA titles (only 5 football), or where KU counts 3 non-NCAA titles. I am removing those that cannot be explained above, until they are addressed here. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Figured out KU myself. It's 10 NCAA titles + 2 Helms titles in basketball. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now also added the AIAW championships to the main list, where they were not already included, plus explanatory notes. I also noticed that CU has one more NC, in women's skiing in 1982, and updated that school's count. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the totals and added equestrian to the title count. Equestrian adds 3 titles for Oklahoma State, 1 title for TCU, and 1 title for Baylor. TCU also has 1 consensus national championship in football (1938) added on top of its NCAA total. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Big 12 cities template

I've created a Template for cities hosting Big 12 schools. If anybody wants to improve on it, the template is located at Template:Big 12 Cities. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

just to update, this template and ones similar to it (Big 10, SEC) were deleted because the articles weren't closely enough related. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject

I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Telephone Trophy

The source for the above "trophy" and "rivaly" doesn't exist at the website it was linked to. I have removed it. Lithistman (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) I tried to fix it by adding a reference, but I did something wrong. Lithistman (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BIG 12, Falling Apart.

Does anybody know anything about this. Apparently an ultimatum was issued to Nebraska, and Missouri about whether or not they are staying, or going to the Big Ten. Also there is talk of the Texas, and Oklahoma schools, possibly joining the PAC-10, I guess turning that one into the PAC-16.--Subman758 (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Friday, June 11th 2010 is the official end date of the offer for Nebraska and Missouri to join the Big Ten. ESPN is reporting that the Texas schools and Colorado will join the Pac-10. I would recommend against an update to the page until Friday, as that appears the be when there will be a vote of the supermajority of the conference to dissolve or not, as well as the end of the offer window for Nebraska and Missouri. To0n (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No foot note support, as this was just reported by ESPN, no links up yet. Again, we will probably have final words either on the 10th or on the 11th. To0n (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sportscenter is reporting that orangebloods.com is reporting that the teams suspected of leaving for the Pac-10 are indeed doing so and that the Big XII is all but officially dead. --173.55.131.183 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was announced today Colorado will join the PAC-10. http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23051/pac-10-makes-announcement-on-colorado --75.102.128.133 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska will leave the Big Twelve and will join the Big Ten.

Colorado leaves to joing PAC 10.

Missouri leaves to join Big Ten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.155.87 (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As I write this at about 1:30 pm CDT, the only thing known for sure is the Colorado move. Nebraska regents are holding a meeting as I write; presumably this will be a topic. Texas regents will meet this coming Tuesday. Missouri is holding their cards close to their chest, but my guess is that if there is an invite to the Big 10, they'd go in a flash. More money. Plus if the Big 12 South moves, that pretty much guts the conference, so might as well get while the getting is good. But this all is going to take some time for everything to shake out. Wschart (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

University of Nebraska Board of Regents resolved to move to the Big 10. The Big 10 later approved Nebraska into the Big Ten Conference effective June 11, 2011 http://www.bigten.org/genrel/061110aab.html --Txtrooper (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How to handle this page

Since the conference appears to be going bye-bye, when it happens, please just move information to "former members" sections or denote it somehow rather than removing information entirely. Otherwise it's like the schools were never even in the Big 12 and someone else will have to go back and re-add their history later. 76.212.32.90 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't even move them yet. Even if Colorado and Nebraska, among others, take bids from other conferences, they'll still play 2010-11 as Big 12 members. Once they are formally moved, THEN put them in a "former members" section. --fuzzy510 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

True. I say keep them where they are, but a section might need to be made discussing the realignment as it is documented in reliable sources. The section can link back to the main article at 2010 NCAA conference realignment. TheTito ^Discuss 09:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly. The realignment must be discussed, because it's very relevant, and it's happening. But moving Colorado out when they now appear to be an active member in 2012 at the earliest is incorrect. --fuzzy510 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. TheTito ^Discuss 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Even with these teams leaving the will still be apart of the the Big 12 till 2012 at the least.--Steam Iron 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Exept for Nebraska, there gone as of July 1, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txtrooper (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 168.215.170.131, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please note that Texas Tech was founded in the year 1923, not 1926.

