Talk:Big 12 Conference/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't it "Big 12" (i.e., should be the "twelve" be the number, not the word)? User:Ttownfeen 02:35, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes it should be numbers.  See  in the section "Big 12 ... As Easy as 1-2". I'm not sure the best way to make a change like that, however. Ash Lux 22:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the best way to do it would be to copy all the current info onto Big 12 Conference (currently a redirect page), and make the current page into a redirect page. I'm not going to do it personally, in case there is any dissent or steps which I may not be accounting for, but that would be the easiest way in my mind. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: and/or
Go to the admin page and see who is online now, then hit one up. Or an admin you already know. It is ten to 100 times faster than putting it on "Requested moves" I have seen pages stay on there over a month.
Once the page has been moved, go to and click "What links here" in the toolbox on the left pane. Then you can begin your link fixes, fix the "re-directs" (I recommend looking at this list before the move). I wouldn't worry to much about the "user" pages, if any, that are linked to that particular page, those users can fixs the re-directs if they want to. WikiDon 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Twelve > Big 12

message: Should football championships be counted on this list? According to the NCAA, they are unofficial, which is why the football champion does not get a trophy, as in other sports.
:They are not NCAA official, but the NCAA provides a list of orgs that award national championships.  Schools recognize this list NCAA.org Div I-A Past Football Champs when declaring how many football national championships they've won. General125 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NCAA official listing does not include Football . The topic is NCAA Championships and the NCAA does not recognize Football Championships. Because of that, the listing doesn't match the NCAA numbers.  Maybe a separate topic should be created to cover just football?  That way the NCAA Championship numbers will match. Elwood83 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Big 12 Conference#National championships|National championships]] 

message: Oklahoma State was Oklahoma A&M in 1945 and 1946 when it won the NCAA Basketball titled. Should this be reflected on the list of titles with an asterisk or not? Bsd987 02:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Names 

message: Does the Big 12 use the same type of football schedule that the SEC and ACC use?
(i.e. 8 conference games in which 5 are intra-division, 1 permanent inter-division rival, and 2 inter-division games rotating among the remaining teams)
If so, could someone add that info to the article, to be consistent with the SEC and ACC articles.
128.192.128.123 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Big 12 conference schedule is 5 intra-division and 3 inter-division games.  –Swid 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This means that each team plays all the other teams in their division, + half the teams from the other division. Johntex\talk 04:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football scheduling 

message: In sports where there is a "regular season" champion and a "tournament" champion, I think we need to determine which one we're going to put in the conference champions table, and then probably note that on the tables so that there's no confusion/edit conflicts. Currently it seems like the de facto method is regular season champions (see 2005 men's baseball and basketball, where there were co-champions). We also have the option of listing BOTH sets of champions, but this sets up the possibility of having 3 different teams in a single box (e.g.- 2005 men's basketball, where Oklahoma State won the tourney). Obviously JUST listing the tourney champion would always yield only one team. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Big 12's website seems to indicate that the conference tournament champion is THE conference champion, regardless of who the regular season champion was. Indications of this are at , where the upcoming basketball tournament is called the 'championship' (as opposed to the 'Conference Tournament' or something else), and at , where OSU is listed as the 2005 Men's Basketball champion (the 2005 regular season champions are currently in the article) and Texas is listed as the 2005 softball champion (where Texas A&M actually won the regular season). I'm not going to make the change until I can find a Big 12 site that has all former champions listed, so this will give some time for any dissenting views to be voiced. -- EdisonLBM 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the site of the former Big 12 champions 2004-2006 Big 12 Champions  They list the winners of the conference tournament or meet.  For example in 2005-2006 Kansas is listed as the Conference Champ in Men's Basketball because they won the conference tournament even though Texas won the "regular season title."  The regular season is used to seed the postseason conference tournament in sports like, but not limited to, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer and Softball.  Some sports like Swimming and Golf need postseason tournaments to determine a conference champion.  Also, in Basketball the postseason tournament champion gets the automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament as the conference champion.  In football, the winner of the championship game gets the bid to a BCS bowl as the conference champion.  The best record in the regular season rarely if ever has anything to do with who is regognized as the conference champion.  If a school publicizes regular season champions, they are doing so only for marketing and recruiting purposes. General125 15:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: True, the regular season champs do tend to be advertised more - would it be ok if I added something to make it clear what the table actually is? Something to the effect of "Big XII Men's\Women's Regular Season Champions?"  -- EdisonLBM 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the suggestion of another user, I added the links to all the record books on the Big 12's website. I'm still not sure if they are organized in the best manner (splitting them up into men's and women's sublists might be a good idea, for example). However, this leads to an interesting solution to this problem: the record books contain all the conference standing data for both the regular season and the tournament for all the years of the Big 12's existence. With these lists added to this page, does this argument become moot? A reader could very easily access any information on championships that they desired directly from the Big 12, and this would allow us to remove the championship tables altogether. - EdisonLBM 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to keep the championship tables. If we eliminated all info that could be found at external links, Wikipedia would become a link repository. :o) Feel free to add a clarification note above the champions table, as I think that would be very appropriate. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conference champions

