Talk:Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tag

The article had the tag: (source: ljworld.com)

Border _____

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">It should still be called the "Border War" because it really does refer to a War that went on between Kansas and Missouri during the Civil War. I don't really know anyone who says "Showdown" even though that may be the "offical name." It really has changed in local vonacual.

Both schools have requested that it be called the Border Showdown, and that is its official name. I'm going to change the article to reflect this. Zkissane 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Border Showdown is its official name, it should be left at that. Perhaps a section on origins can elaborate on naming.Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Kansas City Star has a complete section on the "KU-MU: The Border War" its still called the border war in Kansas City.

http://www.kansascity.com/borderwar/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.118.11 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, the naming scheme of this series and the Red River Shootout needs to match. Both have traditional names still in overwhelming popular use, and newer PC names adopted recently. There is precedent to keep them at their traditional names, so I advocate moving this article to Border War. Remember, Wikipedia is not bound to use "official" names, it should use the most common actual name, if one exists. --Xyzzyva (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of the last comment, I'm now neutral, if someone wants to spearhead this, then I'm all for it, just make sure to fix all the links.Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• It needs to be titled as Border War. While Border Showdown is the official name as it relates to the corporate sponsorship, such a sponsorship and decision by a few individuals in recent years cannot automatically change the name of the rivalry as it has been, and continues to be, designated by the fans, alumni, and players from both schools. This is echoed by the fact that the general public has not recognized such a change. BlueGold73 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas we shouldn't make light of war (such as athletes comparing what they do on the field or court to an actual battlefield where lives are lost) this really does stem from an ACTUAL war... the CIVIL WAR. It is politically correct to call it a "Showdown". But the rivalry between the two schools is a reminder of an ugly thing that happened in US history, and that when we, KU and MU, play each other, we are reminded of that way things were, and we are grateful for the way things are now. Calling it a showdown removes the historical weight from the games. And it is a bit of irony that the border raids have last this long, and no one (execpt Pride) is getting hurt. There is irony there that we finally have a peaceful war. And WAR has like 4 different meanings in the dictionary, it's not definition #1 (armed conflict) but it's like #3 or so, (competitive hostility). (I may have just contradicted my first sentences). That's just my opinion. thanks! :-) ROCK CHALK! (oops.. that's not NPOV...) Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear this opinion echoed from the other side of the line as well. Thanks for your input I couldn't agree more. I tried to mention the fact that the rivalry helped to aid the two states in healing the relations with one another after the actual war (armed conflict). It was mentioned a lot in something I read about the early days of the rivalry, but I haven't been able to find the source lately. I'll expand those comments once I locate it. M-I-Z... (oops.. that's not NPOV either...) BlueGold73 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

One of Wikipedia's main tenants is neutrality - "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." This article is skewed in favor of Missouri.--Patrick l raftery (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to address some of your concerns, check it out. Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... that is better.--Patrick l raftery (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think there is still some bias in the football and basketball sections. Football seems a little pro Missouri and basketball seems a little pro Kansas. Also there are all sorts of POV wording in those sections "Kansas crushes Missouri" of "Missouri destroys Kansas". That sort of thing, I think it can be cleaned up pretty easily it will just take some time.Grey Wanderer | Talk 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Marching Band Drum Trophy?

The Big 12 Conference article says the trophy in the border showdown is the "Marching Band Drum." I have not heard of it off hand. If it is indeed the trophy it should be mentioned in the article along with a citation (I can't find it on google). Americasroof 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• According to the MU athletics website, the "Indian War Drum" is "issued to the winner of the Missouri-Kansas football game." I'm updating the article to reflect the correct name of the trophy. BlueGold73 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a marching band bass drum. One side has the KU logo, the other has the MU logo. It may stem from an ancient Indian drum, but it is in fact an actual modern marching bass drum that gets passed. You'll see it every now and again in between commercials during football games. Moonraker0022 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Move

• Oppose move proposed on WP:RM, which doesn't have discussion page here. This is unambiguous as well as current official name. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1960 Football Game

The article states both the NCAA and Big 8 had ruled Coan eligible before the game. I do not think that is true. Here is an article on the post-season conference ruling written from a KU perspective, and I believe that if Coan had been ruled eligible prior to the game, it would have been pointed out.

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2004/nov/20/coan_ineligible/?more_like_this —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly you believe wrongly. Coan was declared eligible before the season and then after the season ended the Big 8 changed voting rules that used to require a 3/4 majority to declare someone ineligible to a simple majority vote instead and then voted again on Coan's eligibility with a 5-3 vote. It was all done post-season after the games were played. Here's a CBS article on the subject which clearly lays out that the vote was after the game. http://www.cbssports.com/print/collegefootball/story/10488325

The pertinent quote being, "The Tigers lost to Kansas, which got two touchdowns from Bert Coan, who was later ruled ineligible. The damage was done. Missouri slipped to No. 5 in the polls."

Kmanblue (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Read your sources carefully (and a 2007 opinion article is not much of a source) versus the "facts" you present in the write-up. It is true that Coan was ruled ineligible after the season. There is no dispute on that point. However, you state he was ruled eligible before the season (or the game). By whom? When? The sequence of events was this: 1) Coan illegally recruited off the campus (as he recently admitted), 2) In mid-season, NCAA puts KU on probation in part due to said recruitement, 3) Nebraska (KU's next conference opponent)submits letter to KU challenging Coan's eligibility, 4) KU seeks clarification from conference on Coan's eligibility, 5) Conference declines request for special session to consider the matter, 6) KU decides to play Coan anyway in games against CU and MU, 7) in their post-season meeting, the conference acts on KU's original request and declares Coan ineligible. The article I cited clearly lays out this sequence. If you are going to insist there was a previous decision declaring Coan eligible, please provide the details and a credible citation. MOhistorybuff (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another recent commentary on the 1960 game. There is no discussion of a conference committee having previously declared Coan eligible. In fact, the article describes the speculation prior to the game that Coan was ineligible. If a conferenc committe had declared him eligible, why would there be speculation he wasn't? http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/nov/20/halfback_coan_at/ MOhistorybuff (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I did not write the "write-up" that you keep deleting. Second, he was cleared as being eligible by the NCAA and the Big 8 as are/were ALL players before the season begins or else he would of never been allowed to play that season. This is still true today in the Big 12 and the NCAA. The Big 8 conference is the only official entity that ever officially declared him ineligible and hence why the official NCAA record books still count this game as a win for KU. The decision to declare him ineligible and to forfeit any games was all done solely by the Big 8, not the NCAA and are not officially recognized by the NCAA. The NCAA's later decision involved a 1 year probation for the football team and no forfeits. Colorado still counts the game as a loss to KU BTW. http://www.cubuffs.com/fls/600/mediaguides/football2009/records_results_131-151.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=600

In regards to your point #1, the accusations about illegal recruitment are all in regards to a KU booster and not the University itself. There has never been any evidence that the football coach, nor the University or anyone acting on official(by all accounts it appears Adams acted on his own) behalf of the University were involved. This is in part why this has been so controversial over the years. In regards to your #3 point, Nebraska sending the letter to KU, was only done after Missouri's AD and ex-football coach Don Faurot, contacted them claiming Coan was ineligible, which was before anyone ever declared him to be. Finally your last point, for some mysterious reason, most suspect heavy lobbying by coach Faurot, the conference's 1st order of business at the meeting was to change the voting rules and how many votes were required to declare someone ineligible from a 3/4 majority(6-2 vote) to a simple majority(5-3 vote). This is another reason why this has been so controversial. Also, in their initial vote, which was 4-4, he was not declared ineligible, but then again mysteriously and to this day unexplained, a 2nd round of voting was conducted in which the University of Oklahoma changed their vote and so he was finally declared ineligible by the Big 8 with a vote of 5-3. Yet another reason why this has been so controversial. Under the rules which existed before that meeting, this vote would of not been enough to declare him ineligible. Just to clarify things a bit more. Here's another article which lays out the NCAA probation ruling and many of the surrounding issues. http://www2.kusports.com/news/1960/oct/27/zealous_ku_alumni_cause_school_be_ncaa_carpet/

Kmanblue (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

After my initial deletion, you restored it. It had stated, "The committee originally declared Coan eligible...Coan was ruled eligible to play by the NCAA and Big 8 committee prior to the game ..." No comittee declared Coan eligible before the game that I am aware of, and you failed to provide any substantiation of this. The NCAA ruling on Coan's recruitment was silent on his elgibility to play, and so if the only ruling on Coan's eligibility prior to the game was the same ruling that applied to evey college football player in the country/conference, prior to the finding that Coan had been illegally recruited, then the statement if not outright false is misleading in the extreme. I assume since you did not add the deleted section back in again that you now agree that it was a false and/or misleading description of that aspect of the controversey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Every player has to be cleared(i.e. declared eligible) to play before the season both by the NCAA and the conference they play in, which in this case is the Big 8. I'm not exactly sure if the old Big 8 did this in committee or through another procedure at that time. It's extremely obvious however that he was deemed eligible to play before the season started or he never would of been allowed to suit up and play in any games. The NCAA declared him eligible and did nothing to change that in their ruling on KU later on and hence why the game is still recorded as a KU win in their official record books to this day. Actually their punishment later on had much more to do with local KU boosters buying Wilt Chamberlin a used car, which was seen as the major infraction by the NCAA. And I didn't put the statements back in because I was hoping that the original author would chime in by now, but that hasn't happened.

Kmanblue (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that I am dealing with a KU fan here. I don't think any levbel-headed unbiased observer would continue to make the assertions you are making. You write (or have restored), "Coan was originally declared eligible despite speculation that a trip to an all-star game, paid for by KU donor and AFL co-founder Bud Adams, had convinced him to transfer to the school. Coan was ruled eligible to play by the NCAA and the Big 8 prior to the game and the NCAA took no part in the subsequent Big 8 forfeit ruling." Do you have any evidence there was any speculation about Coan's recruitment and eligibility at the time he initally became eligible with all the others in his recuiting class, and that the matter was even within the bounds of that determination? I suspect the answer is no, but go ahead and refute that if you can. By saying he was declared eligible before the game, the clear implication is that the ruling came after the NCAA determination that he had been illegally recruited, which is most certainly not the case. Try to be a little more honest, and if your're not tyring to be intentionally misleading, please try to write with greater clarity. MOhistorybuff (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer you back to this article from 1960. http://www2.kusports.com/news/1960/oct/27/zealous_ku_alumni_cause_school_be_ncaa_carpet/ It clearly states, "Coan, now a top halfback on the KU grid team, transferred here in the fall of 1959 from TCU after a disagreement with the trainer/track coach. At the time, TCU athletic director Dutch Meyer was irate and insisted he would press the matter with the NCAA.", which means the AD at TCU certainly thought there was something in violation about it. It later states, "Then the case of the Texas grid transfers was brought to light in 1959...Last spring it appeared certain KU would be rapped...", which makes it very clear that in 1959, the year before he was voted ineligible by the Big 8, that there was a lot of speculation about Coan's recruitment going on. By saying he was declared eligible before the game is simply stating fact and nothing more. I don't see it as ambiguous or misleading.