168.215.170.131 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

—fetch·comms 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The only mention of Texas Tech and 1926 is in the Big 12 men's basketball programs all time section. While Texas Tech was founded in 1923, the entry is referring to the year the program started play which was still incorrect, and now corrected, as the team began play in 1925. NThomas (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Teams leaving the conference

Nebraska and Colorado haven't left the conference instantaneously. They're still going to be there for a few more months. They shouldn't be removed, and I'm even wondering if they should be removed while the Conference is still in existence, or at least still calls itself Big 12. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They should not be removed. Even the schools confirmed to be leaving will still be playing in the conference for at least this coming academic year. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No should not be removed. Colorado is in till 2012(?). Nebraska and Colorado are both in through 2011. Mby later into a former members section. See Southwest conference Page. Kcphaid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Football Stadiums and Capacities

I recently found some errors in the football stadium capacities. I researched current capacities, and updated the article accordingly with full reference citations.

Following that update, a minor edit war was stirred by another user who felt that the capacity of Jones AT&T Stadium (Texas Tech) was incorrect.

I have subsequently found multiple sources (including two from the university itself) that confirm the rated capacity as I had originally verified.

Multiple reactions to the reverting user were posted to their talk page if further follow-up by anyone else is desired or made necessary by future events.Fjbfour (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Conference Realignment

Regarding the topic of A&M's offers from other conferences in this section. It seems someone attempted to pass an opinion as a fact regarding A&M going to the SEC. It claimed A&M "unsuccessfully lobbied the SEC for an invitation" and offered for evidence an opinion piece from an Austin American Statesman writer Kirk Bohl (a known UT booster) which contained no proof of the assertion in the section, only unconfirmed speculation from an unnamed source about their personal belief that the SEC was not interested in adding A&M. I am adjusting this to read that A&M chose to remain in the Big 12 despite being pursued by both the PAC 10 and the SEC. For actual evidence of this, I am citing official e-mail records from Texas Tech regarding realignment which includes on page 55, an e-mail from Big 12 Commissioner Dan Bebe himself to Texas Tech President Guy Bailey confirming that A&M was in fact being pursued by more than one conference. --Ronw526-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.188.245 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of Conference Titles

{{editsemiprotected}} Conference titles by school needs to be updated. As of Nov. 29, 2010 Nebraska now has 69 titles, Texas A&M has 45, Oklahoma State has 37, and Texas Tech has 11.

Vandalism

Just fyi, expect a lot of vandalism coming up on this page... It wouldn't hurt to lock it for a bit.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.210.80 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is occuring due to frustration over the corruption within the conference. When it is done blatently and in the open, many will seek a forum to voice their disdain for those responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.234.128 (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Revenue

