Talk:European professional club basketball system

Recent edits

I've made a number of changes to this article. User:Vasconia, I see you have reverted to the older, incorrect version, with the edit summary "As the other basketball league systems". There are other articles with similar problems, which were really copied and pasted versions of this one (South American professional club basketball system, for example) or very similar (Spanish basketball league system, for example). Reverting this article so that it is consistent with other articles which are wrong is a mistake.

The statements about tiers and their relative levels were incorrect and not properly sourced. The ESPN/Fran Frischilla piece is an opinion piece and included numerous other leagues besides these international competitions. The Eurobasket source does not supports the statements which were in the text. Also, these competitions are not interconnected in the way suggested. There is no promotion and relegation between some of them. Rather than simply revert a lot of improvements at once. do you have any suggestions for how we can improve this and similar articles? --hippo43 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Bluesangrel, again you undid numerous improvements that I made, and which had support at the project talk page, without any explanation. This is disruptive and not a collegial approach to editing.

Are you a native English speaker? Even if you are, it can take time to understand the accuracy needed here. Phrases such as “tier pyramid”, “European-wide” or “promotion and demotion” are just not used in English in this context.

You have cherry-picked numerous sources which are out of date, not reliable sources (basically blogs with no reputation for fact checking), linked to one of the two governing bodies, only mention this stuff in passing, or which actually contradict your statements. For example, the Sportcal source you added says the FIBA Europe Cup is 2nd tier. Similarly, the Sportando source which mentions “the European pyramid of sports” (not basketball pyramid), also states that the BCL is “a top tier competition”. Eurohoops.net, for example, claims it is an official media partner of EuroLeague Basketball, so is not unbiased.

These 4 competitions are not generally inter-connected. There is virtually no connection between the 2 Euroleague competitions and the 2 FIBA ones. However, these are connected to other leagues, which you have removed again. Also, the structure you have added is not even a pyramid shape. Traditionally, a pyramid in competition would have a large number of teams or leagues at the bottom, with fewer and fewer until there is one competition at the top. That is not the case here.

You have ignored all the other leagues in Europe – both national and trans-national, some of which are of higher quality than the lower Europe-wide competitions. The “European system” does not include only these 4 competitions. You have removed a lot of relevant material without any explanation.

The enormous list of names was useless – it is just a list of names copied and pasted from another site. The table showing evolution of competitions was unsourced and misleading.

Again, and to be clear, no one is disputing that the Euroleague is the top competition, even “top tier” if you insist. Or that the EuroCup and BCL are below it. Or that the FIBA Europe Cup is below the BCL. The article makes this very clear.

Please discuss further edits here, per BRD. I would also suggest you read WP:RS and WP:OWN. --hippo43 (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I edited the article correctly, and added over 30 sources from legit medias. You then reverted it for no reason. For now, I am reverting the article back, and if this continues, I will ask for mods to get involved at the basketball talk project. Thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All the improvements I made are explained clearly above. None of yours are. By continuing to revert, without support at the project talk page, and without explanation or justification, you would be edit warring. Instead, please discuss specific changes here. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You removed over 30 sources for no reason. Saying basically all sources are invalid, when they come from the league's themselves and/or highly respected and well known independent media is not an explanation. You simply asserted that those are not valid sources. That's after you previously reverted saying it was because of no valid sources and that they needed to be added. Over 30 were, and then you reverted again, and simply asserted all sources were invalid. For now I am not wasting anymore time on this, but a mod should look into this. We should not have editors removing over 30 legit sources from articles arbitrarily, and claiming they are all invalid sources, when they are not. Then throwing around claims of edit warring and being disruptive to anyone that added the sources to the article to begin with.Bluesangrel (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tried to explain this already, but I’ll do it again, Most of the edits I made removed sources which we just didn’t need. For example, we already agree that the Euroleague is the highest level competition – this is not contentious, so we don’t need 6 sources which say so.

Also, again, the sources you added were generally not reliable sources. Virtually none of them were secondary, high-quality sources, such as respected newspapers with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Blogs (like Courtside Diaries, Hoopball, Hoopsjunkie, Asser etc) or opinion pieces are no good. The leagues themselves are obviously not independent sources, especially for claims about which league is better. They are ok for factual details like the number of teams etc. If you don’t understand that, I can’t help you.

You used this source - [1] - to support the statement “European-wide professional club basketball has a pyramidal system of tiers.” However the source doesn’t mention tiers or a pyramid. This source - [2] - was used to support the same statement, and again it says no such thing. In addition, they are written by the two governing bodies, or their media partners, so they are not reliable secondary sources. And they explicitly contradict the idea that the system is connected. To edit here, competence is required. If you don't actually understand sources before you add them, you shouldn't be surprised if they are removed.

The interview with Patrick Comninos mentions the word ‘pyramid’, so you have used it as a reference there, but he also says the BCL is “a top tier competition”! So you like one thing in the source, but ignore another which is inconvenient - that is not really legitimate editing.

I honestly don’t know what you disagree with. The order of the competitions is clear and I think we all agree there. It seems that you just want to insert the words ‘tiers’ and ‘pyramid’ at any cost. If there is something specific in my edits that you disagree with, or don't understand, please ask and we can discuss it. --hippo43 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Competition Tiers

I made a table with Tiers 1-4 based on the wiki articles of the competitions in the table. Someone changed the tiers in the table from 1-4 to 1-2. So either he made a mistake or the information in the articles is wrong. Somebody should check this out and correct it (either the competition pages or the table). Setenzatsu (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)