Kmanblue (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He was ruled eligible to play before the game only to the extent that he had been cleared to play prior to the season, and there is no evidence that his recruitment was any factor at all in that determination. (Clearly, if it had been, there would have been mention of this in the articles that compained about KU's treatment.) By stating he was ruled eligible before the game, the clear implication is that the conference's post-season determination was a reversal of the position the conference had taken about Coan playing in that game in particular, with the illegal recuitment being a specific aspect of that ruling. There was no reversal of the conference's ruling on Coan and his eligiblity in light of his illegal recruitment, because there was only one ruling by the conference on that matter, the post-season decision. Can you honestly state you can not see how the earlier statment was misleading? I am all for fans being fans, but refusing to achknowledge the clear truth is another matter. It's like denying the jayhawker moniker carried its negative connotations into the Civil War! 70.250.48.134 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

My preceeding comments deal with the misleading nature of the original statement that the NCAA and Big 8 had declared Coan eligible before the game. If he had indeed been declared elgibile prior to the season, and the illegal recruitment had not factored into the finding, what relevance does that have to the controversey (other than to stir up controversey with a red herring)? In this paragraph, I deal with the factual nature of your assertions. You state, "Every player has to be cleared(i.e. declared eligible) to play before the season both by the NCAA and the conference they play in, which in this case is the Big 8. I'm not exactly sure if the old Big 8 did this in committee or through another procedure at that time. It's extremely obvious however that he was deemed eligible to play before the season started or he never would of been allowed to suit up and play in any games. The NCAA declared him eligible..." The NCAA did not even have any enforcement authority until the early 1950's. The NCAA did not set academic standards for incoming freshmen athletes until 1965. http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Parsons%20Jennifer%20C.%20M.pdf?ashland1271777760 The NCAA did not set up its academic clearinghouse for incoming freshmen athletes until 1993. http://www.fastweb.com/student-life/articles/347-ncaas-clearinghouse-rules---whos-looking-out-for-the-student-athlete So, what evidence do you have of your assertion that Coan was declared eligible by the NCAA and Big 8? It seems this was merely an assumption on your part, and erroneous at least in the case of the NCAA, but if that is not correct please provide your sources. MOhistorybuff (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first point about no enforcement authority existing until the early 1950's is a moot point because that was well before Coan played football for anyone, so it has no bearing at all. The 2nd point about academic eligibility is just 1 aspect of eligibility. Players were and still are declared ineligible for all sorts of reasons before the NCAA or conferences started enforcing academic standards other than those set by each individual institution. Also, Coan was never declared academically ineligible by ANY entity, not the Big 8, not KU, and not the NCAA, ever so academic enforcement has zero bearing on this case. The most basic evidence that the NCAA deemed him eligible is the fact that they never deemed him ineligible in any of their rulings ever and they still have the game's results as played on their record books with no asterisks or any notes of any kind, hence there is no controversy about the results of the game or Coan's eligibilty in the eyes of the NCAA.

Kmanblue (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I started this thread by questioning the statement that the NCAA and Big 8 had ruled Coan eligible before the game. You have repeatedly claimed the statement is true. I have provided evidence there was no pre-game ruling, and you have provided no proof there was. I provided the history of NCAA enforcement authority to make it clear that the NCAA was not in the business of declaring each player eligible or ineligible in 1960 (as they do today), which was apparently a key component of your argument. I propose to change the write-up as follows: "Illustrating the controversial nature of the 1960 game, some KU fans claim the NCAA and Big 8 had ruled Coan eligible before the game. When pressed, these fans can cite no evidence in support of this contention, suggesting the statement is more KU fan folklore than fact, meant to give an air of righteousness to the continued whining of the KU fanbase." But, perhaps I am not being fair. If you continue to believe there was a pre-game ruling that declared Coan eligible, please provide evidnece of such.MOhistorybuff (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

These ongoing statements are so biased (or merely absurd) interpreations of what transpired as to be laughable. "An initial vote was called in which Coan was voted eligible by a vote of 4-4." Italic text A tie vote is interpreted as a declaration he was eligible? Coan and the other 2 players were not however ruled ineligible by the NCAA. One could go on and on about what the NCAA did not rule on (they did not rule that the conference could not consider additional sanctions), but I doubt they had any intention of making their non-statements on elgibility an implicit declaration of elgibility for these three players, since one had previously left KU, and another had already been declared academically ineligible (by KU?). MOhistorybuff (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.48.134 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A tie vote would of resulted in Coan NOT being declared ineligible, thus being declared eligible. He can only be voted ineligible or eligible. He can't be voted "don't know" or ambiguous. So, yes a tie vote would of been a vote declaring him eligible. And yes, Marion 'Mickey' Walker was declared academically ineligible by KU, but he later went on to play on the 1962 and 1963 KU football teams. Ironically and inconsistently he was never declared ineligible by the Big 8 at any time despite also being named in the 1960 NCAA probation report.

Kmanblue (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What a hard-headed homer. Oh well. The article is still somewhat of an abomination, but at least it now has some balance: no more claims about a pre-game declaration, Coan's admission that the NCAA was right in their findings, KU warned by conference members there were concerns about Coan's eligibility before they went ahead and played him. There are still lots of problems with the article: editorial, bias (e.g., the tie vote), and facts. For example, you mis-state the NCAA findings. The NCAA charge of excessive entertainment applied only to Coan. The other two were part of the NCAA finding that KU had violated rules by not notifying TCU is a timely manner that they intended to raid their roster. I don't know if the conference had a rule on that like the NCAA, but that could explain why the Big 8 focused on Coan (they were dealing with violation of conference rules, and it is unlikely the conference had a rule dealing with notification of non-conference members). You make assumptions about the committee's vote that go beyond the known facts. It is known there was initially a tie vote. However, the vote apparently dealt with a whole series of resultions: KU in violation of conference rules, KU forfeiting wins, the award of the conference championship, and the duration which Coan would be ineligible. You don't know what, if anything, changed between the first vote and the second. But you like to make assumptions, and sometimes they are erroneous as previously established. However, as long as this article retains at least some semblance of balance, I am done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.48.134 (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The article should certainly mention the 1960 controversy, but the entire record should not be listed as "disputed." The NCAA officially forfeited the 1960 game to Missouri, so there is no question about the win-loss-tie record. It does not matter that people disagree with the decision of the NCAA in terms of the record. I edited the references to the record accordingly, but the article still accounts for the disagreement among people who do not determine the official record. Eodcarl (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, the NCAA, the Big 12 and KU all have the series as 55-54-9 KU. Only the University of Missouri has it 55-54-9 MU. This is why it is disputed. Look at the official 2010 Big 12 media guide, page 130 for proof, located here: http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410//pdfs/football/10Guide/record-book-B.pdf Also, the NCAA NEVER officially forfeited the game, it was all a Big 8 decision, but either and this is why it is stated that the Big 8 is ambiguous on their stance on the issue and hence why the record is still officially disputed, and not just amongst fans. Kmanblue (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That is all irrelevant. It does not matter that the Big 12 Media Guide, KU record book, old Big Eight records, etc. list it as. The only thing that matters is the NCAA (the only authority on the matter) forfeited the game to Missouri. There is no dispute among the authorities in the matter. This is an encyclopedia, so the official record should be listed and the story behind the controversy should also be told. The latter is already in the article, but the official record keeps getting changed. I am changing it back. Leave it alone. The article makes it very clear the NCAA forfeited the game to Missouri because KU cheated. It is not a technicality. Eodcarl (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You state "the Big 8 also didn't record it in their official record books"? Do you really believe the conference would not document their finding on the game in their official records? Do you have any evidence behind your statment, or are you just throwing out unsubstantited trash talk as fact once again? The Big 12 web site refers to the Big 8 records, which show the game as an MU win. http://www.big12sports.com//pdf5/134783.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. The NCAA, the Big 12, and KU go by the results of the game as played. MU goes by the forced forfeit imposed by the Big 8. Hence the records are disputed. To state anything otherwise is just purely POV on your or anyone else's part. To not record the overall records both ways is purely POV bias, plain and simple. The NCAA and the Big 12 aren't pro-KU or anti-MU and their official record books have a different overall record than does MU's official record books. To ignore that is pure POV bias. Kmanblue (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In one document the Big 12 (an organization which did not exist when the game in question was played) lists the Kansas "win." Big deal. However, the NCAA does NOT list it as a Kansas win anywhere. The NCAA is the only organization that matters, and they forfeited the game to Missouri. It is the only record that matters. The individual schools, nor the conferences have any authority in the matter. Only the NCAA does, and the NCAA says Missouri won the 1960 game. I record here will reflect the official NCAA ruling. Eodcarl (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong, the NCAA officially lists this game as a win for KU. The NCAA did NOT play ANY part in the forfeit of the game. That was ALL done by the old Big 8.