There seem to be very biased views working their way into the revenue section of this entry. For example, the edit from 3 July 2011 suggests that revenue is fairly and evenly split amongst the members of the conference. This is factually inaccurate. One of the main reasons that prominent member Nebraska bolted for the Big Ten was the uneven distribution of money within the conference. More profoundly, the suggestion that revenue is fairly distributed is simply untrue and misleading. Kansas State does not receive the same amount of money as Texas. Bring in the Longhorn Network into the discussion and it would seem that there are people using this page for political purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.7.88 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No where in it does it say that the revenue is evenly split amongst members 100% It does however state that from 96-11 that 57% was evenly split and that the other 43% was distributed based upon the number of football and men's basketball television appearances and other factors. So there is not misleading or untrue wording any where in the section, and no one has ever brought the Longhorn Network in your the first person to even say anything about it.--SteamIron 07:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Case in point - In the entry it states "as a Big 12 member, Nebraska had withheld support for more equitable revenue distribution". This is a total distortion of fact. The revenue sharing imbalance was one of the major reasons Nebraska bolted. Suggesting that Nebraska somehow resisted the idea of more equitable sharing is factually inaccurate, and suggests that these changes to the wiki are coming from people who have a vested interest in putting a positive spin on things. Don't distort the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.7.88 (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That fact is back up by a reliable source that is in the article if you have something that states other wise and its from a reliable source will change it but till then it says how it is.--SteamIron 07:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you cite is a Big 12 press release intended to put a negative spin on Nebraska's actions. I consider this a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.83.90 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• And you cited a story from Bleacher Report, which is nothing more than an amalgamation of fan blogs. I've restored a version without the pro-Nebraska spin. LHM 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Bleacher Report is an open source sports network. The Bleacher Report is Qmericq's 4th biggest sports site with more than 20 million monthly readers. All of their stories are edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pac12guy (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And that what makes it unreliable--SteamIron 08:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain just how the article on the Bleacher Report is unreliable, and be specific. Simply calling something unreliable is not evidence. The Bleacher report is edited for content and style. Moreover, it is open source, just like Wikipedia. Unless you can make a compelling argument, I think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.8.20 (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Its unreliable because its open source which means anyone and everyone can edit it to make it say what they want it to. A Bleacher report source will always be removed as unreliable by me and a lot of other editors. If you want to know what source can be used look at WP:RS--Dcheagle 08:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You said, "Its (sic) unreliable because its open source which means anyone and everyone can edit it to make it say what they want it to." Sounds a lot like Wikipedia, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.8.20 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before read WP:RS it has all the answers you need--Dcheagle 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of info in your wiki link that would suggest that The Bleacher Report is a suitable source. Please be specific in your criticism or I will put it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.8.20 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That would not be a wise decision. It is not a reliable source, and why has been explained to you by multiple editors now. It is user-generated content, that has little, if any, editorial oversight and is removed on sight every time I've seen it added as a "source." LHM 05:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll be more specific the following comes from WP:RS Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. There that's why its an unreliable source.--Dcheagle 05:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation. Do you think Big 12 press releases are reliable sources, or might they possibly be biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.40.50 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Press releases from an organization, about the workings of that organization can be reliable, yes. Also, the paragraph you're trying to insert is not supported by the reference you provide. Don't readd that information, until and unless you find a reliable source that actually supports it. LHM 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ya'all have thrown the gauntlet down, and I accept your challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.40.50 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No one but you is throwing any "gauntlets" down. This isn't a battlefield, so please don't treat it like one. LHM 07:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Throwing down the gauntlet is a metaphor. Please don't take it so literally. This is not 16thj century England. The fact is that you'all are cruising this page, making sure it has a pro Big 12 (and anti Nebraska) feel to it. You'all are blinded by your own bias, which makes it really ironic and sad at the same time. I will be back with great sources to counter some of the garbage here. Not now. In a few weeks. In a month or two. When I get around to it. But I haven't forgotten that you'all have thrown down the gauntlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.40.50 (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No one here is being bias all were saying this that the info you want to add needs a reliable source which you have yet to find and provied. Im all for its addition as long as you can find a source that backs it up.

Division titles are not conference titles.

It is confusing and inaccurate to include division titles in that section. Please do not place them there. If anything, they might merit a sub-section, though I'm not specifically advocating for that. LHM 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Contraction speculation

Can we please leave out most (or all) of the speculation about the conference contracted e.g. Texas A&M leaving for the SEC. Most of the stories are either pure speculation or shoddy gossip from unnamed sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a sports gossip rag. ElKevbo (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I used a source from a newspapers website stating that were just simply being persued by the SEC, not that they were intrestred, it is unknown right now if they are, the AD did deny it but an AD would deny it to stop the rumors while the possible move is being worked out. So its not speculation, but a reliable source saying that they are being persued.

2. Im not using gossip or unnamed souces. I have named all sources and sources that arent gossip websites. No bleacherreport.com is not like espn.com or other sport sites, but its at least a semi-respected sports resource. I have had gossipy edits I've made removed far too many too times for me to waste my time doing it again.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No edit war intended

I am intending to engage in an edit war. I just want to make sure the full story is the article. I just wanted to get that out before I am accused of it, considering I just made my 3rd or 4th edit in the last 24 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you will be blocked for edit it warring. All information must be backed up by a reliable source if no source is provided to back it up it will be removed by myself and other editors.--Dcheagle 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, i mean i am NOT intending too--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Explain how adding additional information from the same source that was using earlier in the section is unsourced??? Makes zero sense. That information i added was from the espn.com article and should be put back in because it is sourced AND truthful information.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just put it back in. Information is from source number 23, the espn.com article. Please do not remove it.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can cite a Big 12 press release as a source, then ESPN should be sufficient as well. The ESPN source should therefore stay. I have added a Fox source as well, which should appeal to some people.

That wasnt the problem was this person took off additional information I added from a source that was already in the section, in the previous sentence. I explained on 2 seperate occasions that the information was in the article, both times he said it was unsourced and the 2nd time he said "nowhere in the article does it mention anything about a vote" I posted on his talk page the exact line that mentions a vote. The situation has been handled.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Big 12 "Collapse"

This is not a Big 12 discussion forum but a venue to discuss this encyclopedia article.

