Template talk:Men's Conference Basketball Tournaments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Groupings

I disagree that this template should group the Division I NCAA basketball conferences. This template it not the place to differentiate between "major", "midmajor" and "other". What do those terms even mean? Why are the schools classified as one over the other? Why isn't the MVC a major conference? They were ranked the #6 conference, ahead of the Big Twelve. The NCAA does not sub-classify Division I bball conferences, so I do not think wikipedia should. I'm going to revert the change for now, but I think this issue bears discussion. X96lee15 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See mid-major to see why I did this. Also, it is a more visually pleasing layout. My conference, the MWC, gets the shaft too, and it may not be official, but it is a common way of grouping it in popular sports culture, again, see the link. Please read this article and give me a response. If, after reading that article, you still have a problem, please post here before changing. Any other suggestions of ways of grouping conferences would be great. I just think it is tedious to sort through that list, and grouping would be a navigational aid. Wrad 21:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I read the mid-major article. In the intro paragraphs, I read this:

"It is quite possible that the parity shown in the 2006 NCAA tournament is a reflection that, outside of being BCS members, higher-rated conferences can no longer be differentiated from each other with any clarity when it comes to the "mid-major" and "major" labels."

Right there, it makes me think that there division between "major" and "mid-major" is blurry, and again, should not be differentiated in a navigation box. Also:

This list [of "major" conferences] is not static from year to year, as most fail to agree which conference's during any given year are the "majors".

Unfortunately, I do not have a way to make the nav box more "pleasing". It is what it is I think, a list of conferences. Alphabetically seems ok to me. Also, I'm going to move the MAC from "other" to "mid-major", but do not think that edit implies consent with the way the navigation box is organized X96lee15 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for missing MAC there. I realize that "mid-majoring" isn't a set in stone thing. I walked into this with my eyes open. I'm trying to create a conference tourney system that represents all conferences' tourney history in brackets. Could you start such a thing with MAC? I started one with the MWC and Big 12, but most of the lesser known conferences just don't have pages showing this history. I think communicating that history on wikipedia would improve the respect given to these conferences. Perhaps doing this would be a small way to erase such prejudices? Wrad 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You really didn't address any of the comments I made. If you look at the Template:NCAA DI-A Conferences, it's alphabetical but with asterisks designating the BCS conferences (I don't have a problem with because the term "BCS conference" is well-defined). Granted, there are much fewer Div-I bowl subclassification football conferences than Div-I basketball conferences. I'm still contending that each conference should be on the same level and not categorized in this template. X96lee15 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem with that is that there are just fewer football conferences than basketball. The alphabetical list is fine in football, but in basketball it just isn't user-friendly. Also, I'm not saying, and I never said that this grouping was official. It's just very common in popular sports culture. Just today on ESPN I heard the term mid-major a number of times. I don't see it as derogatory, again, even though my team is in the Mountain West. Since BCS doesn't exist in basketball, and since there are so many conferences, I would like to keep it basically the way it is. I am thinking, though, that we could erase the labels of "major" and "mid-major" and "other" and just leave them blank, but leave the rest the same . . . That might be a good middle ground. Wrad 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just tested it on a preview, and although it looks a bit like a hierarchy, it doesn't jump out as one unless you are looking for it. Wrad 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I took a few days to think about this and I still do not agree that this nav box should group the conferences by the vague "major/midmajor/other" status. I still content that Wikipedia is not the place to make this distinction. I'm going to switch it back to the one-listed version. I REALLY don't think that it is that hard to navigate through. Let's just see what it looks like. X96lee15 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my last post? Why don't you see how that looks? I didn't just revert it! I asked you! What's the big deal? I came up with a compromise. Don't just ignore it and revert back. Let's talk here! Wrad 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just like you just reverted my edit earlier without even addressing one of my comments? Yes, I did read your post and I did look at your modification, but, in my opinion, it's just more confusing without category names. I do not want to get into an edit-war here, but I strongly disagree with categorizing the conferences based on a subjective criteria. X96lee15 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just do the compromise and let it rest. I'm sick of this. Wrad 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sick of this too :) Whenever I log on here, I hope that you haven't responded. Let's go with the compromise. I just wish more users had weighed in. Perhaps in a while others will join the discussion. X96lee15 04:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)