message: Hello, I have left a note for User:66.232.195.64 asking for a source for some recent expansions.  It is a shared IP, so if this person does not come back after a while then we will need to do some fact-checking.  I'm assuming good faith about the new informaiton for now. Johntex\talk 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent expansions by [[User:66.232.195.64]]

message: I have restored the team logos to the page.  Fair use images are usable when there is no free alterantive to the image.  By definition, there is no free alterantive to a logo.  However, I think the logos would be better here if alongside additional commentary about the team they represent.  Can we expand the article to make a brief mention of each team? Johntex\talk 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our policy only "permit[s] some non-free material for critical commentary." - WP:FUC. ed g2s • talk 03:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, you are acting unilaterally in your interpretation of policy yet again.  There is no consensus in support of the actions you are taking. You are well aware of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos. Johntex\talk 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This issue was discussed and decided at Wikimania.  This usage is NOT acceptable.  Anyone who reverts my last edit removing the gallery, or otherwise recreates the gallery, will be blocked.  This is now policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware Wikimania was a discussion forum for establishing Wikipedia policy.  I bet a lot more people would have attended.  =)  If it's policy, I assume you'll direct us to the relevant policy page?  Powers 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just an FYI the specific policy says "Sports team logos may be used in articles or aticle sections where the team is discussed", so it is ok, as long as the individual team is discussed, which they appear to be in this article. Logos are ok. (Cardsplayer4life 22:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: There is now a new page showing the current big 12 men's tourney in brackets.  Should we just expand it and provide a link to it rather than posting the tourney on this page?  Also, are there other tournaments in the past that could be linked to? Wrad 20:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference tournaments 

message: I think Texas and Oklahoma should be filled with a color other than gray on the map. The map would look clearer that way when the image size is reduced, as it is in the infobox. Thoughts anyone? --Blueag9|Talk| 22:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It needs to be something less similar to the gray of the non-Big 12 states. I have no idea how to do this, though. ~ João Do Rio 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved. I changed the color to blue. --Tea and crumpets 02:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still gray.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.181.102 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big 12 map 

message: I just created an article on the Big 12 Baseball Tournament.  We have a nice project just getting started at Wikipedia:WikiProject College baseball.  If anyone is into college baseball and would like to help us then we'd love to have you.  We've only got one Big 12 fan as a member.  We could use more. Seancp 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseball Tourney

message: Just where did the number of 32,000 for OSU enrollment come from?  Cuase I'm about 99% sure that is wrong.
:The listing doesn't state the years that those numbers represent.  2005-06 the enrollment was 32,721 and for 2006-07 32,402 Elwood83 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSU enrollment 

message: Substituted at 19:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: * Is there a good reason why rivalries involving Big 12 schools should not be listed? (instead of just between schools in the conference) The SEC article lists rivalries just involving schools, and while I don't necessarily think copying another article's style is always appropriate, there should probably be some level of conformity among similar articles. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty good point, especially considering how lopsided some of them are, yet are included just because they have a trophy. Not to mention that OU leads over MU 65-23-5, NU leads over MU 63-35-3, and I also doubt any MU fan thinks ISU is a rival. Maybe we should change the criteria to named games only? Ryan2845 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love Mizzou and I think that ISU is a rival, though that's just me. We do however have great hatred for OU and NU. Named games are not always important, such as the Arch Rivalry (MU and Illinois). No one i know would be heartbroken if MU lost to IU, though I do consider it a rivarly, just not important.      Go Mizzou 22:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivalries 