Any reports of a collapse of the Big 12 is pure speculation as of right now. Speculation is not allowed on wikipedia and will be removed. Please leave any reports of a collapse off for now until it becomes more than speculation. I am guilty of speculation myself but i have learned my lesson and have stopped doing it.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion of a collapse is totally relevant, and not discussing it on this page ignores the timeliness of the discussion. If all sports shows are talking about it, if ESPN, Fox Sports and EVEN the Big 12 are talking about it, then it must be discussed here. If Wikipedia is really about a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.94.254 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC) The collapse of the Big 12 is as Rockchalk717 has put is pure speculation and has no place here because of Crystal. As of right now any talks of a collapse by any news agency is speculation unless it comes from the Big 12 and its member schools directly which it has not.--Dcheagle 21:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC) No, I agree with 91.181.94.254: If this is being discussed by others then it's something we should consider adding to this article. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to what others write and if there is widespread speculation then WP:NPOV demands we consider adding it to this article. We don't need to get into details when the speculation is rampant and based on rumors, hearsay, and imagination but we can and perhaps should state something simple about the existence and popularity of such speculation. In other words, we can and perhaps should write about speculation without passing it along or engaging in it ourselves. And to clarify: WP:CRYSTAL is an internal Wikipedia policy that prohibits editors from engaging in speculation. It's essentially an offshoot or specific application of WP:OR. It doesn't mean that we can't write about others' speculation if it meets our normal criteria e.g. verifiable, notable. ElKevbo (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It is not pure speculation if it is true. Fact is not speculation. Let's come back to this point in a few days, shall we, once things work themzelves thru, yeah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.94.254 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC) As of right now its speculation everything that has been brought forward as evidence by the news to the collapse is pure what if and that's not good enough we need hard facts and at present there are none. Waiting would be a good idea.--Dcheagle 23:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Waiting is fine. It allows one to sharpen their spelling and grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.94.254 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Like I said, it is speculation, even more so now with Texas A&M being denied the invitation. Even if, as it appears they may eventually do, Texas A&M leaves, the Big 12 won't be going anywhere for 2, 3, possibly even 5 years away because they have contractual television obligations and cannot afford to leave the Big 12 right now. Therefore, it is even more so speculation. Even before Texas A&M was denied the invitation, it wasnt 100% for sure the conference would collapse. Most analysts did think that, but unless the Big 12 made an announcement regarding, it would be a speculation and speculation has no place on Wikipedia. All 9 other teams announced within hours they are commited to the Big 12, so the conference would find at least one team to replace Texas A&M, possibly teams to replace Nebraska and Colorado. As it stands right now it is extremly unlikely that the conference will disolve in the event Texas A&M leaves in the future.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Ignoring the rampant discussion won't make it go away, and makes ya all smell of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.94.254 (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It's discussion at this point, which makes it news and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. When there are impacts or ramifications from the discussion then it could be included.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It is more than discussion. The Big 12 is collapsing. It is a process that began when CU and NU left. Fox sports, ESPN and Sports Illustrated are all over this story. This page does not have a neutral point of view, and even cites Big 12 propaganda. The bias on this page is palpable, and the "barbarians at the gate" editing show you are not interested in a balanced view at all. Instead, you present a Big 12 position as truth. No doubt some of you are from Oklahoma or Texas. This is just another reason why Wikipedia is totally untrustworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.134.26 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The Big 12 is not collapsing, as I said in my last post, even if A&M leaves, the other 9 teams are committed to the conference and the Big 12 would start trying to find other teams to add into the conference. It is just paranoia at this point. And as of right now, unless the Big 12 mentions the conference is in trouble, then its just speculation and rumor. Speculation is opinion, and if you listen and read carefuly to these people saying it is collapsing and the conference is doomed, they are using words like "likely" "possibly" etc. If those words are being used then it is not fact, and wikipedia is for facts only.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC) When Nebraska (one of the NCAA's best team historically), Colorado and a solid A+M team are bolting, yes, I think it is fair to say the conference is collapsing. Not providing insight into this issue on this wiki entry is dishonest. You still are showing your Pro Big 12 bias...does it make you feel sad to know that the conference is imploding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.134.26 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You haven't give us any evidence that the conference is going to collapse its all hearsay and what ifs. You don't know anymore then we do so saying that if A&M was to leave the conference would fall apart is false as of right now that doesn't mean that its status wont change but for right now the remaining nine schools are pretty much set in the fact that they will stay together for the foreseeable future with to possibility to bring in more schools. So once again we don't need to post speculation that the conference is doomed to fail because that info cant be backed up cause its only someones opinion.