Kmanblue (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You stated the Big 8 didn't record the game as an MU win, and that only MU regards the game as an MU win. If you're going to state these things as fact, be prepared to back it up. If you can't, just admit it. How many times are you going to try and dole out partisan BS as fact, only to be proven wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.48.134 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The last official Big 8 records I looked at had the game as a forfeit in the regular season stats, but it also had the game as a W in KU's all-time wins and a L in MU's all-time losses as well as a W for KU and a L for MU in the all-time series record. That's rather ambiguous and unintelligible. Since I don't have access to the archived official Big 8 record books anymore, I can't look it up and it's not something you'll find on the internet either. Taking out one sides version of the overall record in contradiction with what the Big 12 and the NCAA both officially record is as partisan as you can get. Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind. Kmanblue (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion of the post-season Big 8 finding was riddled with error and bias. Here were some of the problems that prompted the changes: no discussion of the conference ruless pertaining to the matter, no recognition that the NCAA and conference rules were not the same and could therfore lead to different penalties, errors regarding the confernece's voting rules (one should not take a sports columnist's rant as fact), errors regarding the actual votes of the conference committee, and speculation regarding the roles of Faurot and Devine. MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

I reinstated the parts which dealt with pertinent facts, like the details about conference rules on voting on a player's eligibility and how they were changed as the first order of business at the December 8, 1960 meeting and how 2 votes were held and it wasn't until the 2nd vote that Coan was finally declared ineligible. But I did not reinstate 1 part of 2 parts which you call "a sports columnist's rant" and apparently equate to bias having to do with why the rules were changed(who instigated the call for the change). I did reinstate the part about who initiated the calling of the votes, because there's at least 2 sources who reported the same thing and I added the 2nd source. So, apparently it wasn't just one sports columnist's published biased ranting as you proclaim. Kmanblue (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the post-season committee meeting, the voting rules were not changed. The rules were silent on what voting procedure would apply to interpretation of rules, and there was precedent on the committee for simple majority votes. After the voting procedure was settled, there were votes on two matters. The first was whether or not there was a violation of conference rules on excessive entertainment and off-campus trips (two different rules). A motion that these rules were violated passed on the first motion. By confernece rules, Coan was automatically ineligible at that point. The only question was which games he would be ineligible for. Two motions to make Coan ineligible for the 1961 season were defeated. Then, a motion to declare Coan ineligible for a perod of one year starting with the NCAA ruling was passed. It looks like the sports columnist for the KU hometown newspaper mis-interpreted what had transpited, and his story was subsequently accepted by some as fact. The article would be more factual if you restore the edits I made.MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

I just looked at an old KC Star article on microfiche in a library(there's no online access I could find), which more or less had the same account of what went on in the meeting regarding the voting rules changed, who was pressuring for the change and the vote being held, how many votes were held, and who changed their vote etc. So, it appears more than 1 published report, reported the same account which differs from the one you present in some substantial ways. So, it's not accurate to say it was folklore or one reporters misinterpretation. I'm not saying the reports from the time are any more or less correct than your version right now, but outside confirmation/sources could clarify things. What is the source for your version of events?

Kmanblue (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are reading the old newspapers, you are aware of the "white paper" KU put out after the conference meeting. The white paper is the source for the precedent on simple majority votes. It also clearly states the conference rules in play. It is a "must read" if you really want to undersand what was going on. (One fact that does not get attention is the Big 8 rule that made a player inelible if found to have been involved in off-campus recruiting - thus, when the NCAA found KU guilty of this, KU knew they were on very thin ice by playing Coan.) The other is the conference meeting minutes - this is where the sequence of motions and voting results is presented. MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

I've seen the white paper before, but a while ago, and from what I remember of it, it didn't show any precedence for simple majority votes on issues of eligibility and that was first done in this case. The problem I have with your latest edit is that it excludes pertinent information widely reported at the time and substantiated enough for multiple journalist to report them as facts. If things were as clear cut as the way your latest edit would suggest, then why would the then executive secretary of the Big 8 say that this was the, "toughest case to come before us in history." (source:http://www2.kusports.com/news/2004/nov/20/coan_ineligible/)? It's clear from multiple sources, including the executive secretary of the Big 8 at the time, that it wasn't as simple and clear cut as your latest edit would lead the unknowledgeable reader to conclude. I'm reverting your edit for now, until you can give clear references, i.e. to specific quotes, sections, or pages, etc., from the "white paper" or "conference meeting minutes" that support your edit. Kmanblue (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my statement of a conference rule that is essential to understanding the Coan saga. The KU “white paper” (Page 2, top of page) documented pertinent conference rules on recruiting: Section 14.f: “Off-campus trips for prospective students may not be provided or arranged for by a member school, its alumni, or by any other means”. Section 14.g “Any violation of this section by a member school, alumni, or friends of the institution, will render the individual or individuals concerned ineligible for competition at that institution."

The NCAA concluded that Coan was a prospective student who had been treated to an off-campus recruiting trip by a representative of KU. Therefore, he was ineligible by Section 14g of the conference rules. The essence of the ensuing controversy is certain conference members attempting to enforce conference rules based on the presumption the NCAA finding should be accepted, and KU resisting by disputing the validity of the NCAA ruling.

"Quite frankly", your memory failed or was being selective. The KU white paper (Page 7, middle of page) states that after the meeting opened with testimony from some of the principles in the controversy, “The faculty representatives then voted 6-2 that the question of Coan’s eligibility would be settled by the vote of a simple majority, 5-3, as had been the case in some other decisions by the conference in the past (emphasis added).” Thus, there was at least some precedent for the simple majority decision. The KU white paper also listed all the conference rules regarding votes – there was no rule stating what majority would be required in matters of rules interpretation. Therefore, it is not true conference rules were changed to allow the simple majority decision on Coan.

The hardest decision for the conference committee was probably on whether they should accept the NCAA finding, or accept as fact the denials of Coan, Adams, and KU. They went with the NCAA finding. (That was hard to argue with at the time, since they were member institutions. It is even harder to argue with today, as Coan’s later admission made it clear the NCAA had gotten it right). Once they went with the NCAA finding and found KU in violation of 14f, then Coan was automatically ineligible by 14g, and it was then a matter of determining the period he would be ineligible.

The voting sequence is documented in Item #1155 of the MVIAA Faculty Representative Committee Meeting Minutes, and the sequence is as I documented earlier in this discussion. The voting summary that you keep re-inserting is erroneous, even though it was widely reported at that time. (It appears that many of the contemporary newspaper articles were not based on the official documentation, but rather on some source (presumably in the KU camp) that was feeding spin (or at least erroneous info) to the press.)

The decision that Coan would be ineligible for a period of one year starting on the date of the NCAA finding was by a vote of 6-2, constituting a three-fourths majority (KU white paper, page 7, bottom of page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MOhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in my previous post, I only deleted your statement until you provided specific references, which is the standard for most articles on wikipedia. While my memory is not perfect, memories being what they are, I do seem to recall the final vote being 5-3 with KU, KSU, and Oklahoma State being the 3 in the minority and not 6-2 as you state. But seeing as you've read the MVIAA meeting minutes more recently than I have, could you clarify this part?(which schools voted in the minority and on which votes). Also, from my recollections, both of the day, as well as reading the items mentioned, the Big 8 had never used a simple majority vote to vote on eligibility of a player(not simply interpretation of the rules) before this time, which is probably the source of the newspaper articles and local KC rumor mill's(at the time of this situation) claim of a rule change. Kmanblue (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the official records (conference meeting minutes and KU white paper). Neither provide school-by-school results. The 6-2 final vote is from the KU white paper, which must be considered a more reliable source than the newspaper articles you have apparently relied on. MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

For now, I am actually satisfied with listing the series as disputed in the summary box at the top, while leaving the 56-54-9 record in the year-by-year listing. The description of the 1960 game itself seems quite slanted toward the presumption that KU would have won the game with or without Coan. I believe any language speculating the cause of the result should be removed and the word "desperation" should also be changed. Eodcarl (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

For those who insist on anonymously revisiting this issue: Please come to the talk page and talk about it. A long while ago we reached consensus to prominently reference the dispute on the score in the main call-out box, and to reference it in the notes of the year-by-year record. Both views are represented without making the page cumbersome. If you think it should be a different way, talk about it, but don't just change it, knowing it has been discussed heavily in the past. Eodcarl (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That's blatantly false. There was no consensus reached. I just had enough of you and your pal MOhistorybuff's ever changing arguments and dogged determination to rewrite the controversy as a non-controversy, thus rewriting history in a very biased one sided inaccurate non-encyclopedic manner. It seems monitoring and rewriting this subject has been your sole contribution to wikipedia and your sole reason for being here and as such I think is further proof of your extreme bias on this subject. I never agreed to not listing the disputed records side by side in the year-by-year results. They were originally listed that way and should go back to that way. The NCAA record books, the de facto source for such things for most people, DO NOT AGREE with the year-by-year results as currently listed. It should be changed back to how it originally was listed with both disputed versions of the overall record listed side by side. I tried to do that 2 years ago, but you and your pal ganged up to make it an editing war and thus why the page reads as it does today. Also, I have done NO editing on this page in almost 2 years now, so I don't know who's been doing what since that time, including any current editing. I'm just posting now to correct the record that there was any consensus reached as there was not. I would try to edit the page back to it's original condition again in terms of the records because it reflects the facts in an encyclopedic manner, but I know you'd just turn it into an edit war again. Kmanblue (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, two editors agreeing with no further dissent is consensus. That is what happened; you left the discussion. Based on the the contention of this issue at the time, it would be improper to arbitrarily change it at this point without a new consensus of sorts. Are you contending a first time reader of this article would have a difficult time determining there is dispute about the football series record based on the disagreement over the 1960 game? The disputed records are prominently displayed in the MAIN callout box at the top of the article. There is no such thing as the NCAA record books as you placed in quotes. The authority over the issue at hand at the time was the Big 8. I could imagine a case being made for there being no winner of that game, but a case cannot be made for a KU win, since the Big 8 took it. Feel free to open up the discussion again if you believe there is new information. Eodcarl (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

2 pro-Missouri fans claiming they've formed a consensus is about as laughable as when a communist dictator (insert any one of them here) wins an election. It's a joke and anybody with any common sense knows it's a joke as it's in name only and does not meet the requirements for a true consensus or election. And yes any unknowledgeable or first time reader of this article is likely to miss that there's any disputed records as many just go right to the info box on all-time results. The original info box had that entry as white (the color generally reserved for a tie) which you seem to think is OK now, and both versions of the record listed which illustrates the NCAA and KU records as well as the Missouri records. You changed the all-time results info box through brute force of numbers in an edit war not through any objective agreed upon determining.

