Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal

message: I'm lost ... how is this POV?
:The Tigers, however, were allowed to keep their Atlantic Coast Conference titles from 1978 and 1981, as well as the 1981 national title.
From my perspective, these were some major, major, major violations (getting kicked off live TV for two years is telling), so how is noting that they were allowed to keep two conference titles and a national title POV?  I'm lost. Blueboy96 19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never implied in the Punishment section that they were stripped of any titles or forced to forfeit the results of any seasons, so bringing them up has no bearing on the topic that is being covered in the article. It's injecting a positive mention about the Clemson football program into a place where it doesn't belong, hence it's POV. Why not also say something like, "Danny Ford was not forced to immediately resign following the NCAA's findings." Because if he was, it would've been mentioned in the first place. It can be ASSUMED that no titles were stripped from the Tigers, otherwise that would've been included as part of their PUNISHMENT. ViperNerd (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree--most of the 1978 and 1981 teams were recruited during the time the violations occurred, so the fact they were allowed to keep their titles is stunning enough it should be in there.  I'm surprised--a Gamecock doesn't think that's pretty telling? Blueboy96 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Telling of what, exactly? Are you trying to imply something by the inclusion of this unnecessary information? To my knowledge, titles weren't stripped from programs when Clemson received their 1982 probation, and the death penalty also didn't exist, because it is widely believed that if it had, Clemson would have been the first school to receive the NCAA's stiffest penalty, instead of SMU in 1987. ViperNerd (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, first, get your facts straight, then cut out the weasel words.  That would go a long way toward improving your contributions to the project.  1). The NCAA Death Penalty DID exist in 1982 (not in its current "repeat violator" form - it was actually easier to apply before the 1985 change, but the criteria for when to apply it was not as well defined - and it was implemented by pressuring schools not to participate against the offending school).  Kentucky Basketball was given the Death Penalty for the 1951 season following their point shaving scandal.  2.) "Because it is widely believed" is a cluster of weasel words, and you are very effectively labelling yourself as a weasel by using such words in your argument.  If you strongly believe that something is true, please, just provide a reference instead of the weasel words. 3.) The NCAA does not strip National Championships in football because it does not sanction a football National Championship, third party organizations do. Thör hammer 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's telling of just how lucky the Tigers got ... usually, with violations this serious, you don't get to keep your titles.  I've seen titles get stripped for lesser violations than this--according to my research (I've got a 2000 sports almanac on hand), they actually did strip titles back then.  The earliest I can recall a title being stripped for a major violation was back in 1933.  And the death penalty did exist back then ... just not in its current form, and it hadn't been slapped on a football program at the time. Blueboy96 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, pointing out how "lucky" Clemson was or wasn't would I think definitely fall within the realm of speculation, and as such is not worthy of consideration in an encyclopedic article. Not that I disagree with you, by the way. I think they actually got off pretty light considering the violations they committed and the lengthy period over which not just one, but two separate coaching staffs committed them. But to start discussing this in the article itself would definitely cross the line into POV. Let's just leave well enough alone in this instance. ViperNerd (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The titles 

message: The current revision of this article has been heavily edited by an editor with a proven track record of bias against the subject of the article. Please see Talk:Clemson University football recruiting scandal#Splitting this article for more information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WN1971 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - Splitting this article and removing bias 

message: The result was Merge into Clemson Tigers football.--Thör hammer 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In accordance with WP:Merge, I will be notifying ALL of the recent editors of the merge discussion.  Please note that this should not be construed as canvassing as it is encouraged by the merge guidelines.  Thör hammer 00:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging this article