--Dcheagle 23:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Nebraska and Colorado left because of the Big 12's refusal to make a network dedicated to just the conference. It had nothing to with the conference's potential of going under. As it stands right now, there is no chance of it happening and unless you can prove that the conference is collapsing with a source that isnt talking about it as more than speculation, then it will not be allowed in the article--Rockchalk717 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC) But if that speculation is rampant then we should mention that. There does seem to be a perception that the conference is fragile right now and if that speculation is very popular it should be mentioned. It is speculation and we shouldn't dwell on it or report in detail but this does seem to be unique to this conference, at least among the big six. ElKevbo (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Ok if we were to add this how should we word it. And me asking this doesnt change where I stand on this issue.--Dcheagle 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Given that this all just speculation and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of many sports commentators, I think a single sentence would be appropriate. This seems to be a natural continuation of last year's realignment activities so adding a sentence to the end of that section might be a good way to integrate this material. Something like "Speculation about realignment continued in 2011, focusing on..." One sentence, clean and simple, acknowledging the rampant rumors without delving into unnecessary and inappropriate detail. ElKevbo (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I think a few good sources from experts would do this important issue justice in terms of making the entry more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.134.26 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Write up an example and post it here.--Dcheagle 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Why? You would only delete it. I think it would be better if a neutral party would do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.134.26 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Why would I remove it from the talk page when I'm the one that asked you to do it. All I want to see is how this addition would look like thats all I'm not going to remove it.--Dcheagle 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) The Point on the matter remains it is speculation and there is no evidence of a collapse. Teams leave conferences all the time in college sports, but when was the last time you actually saw a conference, especially a power conference collapse?? The Southwest conference did yes, 15 years ago and i guess technically the Big 8 was a collapse too, but most people consider that the predicessor to the Big 12. Because of the evolution of college sports right now, I have a hard time believing, even with the commitments to the conference the other 9 teams have made, that we will see one of the most powerful conferences in all college sports (its one of only a couple conferences that are dominate in almost every sport) collapse.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Wool over eyes...Nebraska and Colorado bolted. A&M will be gone ASAP. Mizzou, Tech, and Texas have looked for alternatives. This is a conference is freefall. "even with the commitments to the conference the other 9 teams have made, that we will see one of the most powerful conferences in all college sports" REALLY? Get real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.197.66 (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Wow, you like ignore reports dont you? Missouri, Texas Tech, and Texas have not been looking for other conferences, other conferences have been looking for them. Read the reports, look at the fact that they all have said they want stick with the big 12, then come talk again about the collapse.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I think the point is that this wiki entry paints much too rosy of a picture of the current state of the Big 12, and ignores the widespread discussion that is taking place. There needs to be more balance brought to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.197.66 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC) If Texas A+M leaves, it will mean in the period of one year, the Big 12 will have lsot Colorado, Nebraska, and Texas A+M. How is that not a collapse? Houston and SMU are not Nebraska and Colorado. This wiki entry needs to show more balance of the crisis within the Big 12. Any talk of a collapse is per speculation and as such has no place here.--Dcheagle 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC) When a conference loses a quarter of its teams, can we talk of the Big 12 as "hemmorging?" How would you describe the current situation? Stable? Firm? Permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.158.234 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Well, the WAC lost 8 teams, co priding one half their membership, and they didn't collapse. However, now the two Oklahoma schools are making noises about leaving. But then, there was a lot of talk last summer about the collapse of the Big 12, which hasn't happened yet. Even if any schools which join the conference aren't up to the level of departing teams, it doesn't mean the conference is collapsing. Wschart (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Let's come back to this point, shall we? The Fat Lady is warming up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.121.238 (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC) See ya later, big "12". Way to go, Texas. Have fun on the West Coast Oklahoma: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-03/sports/sp-60907_1_nebraska-coach. I feel bad for KU and KSU. Texas made her bed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.131.39 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Championship list

