Talk:List of Southeastern Conference champions

message: Just a note that I'm editing the table of divisional champions so that it only includes appearances in the SEC championship game.  An argument can be made that teams who finish with the same record as their divisional champion are "co-champions", but I don't think there are many people who would take it seriously--the simple fact of the Championship Game's existence has meant that only the team finishing top in each division's standings is considered divisional champion.  When, say, Florida and Tennessee finish at 7-1, the phrase used in the media, by fans and by the athletic departments is, "wins the divisional title", and nobody says, "but (whoever lost the UF-Tennessee game) is still co-champion!"  Also, I'm removing the note about no. of titles referring only to SEC titles, as the column header is "Number of SEC titles". Binabik80 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point; however, the SEC recognizes these evidenced by the conference standings on their website.  Tennesee and Georgia are both listed as Divisional Champions with Tennessee being the representative to the championship game.  In the olden days, pre-expansion, teams which tied in conference standings were awarded a co-conference championship even though they might have played each other during the year. (e.g. Alabama/UGA 1966 and UGA/Kentucky 1976) I would encourage us to leave it as is.  DAWGinRoswell (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've reverted your change; no one is making an argument, it is the SEC's official stance that teams with the best conference record are divisional champions or co-champions if there are multiple teams with tied records. The tie-breaker system is only for the representative to the championship, not to determine an untied divisional champion. This is reflected in the official conference standings on the SEC website as well as in various SEC media guides] (pdf pg 12 - All-Time SEC Divisional Championships). In fact you will often hear the athletic departments and media talk about a team "clinching a share" of the divisional title. AUTiger » talk 07:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Football divisional titles

message: Do we really need a subsection for other teams which happen to be mentioned as conference champions of the defunct conferences? Perhaps a note listing all institutions of that conference rather than just the champs? But then again, this isn't an article on the Southern Conference or the SIAA...Thoughts?
DAWGinRoswell (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they need to be on this page. The SAIC champions list should be moved to a section in Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association and there already exists a List of Southern Conference football champions with just a subset here. A See Also section can be added at the end pointing to both of those articles. AUTiger » talk 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other teams on this page 

message: The Gymnastics champions table is the only table on this page that is not in alphabetical order.  It starts with Georgia, then Alabama, then LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky or something similar to that.  I think we should change it to alphabetical order to fit the rest of the page.  AUburnTiger (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gymnastics Champions