There absolutely is such a thing as the NCAA record book and anyone who'd look up the results via the NCAA would be confused as to why this page doesn't match up. No doubt you will not believe it as you probably want evidence of some actual large book kept at the NCAA called, "The Record Book". There is absolutely a case for KU to be the winner of that game as that is the results of the actual game! Why would Colorado official record books still call KU the winner of their game as well as the NCAA? The KU vs Colorado game is extremely revealing as to how controversial the decisions on the 2 games were which were both based on the same exact Big 8 ruling. So controversial that Colordao did not accept the verdict even! You started off with 1 argument about the NCAA being the ultimate determiner of the record and when that got shot down you switched to a new argument. You're ever changing arguments to doggedly support your biased opinion is tiresome. You're pathological insistence that YOUR version of history is the 1 and only is biased, non-encyclopedic and not within the bounds of wikipedia guidelines. But like I said, since your sole purpose for being on wikipedia appears to be to guard your version of this part of the page, it's impossible to change it without you initiating another edit war or apparently railing against anonymous editors as I have read. You are not interested in the facts. You are not interested in the reality of that game and that decision. You are not interested in objectivity. You are only interested in making sure this page stays exactly the way YOU want it, and hence why I left the discussion before. I believe this situation will not change unless a much higher up at wikipedia with no bias or a "dog in this hunt" so to speak, steps in.

And on a side note, I've found out that the reference to the "upon further review" (which is now dead and gone along with that entire website BTW) was a COMPLETE FABRICATION. That interview did not happen and that article where it quotes Coan as saying he was illegally recruited was written by another (probably you or MOhistorybuff in high likelihood) pro-Missouri fan. Kmanblue (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should show the disputed series results side by side the way it used to be in the article. I have an original copy of the actual 1961 NCAA Record Book that recaps the 1960 season in detail. It does in fact show the record in KU's favor; however, it also has a note right next to the record indicating that the two KU victories were forfeited by conference action and as a result the conference records differ from the NCAA records. BlueGold73 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, it is cumbersome to repeat the disputed records 50+ times, adding no improved understanding for Wikipedia users. As you said, the conference (Big 8) forfeited the game, after the fact, though too late to have any impact on post season play. If the NCAA had actually taken action to overturn the Big 8 decision, I might agree with your referencing another record book. I'm not sure whether the NCAA even had the authority to overturn the Big 8 decision, but the fact remains, the NCAA remained silent. I do support the idea of restating the disputed record after the 2011 game, but not listing it 50+ times for no other purpose than to indulge a special interest. Eodcarl (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an ABSOLUTE LIE. 90% of all of my edits over the years have NOTHING to do with KU and you've edited 1 other page outside of this one. I say again, your sole purpose for being on wikipedia seems to be to guard your preferred version of this page. And apparently you can't read well as I answered your question in my response nor can you answer it for me as you just now tried to do in your previous post. I will post my answer again verbatim as I posted it the 1st time. "And yes any unknowledgeable or first time reader of this article is likely to miss that there's any disputed records as many just go right to the info box on all-time results." I'm not at all concerned about "first billing" of any particular facts, but EQUAL billing, which is clearly not happening in the current version of this article. BlueGold73 is EXACTLY RIGHT and supports what I have been saying all along, that both versions of the series records should be shown side-by-side as it was originally on the page to begin with! There's nothing cumbersome about it. It was that way for several years before you began your personal campaign to rewrite this page as YOU saw fit. You make a great effort to significantly alter the page and now argue that undoing your alteration is "cumbersome" and does nothing to improve the page. Well isn't that the ultimate circular reasoning for maintaining your ambiguous contentious non-NPOV alteration of the page?

Also, you're statement here,

"As you said, the conference (Big 8) forfeited the game, after the fact, though too late to have any impact on post season play." is completely FALSE! MU got to go to the Orange Bowl because of the Big 8 action, if not for that action the Big 8 would have had no team going to the Orange Bowl even though KU would have still been the Big 8 champions. Emotion has nothing to do with this. You are rewriting history and presenting things in a biased revisionist manner which is not in line with wikipedia guidelines. Kmanblue (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the next reply going to be in 2014? I am not particularly interested in these emotional rants, but as a point of fact, Mizzou was going to the Orange Bowl regardless of the Big 8 ruling. Also, if you were paying attention, you'd see I have tempered the extreme posts by people with extreme bias in both directions over the last year or so. Eodcarl (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't obsess over this page, so I don't always check it out and hence long times between replies. And who anointed you with the power or authority to "temper" the "extreme" posts by other people? This is the TALK page, and people can post whatever they feel is pertinent to the discussion. It's not your purview to editorialize what OTHER PEOPLE (caps done for emphasis) post here by either deleting comments or editing them. You're extremely biased in your POV and obsessed with your version of this page in addition to being extraordinarily arrogant (as further evidenced by your assumption that you are the arbiter of what posts should or should not stay on this page) and in the end it amounts to pointlessness to try and discuss the page with you as nothing will be or has been gained. What you call "emotional rants" were not emotional on my part, as typing things in bold or in all CAPS was done to emphasize and make points rather than emotional in their purpose, but thanks for asserting knowledge of my thought processes and state of mind (more evidence of arrogance). As for my opinion on this page, the way it was originally presented with both disputed records being listed side-by-side in the record infobox is the way it should be, but you've seen to it that your major controversial edit of removing 1 set of records is the way it will stay come hell or high water. Kmanblue (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't call people liars and yell and scream then claim it is not about emotion. You regularly insult the other editors here while using hyperbole. None of that is helpful. Try pretending we're all face-to-face having this discussion, and speak to us in the manner you would in that case. I looked at ALL your edits. I did not find one about a topic without connection to KU. That is OK, but it relates directly to your false accusation about me. You're wrong that a reader of the article would come away with something other than: 1) KU won the 1960 game on the field 2) The Big 8 (the only entity with any authority on the matter that has ever ruled on the matter) took away the victory due to an ineligible player 3) KU and some others disagree with the ruling. That is exactly what the current article says, which is the truth. The KU dispute of the series record does not rate equal billing because the Big 8 ruled on the matter, and that ruling has never been changed or overruled. It is the only official outcome, no matter what a reference here or there says. BTW, Missouri was already going to the Orange Bowl prior to the vote of the Big 8.

You haven't looked at virtually any of my edits over the years if you came to the conclusion that you can't find one without a connection to KU. That statement alone shows you are either a compulsive liar, lazy, or completely inept as you could not figure out how to properly look up someone's previous edits. There's no other logical conclusion and that's not name calling it's stating facts. I'm not wrong in my opinion (stated in a factual manner on purpose as that's how you chose to try to refute MY opinion) in that 1)A reader would come away confused or oblivious that the result of the 1960 games is disputed 2)We've rehashed this subject several times before already, first you wanted the NCAA to be the standard bearer for who had the final say, but when it was pointed out that the NCAA counts the game as win for KU, you changed to the old defunct Big 8, my position hasn't changed the entire time, but yours has as needed 3)KU, the NCAA, and most of the people directly involved with the game disagree with the ruling as seen from the quotes from the MU players and coaches themselves as well as the KU coaches and players, in addition to CU not acknowledging or agreeing with the Big 8's ruling(it was 1 ruling for both games, so it was one in the same ruling) either. The current article is confusing at best and biased at worst. I say the KU and NCAA (and in effect the CU) version of the series rates as equal to the old defunct Big 8's and MU's version and should be reflected in both version of the series being listed as was originally posted. You and your mizzou buddy biasedly changed it to suit your opinion, not to be acurate or clarify things. Oh, and BlueGold73 apparently agrees with my opinion about both series versions being listed, so there's a new consensus which should lead to someone changing the page to reflect this new consensus. Kmanblue (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly no insults in that. As long as you think it is a fact, you can call people liars, lazy, inept. Got it. Like I said, you're emotionally tied to this topic. There are selective quotes of those with opinions at the time, but unlike your contention above, an opinion cannot be stated in a factual manner. Colorado is in no way relevant to this issue. Early in this discussion, years ago, I was mistaken in thinking the NCAA forfeited the game, having subsequently learned it was the Big 8. We all make mistakes, but it does not change the relevant facts. Only one body with authority has ruled on this game, the Big 8 in 1960. I welcome other editors to weigh in. Considering the main info box clearly states the series is disputed and the paragraph on the 1960 game clearly details why. You have not articulated why you think it is not clear. I welcome your response. Eodcarl (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You've missed my point. You initially stated that I was wrong in my opinion as if that were a factually provable statement and hence why I responded with stating my opinion again in a factual manner this time (I even alluded to this in parenthesis so you wouldn't miss my point!). Opinions are neither wrong nor right, they are opinions and not assertions of fact(see, I was being ironic before on purpose to make a point). So, if you are neither a liar, nor lazy, nor inept then how do you explain away this sentence that YOU posted? "I looked at ALL your edits. I did not find one about a topic without connection to KU." I've made 751 edits on wikipedia over the years and created and/or edited 181 unique pages. Out of those 181 pages, 139 or 77% of them have NO connection or tie to KU in any manner. So, since your declaration that you've looked at all of my edits and have found NONE that don't have a connection or tie to KU is easily overwhelmingly demonstrably false, what's your excuse now? I still say there's 3 options for it or maybe a combination of the 3. Whereas you on the other hand have edited a whopping 6 unique pages on wikipedia(created none) and have made 153 edits(excluding to your own user page and 1 other user's page) in total. Out of those 153 edits, 147 or 96% have been made to this article or it's talking page! That certainly backs up my assertion that you guarding this page to stay the way you want it to is your primary reason for even being on wikipedia.