I think the list of championships in this article should be updated. As it is, it lists all of the NCAA championships won by any of the original 12 conference members, including championships won before the conference was formed.

I can see two reasonable ways to update this list:

1. Remove all entries for Colorado and Nebraska, making it be a list of all NCAA championships ever won by current members (as seems to have been the original intent when the list was made); or
2. Remove all entries from before 1996, making it be a list of all NCAA championships won by teams that were a member of the Big 12 Conference at the time the championship was won.

I tried to do option 1 last month, but the edit was reverted. I think the list makes little sense the current way. Unless we change it, consistency would require that we add future championships won by Nebraska and/or Colorado, simply because they were in the conference at one time. I thought I'd ask what option everyone here prefers before I change it and get reverted again.

- Etphonehome (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The page should be current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.178.32 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok hold up we cant just remove Colorado and Nebraska they were apart of the conference when they won the championships so its part of the history of the conference. Now I would be ok if we remove all of the championships before 96.--Dcheagle 18:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a clear consensus here, so I went ahead and split the NCAA championship list into two sections. The first section lists championships won by current member schools before the schools joined the conference. This recognizes that several member schools have a long history of winning championships that predates the conference. The second section lists all championships that were won by teams that were members of the conference when they won their championships. This is a hybrid of the two alternatives I listed above. I think it makes quite a bit of sense to do it this way because the Big 12 itself has a relatively short history, so listing only championships since 1996 would be a bit incomplete. However, there is no good reason I can think of to include pre-1996 championships won by Nebraska or Colorado since they were not members of the conference at the time, nor are they members today. -Etphonehome (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand leaving out per 1996 championships that understandably but we cant remove championships from 1996-2011 for Nebraska and colorado as they won those championships while they were in the conference so for Nebraska and Colorado there championship list should include championships won between 1996 to 2011 any thing before that and after that should be left out.--Dcheagle 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is impropoer for the Big 12 to claim credit for winning championships by nonmembers, and falseely inflates the current strenght of the Big 12. Better to keep things current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.181.159.118 (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I say we

1. One, remove all championships that were won before 1996
2. Two, Championships that were won between 1996 and 2011 by Nebraska and Colorado should remain in the list as they won the titles while they were members of the conference.

--Dcheagle 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Recommendation

I recommend this page be protected until this realignment issue is resolved, due to numerous unsourced edits by IP addresses. Don't know how to go about this, but I think it should be done.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There haven't been enough edits to warrant protection, if it picks up then we can think about it.--Dcheagle 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I see your already keeping a pretty good eye on it. Keep it up. This situation with the Big 12 is only going to get crazier. This has only been going on for month and it's already beginning to get confusing keeping track of all the news.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The graphic in the middle of the page showing the school names and locations (the one where they're all in the same font that's just black) has the locations of Kansas and Kansas State backwards (i.e. KSU should be sort of in the middle of Kansas, and KU should be the one on the right). This error makes the whole page look a little silly in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.32.119 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Members Number in infobox

SEC Article: "Members 12 (13 on July 1, 2012)" Big 12 Article prior to Nebraska and Colorado's official departure "12 (10 in 2011)", Big East Conference article "beginning in 2012 (full: 17; associate: 1)" Pac 12 article prior to Colorado and Utah official addition to the conference "10 (12 in 2011)", Big 10 prior to the addition of Nebraska: "Members 11 (12 in 2011)". Explain to me why EVERYTIME a note is added the members list it gets removed for no real logical reason because other conference pages list future member numbers and also it is unknown if a 10th will be added right now, and it it still unlikely the conference will disolve. Quit changing it if other articles do the same thing.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow down dude added it, you are however are putting a&m under former members they are still a member of the conf till july of 2012,--Dcheagle 05:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to actually. I undid the revision, and didn't see that it had them still listed as a former member.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's ok all's good.--Dcheagle 06:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

TCU

TCU will likely accept an invitation from the Big 12 soon and join on July 1, 2012. They should be added to the future members section when it becomes official. This will not change the map in the infobox, obviously, since TCU would simply be replacing Texas A&M. DavidSteinle (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

West Virginia: 2012 or 2014?

West Virginia and Big XII have said that WVU joins Big XII next July. However, Big East officials have said West Virginia will have to honor the 27-month agreement. Obviously, the Big XII has a vested interest in getting WVU in the conference next year (Big XII's TV Contract requires 10 teams). Has anyone been able to find anything reliable on whether or not WVU could breach contract if a buyout isn't offered (which it currently isn't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.37.91 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WVU is contractually obligated to remain in the Big East through 2014. That being said, if the court decides that the Big East's withdrawal-notice requirement is invalid (or if the Big East settles), then WVU would be free to leave in 2012. (1, 2, 3) ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Standardize facility sections

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#Standardize conference pages' facility sections.