message: For the section of sports that teams within the conference take part in, are we mentioning only varsity sports or varsity and official club teams? If its the latter, the list is incomplete and I wouldn't mind looking into it. I just want the go-ahead because I'm not sure how long a list that would become.Jklharris (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently club sports are being included. I don't know to what degree, though. Texas Tech, for instance, participates in 27 club sports. So, when you consider all the club sports from all 12 schools, the list may get a bit too big for this article. In that case, I would support a spin-off (something like Big 12 Conference club sports). →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree club sports should be covered separately.  Ice hockey definitely should be removed from the list for this reason (particularly since the sport is NCAA-sanctioned but the listed schools do not participate at the NCAA level).  Not entirely sure what to do about listing rodeo, since it is not an NCAA sport.  (Rowing, rifle and skiing are NCAA sports (right?) and equestrian is an NCAA Emerging Sport.) -Kgwo1972 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Referenced 

message: How do I get a football schedule for one of the Big 12 Universities??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.130.24 (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one? Most teams have articles for this season. Use this format: 2008 University Name Team Name football team. For instance, 2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The official Big 12 website has a composite schedule here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I thought s/he was asking for one inside the [Wikipedia] box. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

text: And of course, each school's athletic department has a website with current and often future schedules available. Wschart (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Schedule 

message: I am adding AIAW Championships to the total for each school.  This is easily done, as there is already a distinction between national championships and NCAA championships on the page.  As an editorial note, it is a shame that the NCAA does not recognize these titles earned prior to 1982 simply because they refused to properly sponsor women's athletics. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, this is done, but now I'm confused about some of the discreprancies between NCAA Titles and total Titles for some teams.  I understand UT (4 football, 4 AIAW), Iowa State (5 AIAW), CU (1 football), and A&M (1 football, 1 AIAW).  But I don't understand how OU has 8 non-NCAA titles (only 7 football), or how NU has 7 non-NCAA titles (only 5 football), or where KU counts 3 non-NCAA titles.  I am removing those that cannot be explained above, until they are addressed here. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Figured out KU myself.  It's 10 NCAA titles + 2 Helms titles in basketball. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I've now also added the AIAW championships to the main list, where they were not already included, plus explanatory notes.  I also noticed that CU has one more NC, in women's skiing in 1982, and updated that school's count. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More National Championships 

message: I've created a Template for cities hosting Big 12 schools.  If anybody wants to improve on it, the template is located at Template:Big 12 Cities. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: just to update, this template and ones similar to it (Big 10, SEC) were deleted because the articles weren't closely enough related. Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Big 12 cities template

message: I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondering who would like to be involved.  There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC.  A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore.  There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts.  Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Big 12 WikiProject

message: The source for the above "trophy" and "rivaly" doesn't exist at the website it was linked to. I have removed it. Lithistman (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone Trophy 

message: Does anybody know anything about this.  Apparently an ultimatum was issued to Nebraska, and Missouri about whether or not they are staying, or going to the Big Ten.  Also there is talk of the Texas, and Oklahoma schools, possibly joining the PAC-10, I guess turning that one into the PAC-16.http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5257088http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5257774--Subman758 (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No foot note support, as this was just reported by ESPN, no links up yet. Again, we will probably have final words either on the 10th or on the 11th. To0n (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG 12, Falling Apart. 

message: Since the conference appears to be going bye-bye, when it happens, please just move information to "former members" sections or denote it somehow rather than removing information entirely. Otherwise it's like the schools were never even in the Big 12 and someone else will have to go back and re-add their history later. 76.212.32.90 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't even move them yet.  Even if Colorado and Nebraska, among others, take bids from other conferences, they'll still play 2010-11 as Big 12 members.  Once they are formally moved, THEN put them in a "former members" section.  --fuzzy510 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I say keep them where they are, but a section might need to be made discussing the realignment as it is documented in reliable sources. The section can link back to the main article at 2010 NCAA conference realignment. TheTito Discuss 09:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, certainly.  The realignment must be discussed, because it's very relevant, and it's happening.  But moving Colorado out when they now appear to be an active member in 2012 at the earliest is incorrect. --fuzzy510 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. TheTito Discuss 18:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with these teams leaving the will still be apart of the the Big 12 till 2012 at the least.--Steam Iron 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exept for Nebraska, there gone as of July 1, 2011.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txtrooper (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle this page 

message: Please note that Texas Tech was founded in the year 1923, not 1926.
168.215.170.131 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: —fetch·comms 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The only mention of Texas Tech and 1926 is in the Big 12 men's basketball programs all time section. While Texas Tech was founded in 1923, the entry is referring to the year the program started play which was still incorrect, and now corrected, as the team began play in 1925. NThomas (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 168.215.170.131, 10 June 2010 

