Talk:2015 USC Trojans football team
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Bagumba in topic Co-Division Champions
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Co-Division Champions edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For other Wikipedia team articles, when two teams end up atop a division with identical conference records, both teams are listed as "Division Co-Champions" in the infobox. (See, e.g., 2008 Texas Longhorns football team and 2008 Oklahoma Sooners football team or 2012 Oregon Ducks football team and 2012 Stanford Cardinal football team.) Since this appears to be the case, 2015 USC Trojans football team and 2015 Utah Utes football team should be listed likewise. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. See: http://www.usctrojans.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/113015aab.html which calls USC South Division co-champions. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree. The Pac-12 is very inconsistent when discussing this: http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/28/pac-12-football-championship-game-set-usc-captures-south-division And I believe that's because a divisional title isn't really a thing. There's no trophy, and the media guide does not include a section that says something like divisional titles per school (for instance the north would either be stanford 3, oregon 2, or 5 and 5 each, which could settle this. Rather, it Simply lists conference championships (USC - 38). And then it lists overall standings, the participants and results of the conference championship games. I can see the logic for saying that they are co-champions, since that was how conference champions were listed prior to the championship game. But if we're going to base this on record, we need to declare that USC is the 2011 South Division Champion, and not UCLA. USC had the superior record, and who played in the championship game apparently doesn't factor into things. The media guide shows USC as being in first place that year. It does not declare UCLA a champion, it simply notes that they played in the Pac-12 championship game. It doesn't make sense to do this both ways. I think it's most clear to, unless the Pac-12 starts recording official records of divisional champions and starts handing out trophies, show who went to the game. Or who had the best record. But not a mix of both arbitrarily. Embowaf (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- And as another note to show the inconsistency, this (http://static.pac-12.com.s3.amazonaws.com/sports/football/fcg/2015/Pac-12_FCG_History_2015.pdf) in big bold text says "TIE-BREAK PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE DIVISION CHAMPIONS" and then talks about how the tiebreaker is used to pick the game representative. Embowaf (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Embowaf: You might have missed the earlier notice above, but the discussion had been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Co-Division_Champions. Can you copy your comments there to centralize the discussion. I'm capping this off so others won't make the similar mistake. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- And as another note to show the inconsistency, this (http://static.pac-12.com.s3.amazonaws.com/sports/football/fcg/2015/Pac-12_FCG_History_2015.pdf) in big bold text says "TIE-BREAK PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE DIVISION CHAMPIONS" and then talks about how the tiebreaker is used to pick the game representative. Embowaf (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree. The Pac-12 is very inconsistent when discussing this: http://pac-12.com/article/2015/11/28/pac-12-football-championship-game-set-usc-captures-south-division And I believe that's because a divisional title isn't really a thing. There's no trophy, and the media guide does not include a section that says something like divisional titles per school (for instance the north would either be stanford 3, oregon 2, or 5 and 5 each, which could settle this. Rather, it Simply lists conference championships (USC - 38). And then it lists overall standings, the participants and results of the conference championship games. I can see the logic for saying that they are co-champions, since that was how conference champions were listed prior to the championship game. But if we're going to base this on record, we need to declare that USC is the 2011 South Division Champion, and not UCLA. USC had the superior record, and who played in the championship game apparently doesn't factor into things. The media guide shows USC as being in first place that year. It does not declare UCLA a champion, it simply notes that they played in the Pac-12 championship game. It doesn't make sense to do this both ways. I think it's most clear to, unless the Pac-12 starts recording official records of divisional champions and starts handing out trophies, show who went to the game. Or who had the best record. But not a mix of both arbitrarily. Embowaf (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.