Bob bowlsby took his job today as it is June 15, should we change?

it is now June 15, and Bob Bowlsby took his job today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.116.112 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Its been changed--Dcheagle | ^{Thunder Up} 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences

A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency

History

The history section is completely non-intelligible at its beginning, starting off as it does by referring to an incident with no explanation nor links--it meant nothing to me. Looks like it may have been cut and pasted from another article or source altogether. Could someone who both a) knows the history of the incidents, and b) can write, please do something about this?

Besides the opening, the whole history is full of problems. Here are a couple of them:

• it sometimes repeats details, effectively looping the narrative, probably because of the contributions of multiple editors,
• it focuses on microscopic details, a classic case of WP:RECENTISM

Boy, this needs a lot of cleanup. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to my comments here, I made a series of edits--serious edits--to the article. Another editor has just reverted them as "test edits". While I'm sure some editors would react angrily, calling the editor a vandal or worse, I will presume good faith, and just guess that the editor in question simply failed to examine my edits, or, if he did examine them, that he is simply a well-intentioned simpleton.

Mind you, I'm not saying my edits are perfect. I do believe that on the whole they improved the article, but of course I recognize that honest people can differ. What I cannot accept is having someone arrogantly dismiss them in toto without due consideration. i am going to restore my edits, and expect that they will be kept in place pending an explanation/discussion of the matter in this space. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite some improvements in the past day or so, the history section still has significant issues, not least of which is its initial sentence. Currently[8] the section starts off with the following:

When the Southeastern Conference and the Big East Conference broke up the College Football Association television deal by creating their own, the Southwest Conference and the Big Eight Conference saw a potential financially beneficial alliance.

To anyone unfamiliar with the history, this makes no sense:

• First of all (and most obviously), we have no idea when these events are taking place.
• Secondly, the section starts off writing about an event in a manner that presumes the reader is already familiar with the events wherein the SEC and Big East broke up the CFA, and presumes that we understand the relationship between the CFA and television. Normally, wikilinks would allow the reader to figure things out, but not here. Why? Note that the apparent contrast to the CFA (broke up the College Football Association television deal by creating their own) is "their own", yet where does this link? Why, right back to the College Football Association. This is completely circular and non-clarifying.

Look, I can write pretty well when I know what I'm talking about. And sometimes, the material is such that I can improve it even without fully understanding it. But in this arena (1980s and 90s college conferences and TV contracts), while I can certainly recognize poor writing, I don't think I know enough content to fix it. Otherwise that would be what I would do, instead of writing these diatribes. All I'm asking is that someone knowledgeable on the subject tackle this, and when you do so, ask yourself, "Would a 12-year old writing something for his 6th grade teacher on the subject of conference realignments be able to follow the sequence of events?" Because right now, it's not even clear to this adult who lived during the era. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a lot of reading--many thanks to SI Vault. I didn't get all the details, but I sure got a better overall picture than I'd had before, and it was enough for me to write some significant improvements into the article. I think it's much clearer now to a non-sports junkie, but if I'm wrong, I'm always open to good faith discussions. Right now, I've got a headache and I'm going to bed. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing etiquette

I am specifically addressing User:Dcheagle, because it appears that anything less than a specific mention by name will be ignored. I have some comments to make about your recent editing on this article: Let me say first of all, many of the edits you have made since my last edit have been improvements. For example,

1. I appreciated this edit[9], which made clear a point I was trying to make in my earlier edits, that the Big 12 was a new creation, as opposed to an expansion of the Big Eight.
2. The three consecutive edits which resulted in this change were also a welcome improvement; I assume my suggestions in the talk page section above this one made clear that the previous wording was causing the casual reader much confusion.
3. I was happy with pretty much everything you did in this omnibus edit; the reorganization was good, and of course, I was especially gratified to see that you deleted the unsourced line which read several college sports history sources consider both conferences as a single continuous operation dating to 1907.

Yet, despite the quality of these edits, I am nonetheless not happy with your etiquette on this page. Frankly, I consider your behaviour to be nothing short of rude. To wit: With this edit, you reverted six of my edits with nothing more than the line "Reverting test edits".[10] But not only were these "test edits" serious edits, I actually took the time to include edit summaries, including:

• (a) with WVU, "Central" no longer applies. b) with all due respect, we certainly don't need to opening sentence to state the specific neighborhood in which the HQ is located--this isn't a Chamber of Commerce ad.
• No, the Big 8 did NOT "expand"; the Big 12 is considered to be an entirely new entity
• Removing unsourced OR
• effectively" is bullsh*t; it simply "forced" it
• correcting some issues of tense and other crap

So you saw all this, and dismissed them as "test edits". In some people's eyes, that alone would be enough to bring you to the attention of an administrator, but that's not my style. And besides, in reviewing my edits, I did find one mistake that could clearly look like a "test edit". So anyway, I end up reverting (but also made the appropriate correction), leaving an edit summary to come here to discuss it, and what do you do? In this edit, you once again completely revert to your last version, with the edit summary, restoring a perfictly [sic] fine version.