Colorado certainly is relevant to this discussion as the Big 8's decision wasn't made separately on the 2 games. The Big 8 made 1 decision which affected both games. Colorado, the NCAA, and KU all chose to not acknowledge that decision in their record books. That speaks volumes to how controversial this decision was and why it created such a stir at the time. As well, that speaks to how Colorado agrees with KU's take on this controversy and disagrees with MU's take as Colorado is voicing an opinion on the Big 8 decision which covers BOTH games. It also speaks volumes to why both versions of the series records both have some validity and should both be listed. Also, not only did you think the NCAA had forfeited the game, but you used that as your primary reason for contentiously editing the page by removing the NCAA version of the series record and also proclaimed that the argument should begin and end with the NCAA's record since they were the ultimate authority(now conveniently the Big 8 has become the ultimate authority in your argument). That was clearly proven to be a false premise, so you conveniently switched premises for your argument. I still say the page should list both series records side by side, but at least you added them both to the final tally in the series info box now. Kmanblue (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said the decision wasn't controversial, it certainly was. However, the Big 8 had the authority to make it. There is no NCAA version of the series. Various media guides and articles are not validation of such a declaration. If the NCAA has actually overruled the Big 8 decision on the 1960 game specifically, then I would concede the point. In fact, if such a decision were made, it would be appropriate to go with the 56-55-9 record. You're trying to use as evidence how a variety of people and entities felt about the decision. It doesn't matter how they feel, just as it would not matter how MU would feel if the Big 8 had let the game stand. Also, you can't double quote, using reference quoting something else. You need the reference (the 1999 NCAA Subcommittee) if you are going to quote it. I didn't delete the quote, so find a reference instead of deleting my call for a reference. Eodcarl (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, as of today, the notion that the NCAA says forfeited games stand as played on the field is thoroughly negated, even though that concept has never been proven in this forum. Eodcarl (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Current record in football series

There is currently an edit war regarding the football series record in the Border War. Let's try to simplify this. The 1960 game deserves the section currently in the article, which fully describes the controversy of that game and the aftermath. The current year-to-year table for each game and the current record rightly denotes with an asterisk and a note that the game itself was initially won by Kansas but was forfeited to Missouri due to an ineligible player. 1) The Big 8, operating within its authority took the win from Kansas and forfeited it to Missouri. 2) No authority on the game (Big 8, the NCAA, etc.) has overturned the ruling made in 1960. 3) The only official current record for the 1960 Border War game is a win for Missouri. The dispute is not over whether the official record for the game is a win for Missouri; the dispute is whether is SHOULD be so, which is not relevant to an encyclopedia article. Either way, the controversy is properly noted in the article by the whole section on the game, and the asterisk in the listing. It should not be further muddied by "record A OR record B" for every year since 1959. Saying it is "disputed" implies parties with equal standing disagree, which is not the case here because it is disputed between the University of Kansas and the Big 8. The issue has been obscured by a single reference to an NCAA trivia book with a record indicating a win for Kansas for the 1960 game. This is obviously a typo, unless someone can provide reference to an official ruling by the NCAA (or other entity) overruling the 1960 Big 8 forfeit decision. Therefore, unless someone can provide good evidence 1,2, or 3 above is/are false, then the article should not be changed to reflect the previous "disputed" references. Eodcarl (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed here. The NCAA's official record books records the game as a win for KU. This isn't the case of a simple typo in a trivia book as you claim. The official Big 12 record books records the game as a win for KU. There's 2 non-biased official bodies which call the game a win for KU along with KU. On the other side you have the Big 8 ruling and MU which both support the game being recorded as a forfeit, hence why it is disputed and why the overall records are disputed and why both should be noted. That's a reflection of the reality of facts. Leaving out the different records would be biased on not reflective of the facts of the case. Kmanblue (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The two documents you reference are not official record books as you claim. In fact, both references indicate the statistics therein are not to be considered official. There is no dispute that Kansas won the 1960 game on the field, but there is no dispute that the game was forfeited to Missouri, and no authoritative body has reversed the Big 8's 1960 decision to do so. I have detailed the standard above that must be met to edit the page to indicate an official dispute; one must find a reference indicating the Big 8 or NCAA reversed the decision made by the Big 8 in 1960. Short of this, any reference indicating a win for KU of the 1960 game must therefore be considered a typo by someone not aware of the reversal of the win. Eodcarl (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You state that in the absemce of a reversal of the Big 8 decision, there is no dispute on the record. I find that sound reasoning.MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC).

Here is a link showing the Big regarding the game as a MU victory. http://www.big12sports.com//pdf5/134783.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410. Regardless of what a link shows, do you really think the Big 8, after making KU forfeit the win, regards the game as a KU victory? Don't be silly. However, if you are going to persist in your position, cite a reference showing the Big reversed its decision. MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

The instance to show only one set of official records is pure bias. You pick and chose what authority you want to follow based on your own personal bias, while ignoring other official record books for the same reason. The NCAA does NOT recognize the game as a forfeit, it records the game results as those of the play on field. i.e. a victory for KU. If someone were to look up the records via the official NCAA record books, they would find a different record stated as the one that would remain on this page if the disputed records were to be deleted. Also the continual deletion of properly cited information is being done out of pure bias not an attempt at representing the full truth of the matter or presenting it in a non-biased encyclopedic manner. Kmanblue (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the NCAA actually reverse the Big 8 decision or speak specifically about it, or is the evidence simply a NCAA record book that perhaps just lists it by the outcome of the game without accounting for the Big 8 decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.179.13 (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the NCAA has no position on the 1960 game. The Big 8 was the authority on the issue. As a KU fan, you have conducted a vandalism in violation of Wikipedia standards today. Please undo your vandalism until you can meet the consensus standard now set. Eodcarl (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What consensus? A consensus amongst biased Missouri fans? Before you start throwing out accusations of vandalism, you might want to stop removing properly cited information without cause other than your own personal bias. Kmanblue (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote the summation of the NCAA ruling on the Coan matter, as well as the used car with Wilt Chamberlin since they both were decided in the same ruling by the NCAA it states,

"Involved Penalties:

Television: 2 yrs Reduction in Financial Aid: No

Postseason: 1 yrs Recruiting: No

Probation: 2 yrs Show Cause Action: No

Vacation of Record: No"

The NCAA did take a position on the matter, and they did NOT recognize a forfeit of the game. Only the old Big 8 ever did and hence why 2 authoritative bodies in the matter have DIFFERENT official records and why it's disputed and showing both official records is the only non-biased way to represent this dispute. So, stop deleting one set of official records from the info box. Kmanblue (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no such citation in the article, and no such ruling was made by the NCAA. The consensus is this (see above): Unless there is a citation of evidence that the NCAA overruled the Big 8 ruling on the matter, or the Big 8 changed its mind, there is no reason for undo changes you did. Inaction on the part of the NCAA does not negate the authority of the Big 8 to enforce its own rules on a game between two Big 8 teams at the time. The series record is not in dispute. If you have a reference for the NCAA overturning the ruling of the Big on this matter, please post it here. Until then, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, please do not continue to vandalize the page. Eodcarl (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Look it up at the NCAA major infractions database located here: https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch I quoted the EXACT summation of their ruling they give. The NCAA is the governing body of all members and thus just as official as any conference body. Also, despite the Big 8 ruling a forfeit, they also left the game recorded as is in their official record books, but they also recorded the forfeit officially in their yearly records, so the Big 8 was apparently mixed up on how to officially record the game in their record books(notice I'm not making the claim that they were mixed up on their decision, just on how they recorded it). Also, to leave out one or the other's official records(the NCAA and the old Big 8 if you take the forfeit ruling on it's face value) is just BIAS and ONLY BIAS. I say further proof of your bias is the fact this is the ONLY wikipedia page in which you've made any contributions and they are repeatedly biased. Kmanblue (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is NO consensus either here or anywhere else, hence your consensus claim is hog wash.Kmanblue (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The link above does not go directly to a NCAA ruling on this issue. If you cannot reference an NCAA decision to overrule the Big 8 decision on the game, then you should not be editing the page to indicate a dispute. You are making semantic points about how things were recorded, etc. It is not in dispute what the Big 8 ruled on the matter. The consensus at the moment is two editors. You are the only one in dissent. Eodcarl (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A consensus of 2 pro-MU biased editors is NOT a consensus! Official record books record the records 2 different ways. Neither body is biased in favor of either KU nor MU. Removing the record as recorded by either institution is PURE BIAS and the link I gave you gives an EXACT copy of the official ruling by the NCAA in 1960 as well as it's summation. BOTH do not vacate the game as played and hence why to this day the NCAA official record books record the series as tied 55-55-9. Your constant removal of both records is pure bias bordering on blatant vandalism at this point and I will report it as such.Kmanblue (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, so far, you are the only one who has demonstrated a bias, which is clear by your ID. However, let's table that for now. I used the NCAA search tool you linked. Searching for all infractions for all dates by the Univ. of Kansas yields only one document for improper recruiting, dated October 26, 1960, before the game in question. It does not mention Bert Coan, but let's assume it is about him. That does not really matter because the game in question had not occurred yet. Of course we all know the Big 8 decision to forfeit the game to Missouri occurred after the November 1960 game. The NCAA did not speak on the topic after that ruling. The Big 8 certainly had the authority to rule on the game, and it is the only body that did so. We don't know if the NCAA would have had the authority to overrule the Big 8 in this case, which is OK, because they never spoke on the issue, as far as we know. Also, the references you mention as "record books" are not official. They all actually have disclaimers saying so. Therefore, at this point, the only body that officially disagrees on the series record as 56-54-9 is the University of Kansas, which is noted in the article. Eodcarl (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The NCAA ruling was made on October 26, 1960 and it was about Bert Coan, 2 other football players, and Wilt Chamberlain. It was the ONLY OFFICIAL NCAA ruling EVER made on the situation. It clearly states that the NCAA DID NOT order any forfeits of games in the past, present(October 26, 1960) or future. The only authority to ever order the forfeit was the old Big 8 after Don Faurot, and Dan Devine pressed the issue. And yes, the old Big 8 made their final decision at the behest of MU and the NCAA ruling on October 26, 1960 was used as the cause for what they decided. To remove any and all record of the official NCAA records as well as properly sourced material from the text of the article is pure bias in an attempt to make the "CONTROVERSY" look uncontroversial in favor of one side(MU). Deleting the disputed records ignores both official record books records as well as the fact that the record is still disputed! If the issue was so clear cut and dry, then why does the University of Colorado REFUSE to acknowledge the forfeit of their game with KU in the 1960 season? It's clear this page has been edited in such a way to try and present one side only and ignore any and all official and properly sourced material which clouds the one sided representation. This is NOT encyclopedic. Maybe this would fly for the Mizzoupedia, but it shouldn't fly for wikipedia. Now that you've called in your fellow MU fan moderator to take your biased side of things here and force me out, I guess you got your way in spite of wikipedia's claim of wanting neutrality or a true consensus. What a joke! Kmanblue (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you really committed to the unbiased truth? Your stubborn insistence earlier in this discussions to untrue and unsubstantiated folklore concerning a pre-game declaration of Coan's eligibility suggests otherwise.69.171.162.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