message: Nebraska and Colorado haven't left the conference instantaneously.  They're still going to be there for a few more months.  They shouldn't be removed, and I'm even wondering if they should be removed while the Conference is still in existence, or at least still calls itself Big 12.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They should not be removed. Even the schools confirmed to be leaving will still be playing in the conference for at least this coming academic year. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Teams leaving the conference

message: I recently found some errors in the football stadium capacities.  I researched current capacities, and updated the article accordingly with full reference citations.
Following that update, a minor edit war was stirred by another user who felt that the capacity of Jones AT&T Stadium (Texas Tech) was incorrect.
I have subsequently found multiple sources (including two from the university itself) that confirm the rated capacity as I had originally verified.
Multiple reactions to the reverting user were posted to their talk page if further follow-up by anyone else is desired or made necessary by future events.Fjbfour (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Stadiums and Capacities 

message: Regarding the topic of A&M's offers from other conferences in this section. It seems someone attempted to pass an opinion as a fact regarding A&M going to the SEC. It claimed A&M "unsuccessfully lobbied the SEC for an invitation" and offered for evidence an opinion piece from an Austin American Statesman writer Kirk Bohl (a known UT booster) which contained no proof of the assertion in the section, only unconfirmed speculation from an unnamed source about their personal belief that the SEC was not interested in adding A&M. I am adjusting this to read that A&M chose to remain in the Big 12 despite being pursued by both the PAC 10 and the SEC. For actual evidence of this, I am citing official e-mail records from Texas Tech regarding realignment which includes on page 55, an e-mail from Big 12 Commissioner Dan Bebe himself to Texas Tech President Guy Bailey confirming that A&M was in fact being pursued by more than one conference. --Ronw526--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.188.245 (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference Realignment 

message: Just fyi, expect a lot of vandalism coming up on this page... It wouldn't hurt to lock it for a bit....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.210.80 (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: It is confusing and inaccurate to include division titles in that section. Please do not place them there. If anything, they might merit a sub-section, though I'm not specifically advocating for that. LHM 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division titles are not conference titles. 

message: I am intending to engage in an edit war. I just want to make sure the full story is the article. I just wanted to get that out before I am accused of it, considering I just made my 3rd or 4th edit in the last 24 hours  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockchalk717 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you will be blocked for edit it warring. All information must be backed up by a reliable source if no source is provided to back it up it will be removed by myself and other editors.--Dcheagle 21:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, i mean i am NOT intending too--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain how adding additional information from the same source that was using earlier in the section is unsourced??? Makes zero sense. That information i added was from the espn.com article and should be put back in because it is sourced AND truthful information.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put it back in. Information is from source number 23, the espn.com article. Please do not remove it.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

text: That wasnt the problem was this person took off additional information I added from a source that was already in the section, in the previous sentence. I explained on 2 seperate occasions that the information was in the article, both times he said it was unsourced and the 2nd time he said "nowhere in the article does it mention anything about a vote" I posted on his talk page the exact line that mentions a vote. The situation has been handled.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: No edit war intended

message: I think the list of championships in this article should be updated. As it is, it lists all of the NCAA championships won by any of the original 12 conference members, including championships won before the conference was formed. 
I can see two reasonable ways to update this list:
# Remove all entries for Colorado and Nebraska, making it be a list of all NCAA championships ever won by current members (as seems to have been the original intent when the list was made); or
# Remove all entries from before 1996, making it be a list of all NCAA championships won by teams that were a member of the Big 12 Conference at the time the championship was won.
I tried to do option 1 last month, but the edit was reverted. I think the list makes little sense the current way. Unless we change it, consistency would require that we add future championships won by Nebraska and/or Colorado, simply because they were in the conference at one time. I thought I'd ask what option everyone here prefers before I change it and get reverted again.
- Etphonehome (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok hold up we cant just remove Colorado and Nebraska they were apart of the conference when they won the championships so its part of the history of the conference. Now I would be ok if we remove all of the championships before 96.--Dcheagle 18:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a clear consensus here, so I went ahead and split the NCAA championship list into two sections. The first section lists championships won by current member schools before the schools joined the conference. This recognizes that several member schools have a long history of winning championships that predates the conference. The second section lists all championships that were won by teams that were members of the conference when they won their championships. This is a hybrid of the two alternatives I listed above. I think it makes quite a bit of sense to do it this way because the Big 12 itself has a relatively short history, so listing only championships since 1996 would be a bit incomplete. However, there is no good reason I can think of to include pre-1996 championships won by Nebraska or Colorado since they were not members of the conference at the time, nor are they members today. -Etphonehome (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I can understand leaving out per 1996 championships that understandably but we cant remove championships from 1996-2011 for Nebraska and colorado as they won those championships while they were in the conference so for Nebraska and Colorado there championship list should include championships won between 1996 to 2011 any thing before that and after that should be left out.--Dcheagle 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I say we
#One, remove all championships that were won before 1996
#Two, Championships that were won between 1996 and 2011 by Nebraska and Colorado should remain in the list as they won the titles while they were members of the conference. 
--Dcheagle 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Championship list 