Now look, I'm not saying you were wrong to completely revert me. That's something open for discussion. But first, we need to have a DISCUSSION. Completely reverting my well-explained and justifiable edits twice without discussion is NOT acceptable.

Of course, the irony is not lost on me that in your subsequent edits you actually ended up restoring some of my edits (such as the removal of that unsourced line "several college sports history sources consider both conferences as a single continuous operation dating to 1907"). Hey, if your version was "perfectly fine", then why are you restoring my edits? I think it's clear that you acted . . . let's be generous here . . . um, hastily. Now I'm not going to undergo a wholesale revert of your edits, because, as I noted above, I actually respect my fellow editors' work—regardless of their personality flaws—and judge their writing by reading it before I revert it. And having read your most recent edits, I find most of them (except the mass revert) to be an improvement. But I will once again go through and make changes, explaining them with edit summaries, and I expect such edits to be evaluated on their merits, rather than instantly reverted because they weren't written by you. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Las Colinas

I've checked out all of the other AQ conference articles. None of them--anywhere in the article--see a need to note the neighborhood in which their conference HQ is located. They also don't mention if their HQ is in a suburb of a major city although some (such as the Big Ten), clearly are. Each just mentions the city in which the HQ is located.

Now, mind you, I am not one of those editors that believes each article needs to be a cookie cutter copy of all similar articles. I'm just making (in more detail than before) the point that knowing the neighborhood in which the HQ is located is not important enough to go into the lead. For Pete's sake, if it's important for some reason unfathomable to me, then fine, include it. But not in the very first sentence of the article, which is where (according to WP:LEAD) we are supposed to be defining the topic. Noting that the Big 12 is HQ'd in Las Colinas is not integral to the purpose of the lead. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Revenue Section needs to be updated because of the Big 12's new 13-year deal with ESPN and Fox

it says the conference receives less revenue among the FBS conferences. the new deal that it signed with ESPN and Fox isn't on that section, and the new deal says it gets 2.6 billion, 20 million for each of its members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.116.112 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I will updated it later today.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Small print

When talking about departures and additions, the sub-headings of Missouri, Texas A&M, TCU, and West Virginia are extremely small. I try to change it but someone keeps on changing it back Go Mizzou 02:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esb5415 (talk • contribs)

I'm currently rewriting that entire section to create better readability once I'm done the issue will be fixed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

College Basketball Team Navboxes

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Data tables

Wikipidea user Dcheagle,

You can't keep reverting any table you don't like. My tables provide substance for college football conferences articles. You will see similar tables across all power conferences - and soon the smaller conferences as well. Pac-12 and SEC have elaborated on what I have added. I'm also suspecting potential conflict of interest for your reason to dislike my academic table. Your affiliation with OK leaves way for my suspicious. Wikipidea is an encyclopedia charged with educating the public at large on various topics for no extra cost. I have left out the comparison of BIG 12 academic averages to other conference averages out of goodwill and to avoid an edit war.

Why did you delete my table regarding head football coach compensation? While BIG 12 football may also be a suitable location for the table, the main page is primarily geared towards college football as well. Although this is a qualitative assessment, I would be hard pressed to find a reliable survey indicating the BIG 12 to not primarily be a football conference. This page receives far more hits on a daily basis than does the football coach compensation. Given the revenue distributions charts, I also wanted head football coach compensation listed. Football coaches are, on average, the most paid coaches in college athletics. My table would provide A. a list of head football coaches - something missing from this article B. comparison of salaries. There is plenty of data elsewhere in the article relating to college football.

Your reverts are incredibly rude. I put a lot of time into gathering the information. Again, please do not revert anymore of my edits without proper discussion. I don't mean to come off as rude, but this is the second time you've done this. You need to discuss before reverting the work of others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMB112 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a conflict of interest, however I still say that the Head football coach compensation table is unnecessary for this article, the Big 12 Conference is not solely a football conference as such I have started a discussion about these tables you have added to a number of conference articles that discussion can be found here.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 01:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference Articles

This section now exists in multiple conference articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to help improve this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)