Folklore?? Give me a break, they were widely reported in newspapers of the time and reported as being factual. This wasn't stuff made up years later or as years go by as folklore is, it was what was reported at the time. If there's evidence that shows the reporting to be inaccurate or wrong, then so be it. As for Coan's eligibility before the game. The NCAA made a ruling. KU disputed the ruling. The old Big 8 refused to give KU a conference ruling at the time, and instead pushed any decision until after the season. Since KU did not initiate or partake in any of the violations that Bud Adams supposedly committed they thought they would be vindicated. [This is conjecture, and I don't believe it is correct. The conference rules were clear regarding "with or without the knowledge of the institution." The primary argument KU used in disputing the validity of the NCAA finding, and in seeking to avoid the ramifications posed by the conference rules, was that Coan did not meet the definition of "prospective student".]MOhistorybuff (talk)The NCAA leveled THEIR penalty for playing Coan and it did NOT include forfeiture of games or suspensions of Coan during the 1960 season. The Big 8 retroactively did that and only the Big 8 did that. The NCAA NEVER sanctioned what the old Big 8 did and hence when asked years later they said at the time they took no stance on what the old Big 8 did. They certainly took a stance on what KU did and Bert Coan, and that didn't include a forfeiture of any games. This was a messy complicated incident mixed into a long heated rivalry and that's why the records are disputed. That's why the old Big 8 commissioner said it was the most difficult case they've ever had. To leave out the official record as recorded by the NCAA and KU is bias. To leave out the official record as recorded by the old Big 8 and MU is bias. They both should be listed be noted as disputed. The initial "reasoning" that EODcarl used to remove one set of records was because the NCAA forfeited the game. He was WRONG. Now he conveniently ignores that fact and continues to remove the NCAA set of records because now the old Big 8's records are the end all and be all for which record to be followed. It's extremely obvious that he is just using whatever argument fits his personal bias. The records of both the NCAA and KU and the old Big 8 and MU should BOTH be listed and the series record should denote that it is disputed. Leaving any of that out is pure BIAS.Kmanblue (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A previous version of this article contained a statement that the committee (Big 8) and NCAA had declared Coan eligible before the game. This statement was not true, and there are no credible references I am aware of substantiating the statement - that is why I called it folklore. Your current complaints about bias are interesting. You obstructed my efforts to remove the erroneous statement from the article. The article as currently written is far more accurate and unbiased than the version you were apparently quite content with at the outset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOhistorybuff (talk • contribs) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that a moderator has locked the page, I will start a new thread under this topic to try to come to a more solid consensus. Kmanblue, I did not ask anyone to lock the page, but it is probably better that we discuss it here, and hopefully more people will get involved in the discussion now that the page is locked. Hopefully we can do so without too much angst! Here is my consolidated position including the recent discussion:

1) On OCT 26, 1960 the NCAA did call into question the method in which Bert Coan was recruited by Kansas, though they did not order a forfeit of any Kansas wins. Kansas continued to play Bert Coan. (It is notable that Bert Coan has since admitted that is recruitment was in fact a violation).

2) The 1960 Border War was played in November, and Kansas won the contest. The Univ. of Missouri (and Univ of Nebraska, I believe) asked the Big 8 to review the Coan situation. The Big 8 ruled Coan ineligible and forfeited wins in a certain time window, including the Kansas-Missouri game played the previous month. Though the NCAA did not take this action, the Big 8 had the authority to do so at its level, since it was a game among Big 8 members. The NCAA did not subsequently dispute the ruling. Based in NCAA rules, it might not forfeited the wins had it made the same ruling, however the Big did. This is not a dispute between the NCAA and the Big 8; it is only a difference in how the two might address the issue. The Big 8 ruling stands, and the NCAA is silent on this specific ruling; the previous NCAA ruling is not in conflict with what the Big 8 decided.

3) The article rightly acknowledges there is controversy regarding the Big 8 decision, and the University of Kansas certainly does not agree with it or acknowledge it. The article details this history, as it should. The whole subsection on the 1960 game does this, and it could perhaps be refined to better tell this story. Also, the listing of game acknowledges the score (Kansas won on the field), with the note detailing the subsequent forfeit. The article should continue to acknowledge in the 1960 Game section what the detractors consider the current series record to be (I'm not sure it does in this edit). However, it is unwieldy to list the record as disputed in every year since 1959. There is a dispute, but there is an official record, which is rooted in the Big 8 ruling on the forfeit. Eodcarl (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

First, let's list what should be indisputable. The Big 8 considers the game an MU win. In accordance with the conference finding, MU considers the game an MU win. In defiance of the conference finding, KU considers the game a KU win. Despite the conference finding, CU considers their game with KU a KU win. Next, lets review the other institutions. Does the NCAA have an official stance? It wouldn't surprise me if NCAA policy is to keep conference rulings and forfeits outside the scope of their record-keeping. If so, the NCAA would not have any position on the Big 8 ruling one way ot the other. If they do indeed consider the game a KU win (as seems to be the case, but I have not seen any official documentation), it would seem fairest to point out the Big 8 finding antedated the NCAA finding, and there is no evidence the NCAA either endorsed or rejected the Big 8 ruling. Does the Big 12 have an offical position on the matter? I doubt it, why would they bother? The inconsistency in Big 12 publications suggests they are simply confused. MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

To be clear, Colorado considers their game with Kansas that year as a KU win; Colorado does not likely have a stance on the Kansas-Missouri game. The Colorado example does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand. I would presume the NCAA had, and still has the authority to overrule the Big 8 in this case, and it seems clear that did not occur. I don't believe the Big 12 is relevant as an authoritative body in this case, either. Eodcarl (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to point out there is dispute, inconsistency, and confusion in the record keeping on the game. I think it is fair to stress the Big 8 had the authority to make KU forfeit the game, and to point out there is no evidence the NCAA has either endorsed or rejected the Big 8 ruling.MOhistorybuff (talk)

See my above post below the anonymous post questioning if I wanted an unbiased version or not. The NCAA made their ruling and it did NOT involve any forfeits. The conference can make any decision they want to and record it however they want to in THEIR record books, but the NCAA does NOT follow conference rulings. It's the other way around 100% of the time. And hence this is why the NCAA records the game as a Win for KU, because the NCAA does NOT recognize conference rulings on official records. They only recognize NCAA rulings and that's exactly what they've done here, ignored the old Big 8 ruling and recorded their own NCAA ruling of the games in question. The insistence of not wanting to note this or record the NCAA's official records is just pure BIAS. Kmanblue (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I was earlier mistaken regarding which body ruled the game a forfeit; as I have said many times since then, it was the Big 8, not the NCAA. This early error has no bearing on the issue at hand. The fault in your reasoning here is this: there is no official NCAA record on the 1960 Kansas-Missouri game, or the series in general. There is only one official result of the 1960 game, even if the Kansas position occasionally makes it in print, even sometimes in publications from the NCAA, Big 12, etc. Such examples are not evidence of an official position on the matter. Also, your logic is flawed regarding how the NCAA and the Big 8 separately handled the Bert Coan incident. Here is an analogy. A child (Kansas) gets in trouble at school (using cell phone in class) and comes home with the note and shows it to his mother (NCAA). The mother decides to take away his cell phone. The father (Big 8) comes home and unilaterally decides the cell phone restriction is appropriate, but the son is also grounded for two weeks. The mother does not make any overt statements for or against the new punishment. Your argument is that the parents are in conflict regarding the punishment; of course they are not. Eodcarl (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, my argument is that the NCAA made a ruling which included NO FORFEITS, hence why the OFFICIAL NCAA RECORD BOOKS count this game as a W for KU and NOT a forfeit. To say that the NCAA has no authority is ludicrous. In terms of ultimate authority, the old Big 8 does NOT equal the NCAA in standing. Your analogy is flawed as is your biased nonsensical "reasoning". Most all of the publications where the OFFICIAL NCAA records are quoted are NOT mere mistakes, they're reflective of the OFFICIAL RECORDS. The NCAA never said what the Big 8 later decided to do all on their own was right, wrong, or otherwise because the NCAA HAD ALREADY HANDED OUT IT'S OWN DECISION ON THE MATTER. Why comment again, when there's an official decision already made?? They aren't going to unnecessarily make any additional positions on what the Big 8 did. When specifically asked, they made NO COMMENT, not that they somehow let the Big 8 decision stand nor denounced it, they just said no comment, because THEIR decision is and was already publicly released.

Again, your error was made in justification of a biased view and now that your error is revealed it goes from "The article should certainly mention the 1960 controversy, but the entire record should not be listed as "disputed." The NCAA officially forfeited the 1960 game to Missouri, so there is no question about the win-loss-tie record. It does not matter that people disagree with the decision of the NCAA in terms of the record." to not mattering, or being discounted because the NCAA didn't come back after they made their official determination and make a specific determination on what the Big 8 did all on their own. It's completely BIASED and HYPOCRITICAL. Kmanblue (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Big 8 clearly had the authority to force KU to forfeit the game. To my knowledge, the NCAA never challenged this authority of the Big 8, nor did they rule in favor of or in opposition to the conference determination. Therefore, it seems to me the cleanest way to report the record is to report the results as directed by the body with direct governance on the matter (the Big 8), while including information that the NCAA never ruled Coan ineligible, nor ordered the victory vacated. MOhistorybuff (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC).