message: I recommend this page be protected until this realignment issue is resolved, due to numerous unsourced edits by IP addresses. Don't know how to go about this, but I think it should be done.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There haven't been enough edits to warrant protection, if it picks up then we can think about it.--Dcheagle 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I see your already keeping a pretty good eye on it. Keep it up. This situation with the Big 12 is only going to get crazier. This has only been going on for month and it's already beginning to get confusing keeping track of all the news.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommendation

message: SEC Article: "Members 12 (13 on July 1, 2012)" Big 12 Article prior to Nebraska and Colorado's official departure "12 (10 in 2011)", Big East Conference article "beginning in 2012 (full: 17; associate: 1)" Pac 12 article prior to Colorado and Utah official addition to the conference "10 (12 in 2011)", Big 10 prior to the addition of Nebraska: "Members 11 (12 in 2011)". Explain to me why EVERYTIME a note is added the members list it gets removed for no real logical reason because other conference pages list future member numbers and also it is unknown if a 10th will be added right now, and it it still unlikely the conference will disolve. Quit changing it if other articles do the same thing.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow down dude added it, you are however are putting a&m under former members they are still a member of the conf till july of 2012,--Dcheagle 05:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to actually. I undid the revision, and didn't see that it had them still listed as a former member.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok all's good.--Dcheagle 06:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Members Number in infobox

message: TCU will likely accept an invitation from the Big 12 soon and join on July 1, 2012. They should be added to the future members section when it becomes official. This will not change the map in the infobox, obviously, since TCU would simply be replacing Texas A&M. DavidSteinle (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCU 

message: West Virginia and Big XII have said that WVU joins Big XII next July. However, Big East officials have said West Virginia will have to honor the 27-month agreement. Obviously, the Big XII has a vested interest in getting WVU in the conference next year (Big XII's TV Contract requires 10 teams). Has anyone been able to find anything reliable on whether or not WVU could breach contract if a buyout isn't offered (which it currently isn't).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.37.91 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WVU is contractually obligated to remain in the Big East through 2014. That being said, if the court decides that the Big East's withdrawal-notice requirement is invalid (or if the Big East settles), then WVU would be free to leave in 2012. (1, 2, 3) ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Virginia: 2012 or 2014? 

message: it is now June 15, and Bob Bowlsby took his job today.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.116.112 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been changed--Dcheagle | Thunder Up 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob bowlsby took his job today as it is June 15, should we change? 

