Talk:Southeastern Conference

message: The Tennessee-Florida rivalry is for some reason described as the "third Saturday in November."  Tennessee plays Florida in September every year.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.73.211 (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, definitely no requirement that both teams have to be from the same conference. The rivalry section just gives a small snap-shot of rivalries that involve SEC schools. Doesn't mean it has to be between two SEC schools. Rtr10 (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that it should be kept. Basketball, football, or whatever; the article should list any rivalry involving an SEC school in the section for that sport. Zeng8r (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Someone should add Tennessee-Memphis (another SEC rivalry with a non-conference school) Tjmpb (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it would be appropiate to add Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, SMU, and Rice on there. I can do it if you want69.179.235.96 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivalries 

message: Can we change the rivalry table back to the previous format where one team is specified on the left and its rivals are specified on the right. We don't necessarily have to have the merged cells, but I think the rivals should be specified from each school/fanbase viewpoint. For example, South Carolina counts Georgia as a rival, but Georgia doesn't really count SC as a rival since for Georgia the Florida, Auburn, Tenn, and non-conf GT games are more important. So it could probably be something like this:
 Team     Team     Rivalry
 ...
 Georgia  Auburn   Deep South's Oldest Rivalry
 Georgia  Florida  Florida-Georgia...
 Georgia  Ga. Tech Clean Old-Fashioned Hate
 Georgia  Tenn...  Georgia-Tennessee...
 ...
 S. Car.  Clemson  Palmetto Bowl
 S. Car.  Georgia  Georgia-South Carolina...
 ...
--162.239.236.97 (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change back to previous format? 

message: I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.
for example, a school with a yellow bar means:
* An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
* A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
* A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
* A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
* A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
* A full member of the Big Sky
Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered.
To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines
I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)
I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added.
Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.
I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.
Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing this discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to make timelines more consistent 

message: An editor has recently added footnotes from the Mcubed.com website as sources for each of the SEC football rivalry series.  Mcubed.com does not reflect the official record adjustments of Alabama or any other program as a result of NCAA penalties.  I propose to replace those footnotes with ones from College Football Data Warehouse, which accurately reflect the NCAA adjustments to official win-loss records.  If anyone objects or has further suggestions as to how this problem should be resolved, please comment here.  If no one voices any objection in the next ten days, I will make the proposed changes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for football rivalry series records 

message: Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  College basketball team navboxes 

message: This section now exists in multiple conference articles.  Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to help improve this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference Articles 

message: There is a discussion of "Head football coach compensation tables" as implemented within this article, ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football which may be of interest to you. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head football coach compensation tables 

message: I think someone needs to add the schools' colors in the members section chart because the schools utilize their colors in various ways, including athletics, branding, marketing, etc., and additionally, since the SEC is an athletic conference, I think the colors are an appropriate addition to further inform readers about the SEC, i.e. look at the other Power 5 conferences and they have their school colors there. Jay (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools' colors in the members section 

message: Recently, Drmies made a handful of edits to remove content from this article or rewrite it. I agreed with many of these edits, but not all, and I undid 3 of them. I believe our edit summaries do a pretty good job laying out our respective positions, and I invite everyone to take a look at them. But because we disagree, I would like to raise the issue here for further discussion and hopefully some sort of consensus.
Specifically, I reverted edits to undo: (1) the removal of the Rivalries list under the Football heading; (2) the removal of the list of permanent rivals for football scheduling purposes; and (3) the removal of the Facilities table listing (football, basketball, baseball).
Drmies then undid my edits, commenting on my User Talk page: "Surely you've noticed that football takes up an unusual and undue amount of space. A list of rivalries is hardly very relevant for an article on the conference; there is already way too much stuff that is relevant to individual schools and football programs but not to the general article." Because I believe this question warranted discussion beyond the two of us, I am now raising the issue here.
(1) My response is that football is far and away the biggest generator of fan interest and income for the Southeastern Conference and its members; for nearly every school, it is one of the oldest sports and the most prominent. Football rivalries are long-standing (100+ years in some cases), often independently notable (with their own Wikipedia articles), and may  bleed over into other sports and the fan bases generally. So listing "football" rivalries makes sense both because football is objectively (and subjectively) the most important sport to the conference and members, and because most are not solely limited to football. Further, the handful of rivalries specific to other sports are listed elsewhere in the article (for women's basketball, baseball, and "other sports"; men's basketball lists permanent scheduling partners). I think football rivalries (especially the many rivalries between 2 SEC members) are absolutely relevant to this article.
Potential compromise: Create a new article for the admittedly long list of SEC football rivalries, then link it from here with a brief description.
(2) The logic of including cross-division football scheduling partners is similar. If a reader wants to know how SEC football scheduling works, they would likely look to this article. In the current revision, they would learn that "Under the current format, each school plays a total of eight conference games, consisting of the other six teams in its division, one school from the other division on a rotating basis, and one school from the other division that it plays each year." (emphasis added). What they would not learn is which teams from opposite divisions play every year, though that question would surely come to mind. Because there are only 14 teams, we only need a 7-row table to answer that obvious question. That hardly seems out of proportion in an article of this length.
(3) As for the Facilities table, this is quite common among collegiate athletic conferences. (See, for example, ACC, Big Ten articles.) Of course this information is available elsewhere, like in the institutions' articles. But having it listed in table form is helpful for someone who wants to quickly get a sense of what facilities exist in the SEC, or to compare various programs at a glance without having to pull up multiple articles ("What West Division team has the smallest football stadium?" "How big are most SEC basketball arenas?" etc.) While each data point is relevant only to a specific school/program, the comparative feature is useful, relevant to the SEC as a whole, and unavailable elsewhere.
I believe each of these items belongs in this article. Drmies clearly disagrees. I hope other editors will take this opportunity to provide their own views and rationales. Thanks. --EightYearBreak (talk)  15:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did all of this information go to? Did a new article ever get created? Esb5415 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions and claim of over-emphasis on football 

message: As of now, the "Key personnel" table includes, for each school, the following positions: Athletic director, Football coach, Men's basketball coach, Women's basketball coach, Baseball coach, Softball coach, Volleyball coach.
I think this table, conceptually, is a good idea for an "at a glance" look at the most notable people in the SEC (for better or for worse). Certainly, a list of key people would include the AD, football, and both basketball coaches, since those are the 3 most well-known NCAA sports. (I have no source, but I think that's indisputable, right? In terms of revenue, TV, etc.) Also fair to say, I think, that baseball is a significant college sport, particularly among some SEC schools, and baseball stadiums are listed under the Facilities heading. I'm less sure about softball's inclusion, but it's at least plausible since it's the counterpart to baseball, and it appears that most of these coaches have Wikipedia articles; it wouldn't surprise me if softball was the second-most prominent women's sport, at least.
But why are volleyball coaches included? It looks like not a single coach even has a Wikipedia article, or at least none are linked. Vanderbilt doesn't even have a team at all. I can easily think of sports that are more significant, at least on certain campuses (e.g., Arkansas track, or Alabama/Georgia gymnastics, though not everyone has gymnastics). That's not to say I'd replace volleyball with track, just that it's hardly obvious that volleyball belongs there. I actually lean toward just deleting the column altogether, because it's just noise distracting from the more noteworthy aspects. If the information needs to be on Wikipedia at all, maybe there could be a separate article, like "List of SEC athletic head coaches" or something. --EightYearBreak (talk)  18:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key personnel: volleyball coaches? 

message: In 2011 the Texas A&M Womens basketball team won the national championship. 158.135.169.237 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas A&M Womens basketball championship is missing