See my above post. The NCAA made a decision on the matter already. It's not going to come in and make a specific decision on what the conference chose to do all own its own AFTERWARD. There's no need when the NCAA had ALREADY made THEIR decision on the matter involved. The fact that the NCAA does not record the game as a forfeit and NEVER ordered any forfeits is proof enough that the NCAA does not officially recognized what the Big 8 did. If it did, then why have a different official record of the game in question which doesn't acknowledge a forfeit?? The flaw in your argument is that you think the old Big 8 supersedes the NCAA and then claim the NCAA needs to come in a make a decision on a decision by the Big 8. That's illogical and only makes sense if you're biased towards one POV. So tell me, why don't you go to the Colorado football pages and correct their records?? Since the old Big 8 supersedes the NCAA in who's official records should be recorded, then shouldn't they also supersede the University of Colorado as well?? This is PURE BIAS! Kmanblue (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree will all of that, but how do we achieve consensus when those associated with KU do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the Big 8's decision on the matter? This is not an article that attracts any truly objective observers. Where do we go from here? Eodcarl (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's your mistake. I NEVER disputed the legitimacy of the old Big 8. What I did do is say that the NCAA is just as legit, if not more legit and since their official records differ, and KU claims the NCAA official record and MU claims the old Big 8 official record, then BOTH should be listed with the note about why both are listed(i.e. it's disputed!). YOU ALL are the ones wanting to at first use the NCAA as the ultimate legitimate authority, but then when you find out that this ultimate legitimate authority does support your personally biased view, you quickly clam on to the old Big 8's decision on the matter. It's EXTREMELY clear that you're both biased and will do logic defying back flips to support your biased view. Kmanblue (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a conference game, the conference had the authority, and the conference ordered the forfeit. I would like to hear a logical explanation of why the conference's position should not be used as the basis for reporting the record. Is there any doubt that the conference had the authority? Has the NCAA ever challenged that authority, or the conference's decision on the game? If not, what reason would there be to not use the conference decision as the basis for the record? However, as I have stated, it should be made clear the NCAA did not find Coan ineligible, nor order the KU victory vacated. [User:MOhistorybuff|MOhistorybuff]] (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

Conference game or not, the NCAA had the authority to order it forfeited and they CHOSE NOT TO! The NCAA has the ULTIMATE authority over all conferences and member institutions who belong to it. Not the other way around. Again, see my above posts about why the NCAA isn't going to make a specific decision in regards to a specific conference decision.(i.e. the NCAA had already acted and no sense in acting twice on the same thing!).Kmanblue (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct about the NCAA having the ultimate authority over the conferences. However, I think it would be prudent to get this from a more reliable source before any change is made to the article based on this assumption. You have been wrong on too many things in this thread. Earlier, you had stated, "Every player has to be cleared(i.e. declared eligible) to play before the season both by the NCAA and the conference they play in, which in this case is the Big 8. I'm not exactly sure if the old Big 8 did this in committee or through another procedure at that time. Back in 1960, neither the NCAA nor the Big 8 cleared individual players. According to Big 8 rules, each institution was responsible for confirming player eligibilty. The Big 8 stepped in when KU failed to act on this matter in a responsible manner. Since the NCAA only had enforcement authority for about a decade in 1960, it is possible that things within the scope of NCAA authority today were not within NCAA authority in 1960. Perhaps the NCAA should be contacted to confirm that keeping track of wins and losses was within the scope of their authority in 1960. MOhistorybuff (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The NCAA had authority to order forfeits at the time as clearly seen by their official ruling where they specifically say in the summary, "Vacation of Record: No". There's absolutely no reason to list a potential penalty which they didn't have the power to enforce. Back in the 1960's players were de facto eligible unless proven otherwise. Each school could have their own eligibility requirements, just as they do now, and if a player cleared the school's standard it was assumed they were eligible until otherwise proven not to be. Also, your use of an MU fan site(rockmnation.com) and an article written by a person with a long history of clearly demonstrable bias isn't exactly up to wikipedia standards for references. Kmanblue (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You have made multiple references to that "no vacation of record" summary. I assume the summary was not created in 1960, but rather was recently created while creating the web-site search function. I used that function to serach the major infractions database for "vacation of record" violations. The first one was in 1990. There were four that year, and 18 be the end of 1995. It looks like there may have been a change in NCAA authority and/or policy regarding "vacation of record" in 1990. I would be hesitant to place much reliance on the particular summary you have cited in drawing conlusions about NCAA authority and/or policy back in 1960. A lot has changed since then, as you learned relative to player eligibility determinations.MOhistorybuff (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is very true. A lot has changed about how player eligibility is dealt with today versus 1960. Today there's the NCAA clearinghouse, back then there was nothing like that. And it wasn't until the early 1960's that player eligibility questions started carrying any kinds of penalties of consequence as well.(even though some will question if they do today considering the Tyrelle Pryor and Cam Netwon situations today) There's dozens upon dozens of fairly well documented cases of schools using professional and/or non-student athletes in games before this time with no penalty or consequence. The newness of a conference(or any ruling authority like the NCAA) using this kind of issue to penalize a school and/or a player is another reason why this ruling was controversial. This is also reflected in the statements by a lot of fans in the opinion pages of the day as well as comments I've heard from speaking to fans (of both KU and MU) who personally remember the 1960 controversy. Kmanblue (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree a logical explanation of why the Big 8 position should not be considered the official series record is in order; otherwise the article should stand as is (perhaps with some refinement of the 1960 Game paragraph). I see the NCAA as a bystander in any dispute that exists on this issue. Only those specifically interested in the Border War care about the specifics of this series record or the 1960 game at this point. The dispute is between Kansas (and those who disagreed with the Big 8 decision) and the Big 8. I presume there was some redress procedure available (appeal the Big 8 decision to the Big 8 or an appeal to the NCAA). No such efforts were pursued or successful. Hopefully, someone other than the two of us will jump in the discussion at this point. Eodcarl (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've yet again laid out your bias in words when you say, "The dispute is between Kansas (and those who disagreed with the Big 8 decision) and the Big 8." No, the dispute is between Missouri (and those who wished the NCAA would of ordered a forfeit and hence the NCAA official record books would show a forfeit instead of a W for Kansas) and the NCAA. See how I did that? I can play word games too! The real dispute is whether or not the official record as recorded by the NCAA and KU should ALSO be listed along with the official record as recorded by the old Big 8 and MU with a note saying (disputed) which is the way this page had been until a bunch of biased MU fans came on trying to use any nonsensical argument about why the NCAA doesn't count and so why it's official record of the series should not be listed, after initially trying to trumpet the NCAA as the official arbiter on the matter since they mistakenly thought the NCAA's records agreed with MU's and the old Big 8's decision! Oh the irony! Kmanblue (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is quite an emotional issue for you. As humans, we are all biased in some way; I presume by your Wikipedia ID that you are influenced by your affinity for the Univ. of Kansas. This is expected, since no one not interested in this rivalry could be expected to be motivated to edit or read the article. However, MOHistoryBuff is probably right; contacting the NCAA directly is probably in order to determine if there is actually an NCAA position on the forfeiture of the 1960 game or not. No actual evidence has been presented on this point. There is no evidence the NCAA had a reason to intervene, since Kansas did not appeal the Big 8 decision (perhaps they did and were turned down, but again, I have seen no evidence one way or the other). Either way, I am not interested in a yelling match over something as trivial as series record in a football rivalry, and consensus is likely impossible. Eodcarl (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet you saw fit to make MAJOR wholesale changes to the records and the page overall. Your actions speak much louder than your words in this case. Also, the NCAA has been asked by reporters and others several times over the years about this case and they have nothing to say, other than to make broad statements about their(the NCAA's) decision on the matter. They will never take an official position on what the old Big 8 conference did because there is no reason for them to and they want nothing to do with the controversy. Kmanblue (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken my general encyclopedic interest in making an article accurate, informative, and relatively free of bias with an emotional attachment to a specific issue, as you do for the series record in the Border War. That dispensed with, your quote "They will never take an official position on what the old Big 8 conference did because there is no reason for them to and they want nothing to do with the controversy." proves you know there is no official NCAA record or position on the issue. Beyond your edit in the article indicating the NCAA agrees with Kansas on this issue, I am relatively satisfied from an encyclopedic standpoint with the current compromise in the article, including the disputed series record in the summary box. I would prefer an unsupported statement that the NCAA has an official position in line with the Kansas stance be removed, but I am certainly not interested in another edit war. I won't touch it unless there is consensus on a different way to say it. Eodcarl (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The NCAA counts the game as a W for Kansas. That's their official stance on the game as reflected both in their decision in 1960 and their official record books. That is clear evidence of their stance on the game itself. What they won't do is take an official stance on the old Big 8's actions because there is absolutely no reason for them to, other than to potentially satiate or further infuriate some MU fans. I still say your actions in editing this page speak much louder than your new found claim of merely wanting an encyclopedic unbiased article. This is clearly evident on your flip flopping reasoning to support your removal of any material, even properly cited and referenced material, which presents the issue as a controversy and of the NCAA's and KU's official records in regards to the game. Your bias is quite obvious in your actions. Kmanblue (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a new vandal making anonymous edits. We had come to equilibrium, agreeing to post the alternate disputed records at the top of the page but leave the by year listing alone. I think those of us who were part of this heated discussion before can agree we don't want to readdress this, especially without new information, and not by an anonymous editor. Eodcarl (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Basketball - Notable Games

The first listing is "1906-07 - Missouri began the basketball border showdown in Columbia against the Jayhawks with a 34-31 triumph, and the following day followed it up with a 34-12 beating. This left Missouri with a 2-0 all time record against basketball's founder, and Kansas' first coach, James Naismith." The chart, however, shows the games being played in Lawrence. Does anyone know where the two games were actually played?Jtyroler (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The two schools appear to disagree on that as well. The KU media guide lists Lawrence, the MU media guide lists Columbia. Ryan2845 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NCAA Subcommittee re the 1960 game.

The article makes this statement: "Kansas fans also cite a 1999 NCAA subcommittee to defend KU's position, where the subcommittee stated that "forfeited contests do not count as a loss and that the game will stand as played on the field." This statement shoud be referenced or removed, in my opinion. MOhistorybuff (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)MOhistorybuff

No discussion in three weeks. Done. Eodcarl (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Still no proof of the illusive 1999 subcommittee, but the NCAA Manual for Division I disputes the contention of those who refer to the mythical 1999 Subcommittee. Here is the relevant text from the manual:

19.7 RES TITUTION If a student-athlete who is ineligible under the terms of the constitution, bylaws or other legislation of the Association is permitted to participate in intercollegiate competition contrary to such NCAA legislation but in accordance with the terms of a court restraining order or injunction operative against the institution attended by such student-athlete or against the Association, or both, and said injunction is voluntarily vacated, stayed or reversed or it is finally determined by the courts that injunctive relief is not or was not justified, the Board of Directors may take any one or more of the following actions against such institution in the interest of restitution and fairness to competing institutions: (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08) (a) Require that individual records and performances achieved during participation by such ineligible studentathlete shall be vacated or stricken; (b) Require that team records and performances achieved during participation by such ineligible student-athlete shall be vacated or stricken; (c) Require that team victories achieved during participation by such ineligible student-athlete shall be abrogated and the games or events forfeited to the opposing institutions;

https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/links

In bold is exactly what the Big 8 did under is own rules, within its authority over Big 8 conference games. The Kansas victory was vacated and the win credited to Missouri. As of yet, no one has provided anything but hearsay that the NCAA has overruled that decision, specifically or by general fiat. It does not matter that Colorado chose not to acknowledge their own credited win. There will likely be a mix of schools taking credit and passing on credit for the over 100 Penn State games vacated by the NCAA yesterday. Their choice. However, based on the ruling, and the rules of the NCAA, KU cannot take credit for a win in the 1960 game, since the game results were vacated, and forfeited to Missouri. The article should certainly continue to acknowledge the contention and the dispute over the series record, since it highlights just how raw the rivalry is. Eodcarl (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Source of the rivalry

GreyWanderer, you've erroneously claimed the rivalry actually traces its beginning to Bleeding Kansas. There are no sources in the article to suggest such a thing, and there would not be any to support such a contention. The history of that conflict adds flavor to the rivalry now, but it is not encyclopedia to claim the rivalry actually began because of Bleeding Kansas. The real truth is two college football teams, when there were few college football teams, were close enough to play each other. Tall tales have no place in an encyclopedia. I will leave some of the other sourced information for now, "but the traces its beginning" wording is gone until there is a source for it. GenericEditorName (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Two teams playing each other doesn't make a rivalry. Tensions caused by the actions of each side during Bleeding Kansas still to this day contribute to hatred between the students and fans from both schools. Just watch the Border War documentary film (http://kcmetrosports.com/MetroSports-BorderWar.aspx) and it will become very clear that there is overwhelming evidence to support claims that the Bleeding Kansas conflict fueled much of this rivalry. Missouri and Kansas may not have started playing because of the Bleeding Kansas conflict, but without a doubt that conflict is the reason the matchup became a rivalry. Even the Kansas mascot is named for the militant bands associated with the free-state cause in Kansas, so to ignore the origins of the rivalry is to ignore the history of the Missouri-Kansas border region. BlueGold73 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there is no historical linkage. The actual (boring) historical truth is in the 1890s there were very few colleges playing football. Each were only playing 3-5 games a year, and often against community organizations, etc. The teams started playing each other because they were close enough and both had started football teams. It became a rivalry simply because of how long the games were played. It has been a rivalry in the 20th Century and beyond, but the suggestion there was bad blood in 1891 between the two schools is simply not historically accurate. Unless there is strong sourcing, it is not very encyclopedic to claim Bleeding Kansas actually led to a football rivalry. It is great for the legend of the rivalry, but it doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. GenericEditorName (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BlueGold to the extent lingering "bad blood" lasting since the Civil War days has made this more than just an ordinary rivalry. Residents of both states have long memories of atrocities on both sides during the conflict. To remove any reference to those days seems like a bit of unwarranted sanitizing and borderline revisionist history. Sector001 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sector, I did not remove it. I made it more historically accurate. There is no actual bad blood, but it is used as flavor for the rivalry. And even if there were bad blood regarding Bleeding Kansas, between who? Fans of a university not even founded until after the Civil War and university with no connection to Bleeding Kansas, though in existence at the time? There were certainly people still around with hard feelings about Bleeding Kansas in the 1890s, but certainly not in Columbia, MO. Over 100 years later the rivalry is superimposed on a real armed conflict, but stating it was about that in the 1890s on a football field is historically inaccurate. GenericEditorName (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are now several reliable sources to support the claim that the historical roots of the rivalry began during Bleeding Kansas. Two of these are from independent historical societies. I suspect these sources were not there because it was considered unlikely to be challenged. I can come up with dozens more, including some academic, if necessary. If you want to make the assertion that the rivalry did not begin this was please provide a source. What you have claimed here so far is WP:OR. Ok, thats that. Now, you have several misconceptions about the history of the civil war. First, There was a rivalry from the very first athletic contest. "In 1896, the Missouri student John Burnham wrote in the university’s yearbook that “Missouri and Kansas are rivals in so many things that each would rather defeat the other than gain victories over all the rest of the world.” -NY times (link). Second, Columbia, MIssouri was located in an area called "little dixie" and had strong southern sympathies. Boone County itself provided many men that fought in Union or Confederate armies, or Confederate guerilla groups a;; around Missouri and in eastern Kansas. I agree that often our current viewpoint is imposed on past events (History is constructed not made). However, this is clearly not the case here. I am interested in what lead you to the opinion that it is? Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Though you attached several links to pages that either speak of the rivalry or Bleeding Kansas in general, none of them provide a single reference to the beginning of the rivalry being even remotely linked to Bleeding Kansas. Unlikely to be challenged? The background section is full of mere legend. I will not start an edit war, but I believe my version was a fair representation of how flavor was added to the football rivalry by the history of previous conflict in the general area. None of the references you attached link Columbia, MO or Mizzou to Bleeding Kansas. That Columbia has some Civil War history does not provide the linkage you applied. In fact, Columbia was strongly Union throughout the war, just like Lawrence. KU can certainly associate itself with the conflict since it was established in Lawrence (though after it was all said and done), but even if people there were still upset about it, the Univ. of Missouri had nothing to do with it. If you're happy with low encyclopedic quality based on dubious associations, I'll leave it alone. If you're interested in refining it so it accurately relates how the back-story of the original Border War was added to add flavor to the rivalry, I am open-minded in how write that. GenericEditorName (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well golly! What do any of us ol' hillbillies that actually LIVE in Missouri (in my familys case for 9 generations) know about our history? Thank you, oh thank you GenericEditorName for saving us with your superior intellect.(*pukes*) BTW, you said "In fact, Columbia was strongly Union throughout the war, just like Lawrence" -- since you're so big on refs, care to provide proof to back up that statement of yours? Sector001 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Generic, I wish you would be more specific. What exactly is mere legend. Again, be specific. There are no unverified claims about Columbia, Mo or the University of Missouri; I don't understand your problem there. You have confirmed that you have little depth in the area by asserting that Columbia, Missouri was pro-union . I live in Columbia and been a local history buff all my life. Even a cursory glance at any of the books on Missouri civil war history would show you otherwise. Do you have a response to the NY Times article that clearly shows a rivalry with roots from the war right from the beginning? The sources provided all refer to events that occurred during Bleeding Kansas if not Bleeding Kansas by name. Anyways the debate here is beside the point when all you must do is provide a reliable source backing your assertions. Why wouldn't you do that if they exist? I don't know what you mean by "That Columbia has some Civil War history does not provide the linkage you applied. " so if you would clarify I will respond here. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is legend that the sports rivalry between MU and KU is rooted in Bleeding Kansas or the Civil War. If they were, they never would have started playing in the first place. The application of a "Border War" or Civil War backdrop came much later. The NYT article just repeats all the same flavor of the rivalry, adding nothing historically relevant. You contradict yourself, because you added the reference that Union forces protected the University from the potential of attack by Confederate raiders. Either way, if you want the article to continue to claim a college sports rivalry is ACTUALLY about residual Civil War animosity, like I said, I will not get in an edit war over it. I don't need references to NOT include something, but you have not provided any reference that root the rivalry in Bleeding Kansas. BTW, I am a Missouri graduate, my family has lived in Missouri since the 1830s (the part actually involved in Bleeding Kansas, not Columbia), and I am also well versed in Civil War history. GenericEditorName (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The rivalry isn't "about" anything. It simply grew out of the continued bad blood between the states. It is not why the teams played. The article doesn't say the rivalry is about the civil war and it doesn't' say it is why they played. If these are your problems they simply don't exist in the mainspace. The references provided root the war in Bleeding Kansas, so your argument is with them not me. If you find something that contradicts these sources please add it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is your references do not support your contention regarding the root of the rivalry, and they does not support the contention there is or was bad blood between the states (in the 1890s, or any point afterward). I don't need references to point out your references do not support what you have written in the article. I suggest you find historical references that indicate fans of the two teams intensified the sports meetings into a bitter rivalry because of any hatred of the other state, specifically due to events before and during the Civil War. All you references refer to the legend we have created since. GenericEditorName (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also consider this: in the first 20 years of MU-KU football, the teams played each other every single year (1891-1910), which led into the original conference affiliation that included both teams. Neither team had a consistent opponent during that time coming even close to that consistently (for Mizzou, the next closest is 12 meetings, Washington U.). You already acknowledged the two schools did not start playing football because of animosities rooted in the Civil War and before (which nullifies the current wording saying the rivalry is "rooted" in the conflict before and during the Civil War in Kansas and Missouri). I contend, like virtually all other football rivalries, frequency of play in the early days of college football is the root of the rivalry. There are no references with evidence of linkage of the early years of the series between the two schools and Bleeding Kansas/Civil War. In fact anyone with firsthand strong feelings, only a couple of generations removed would not likely look favorably on it being trivialized equating a college sport to it. There are no early references of it being call the "Border War" in those days; I contend we have superimposed an actual armed conflict on the rivalry because the people involved today can trivialize it, because their is not real connection to events that are only historical anecdotes today. Some people feign faux outrage, but it is just that. GenericEditorName (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is incorrect to dismiss the history because it wasn't Columbia, MO v.s. Lawerence, KS. Remember, these are the flagship schools of their respective states; it truly is a rivalry between the states not simply between the schools. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleeding Kansas and the ensuing struggle of competing philosophies, especially regarding slavery, was not Kansas vs. Missouri, either. Instigators on both sides of this conflict were on both sides of the border. If you are really a student of Civil War history in this area, you know it was mostly lawless with Union and Confederate sympathies spread all over the place. You yourself added the references to the source of the mascots (Jayhawker and Tiger) which represent elements on the same side. The worst thing is, anyone who really buys into the sports rivalry as linked to the actual Border War, concedes the Jayhawks as on the morally correct side. This feeds the adulation of Quantrill, a truly evil figure of history. I enjoy the rivalry, but it is just a game, not rooted in anything related to the chaos of Bleeding Kansas or the Civil War in both states. GenericEditorName (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you repeat yourself without any references. No contradiction, the Union Army proper occupied (or defended depending on your side) the University of Missouri and Columbia was unsafe for Confederate sympathizers. However, the whole of Mid-Missouri (including Columbia) was primarily from Kentucky and Virginia (and you can imagine what they thought). The "Tigers" were protecting Columbia from those criminal outlaws you mention, at that point it had little to do with the war proper. In fact the "tigers" defended against Union outlaws as well. Anyways, again everything you say is your own conjecture and you have ignored all the evidence to the contrary. So I think we're done here unless you can provide something to back yourself up. Your right that you don't need references to remove content, but since there are many references provided that support that content repeated removal without additional information will likely result in a block. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

From the actual Wikipedia page on the city of Columbia. http://www.columbia.k12.mo.us/columbia/colhis.htm Columbia was highly pro-Union. GenericEditorName (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)