message: I am specifically addressing User:Dcheagle, because it appears that anything less than a specific mention by name will be ignored.  I have some comments to make about your recent editing on this article:
Let me say first of all, many of the edits you have made since my last edit have been improvements. For example, 
#I appreciated this edit, which made clear a point I was trying to make in my earlier edits, that the Big 12 was a new creation, as opposed to an expansion of the Big Eight.
#The three consecutive edits which resulted in this change were also a welcome improvement; I assume my suggestions in the talk page section above this one made clear that the previous wording was causing the casual reader much confusion.
#I was happy with pretty much everything you did in this omnibus edit; the reorganization was good, and of course, I was especially gratified to see that you deleted the unsourced line which read several college sports history sources consider both conferences as a single continuous operation dating to 1907.
Yet, despite the quality of these edits, I am nonetheless not happy with your etiquette on this page.  Frankly, I consider your behaviour to be nothing short of rude.  To wit:
With this edit, you reverted six of my edits with nothing more than the line "Reverting test edits".  But not only were these "test edits" serious edits, I actually took the time to include edit summaries, including:
:* (a) with WVU, "Central" no longer applies. b) with all due respect, we certainly don't need to opening sentence to state the specific neighborhood in which the HQ is located--this isn't a Chamber of Commerce ad.
:*No, the Big 8 did NOT "expand"; the Big 12 is considered to be an entirely new entity
:*Removing unsourced OR
:*effectively" is bullsh*t; it simply "forced" it
:*correcting some issues of tense and other crap
So you saw all this, and dismissed them as "test edits".  In some people's eyes, that alone would be enough to bring you to the attention of an administrator, but that's not my style.  And besides, in reviewing my edits, I did find one mistake that could clearly look like a "test edit".  So anyway, I end up reverting (but also made the appropriate correction), leaving an edit summary to come here to discuss it, and what do you do?  In this edit, you once again completely revert to your last version, with the edit summary,  restoring a perfictly [sic] fine version.  
Now look, I'm not saying you were wrong to completely revert me.  That's something open for discussion.  But first, we need to have a DISCUSSION.  Completely reverting my well-explained and justifiable edits twice without discussion is NOT acceptable.
Of course, the irony is not lost on me that in your subsequent edits you actually ended up restoring some of my edits (such as the removal of that unsourced line "several college sports history sources consider both conferences as a single continuous operation dating to 1907").  Hey, if your version was "perfectly fine", then why are you restoring my edits?  I think it's clear that you acted . . . let's be generous here . . . um, hastily.  Now I'm not going to undergo a wholesale revert of your edits, because, as I noted above, I actually respect my fellow editors' work—regardless of their personality flaws—and judge their writing by reading it before I revert it.  And having read your most recent edits, I find most of them (except the mass revert) to be an improvement.  But I will once again go through and make changes, explaining them with edit summaries, and I expect such edits to be evaluated on their merits, rather than instantly reverted because they weren't written by you. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing etiquette  

message: I've checked out all of the other AQ conference articles.  None of them--anywhere in the article--see a need to note the neighborhood in which their conference HQ is located.  They also don't mention if their HQ is in a suburb of a major city although some (such as the Big Ten), clearly are.  Each just mentions the city in which the HQ is located.
Now, mind you, I am not one of those editors that believes each article needs to be a cookie cutter copy of all similar articles.  I'm just making (in more detail than before) the point that knowing the neighborhood in which the HQ is located is not important enough to go into the lead.  For Pete's sake, if it's important for some reason unfathomable to me, then fine, include it.  But not in the very first sentence of the article, which is where (according to WP:LEAD) we are supposed to be defining the topic.  Noting that the Big 12 is HQ'd in Las Colinas is not integral to the purpose of the lead. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Colinas 

message: it says the conference receives less revenue among the FBS conferences. the new deal that it signed with ESPN and Fox isn't on that section, and the new deal says it gets 2.6 billion, 20 million for each of its members.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.116.112 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will updated it later today.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue Section needs to be updated because of the Big 12's new 13-year deal with ESPN and Fox 

message: When talking about departures and additions, the sub-headings of Missouri, Texas A&M, TCU, and West Virginia are extremely small. I try to change it but someone keeps on changing it back   Go Mizzou 02:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently rewriting that entire section to create better readability once I'm done the issue will be fixed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small print 

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) 08:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Basketball Team Navboxes 

message: Wikipidea user Dcheagle,
You can't keep reverting any table you don't like. My tables provide substance for college football conferences articles. You will see similar tables across all power conferences - and soon the smaller conferences as well. Pac-12 and SEC have elaborated on what I have added. I'm also suspecting potential conflict of interest for your reason to dislike my academic table. Your affiliation with OK leaves way for my suspicious. Wikipidea is an encyclopedia charged with educating the public at large on various topics for no extra cost. I have left out the comparison of BIG 12 academic averages to other conference averages out of goodwill and to avoid an edit war. 
Why did you delete my table regarding head football coach compensation? While BIG 12 football may also be a suitable location for the table, the main page is primarily geared towards college football as well. Although this is a qualitative assessment, I would be hard pressed to find a reliable survey indicating the BIG 12 to not primarily be a football conference. This page receives far more hits on a daily basis than does the football coach compensation. Given the revenue distributions charts, I also wanted head football coach compensation listed. Football coaches are, on average, the most paid coaches in college athletics. My table would provide A. a list of head football coaches - something missing from this article B. comparison of salaries. There is plenty of data elsewhere in the article relating to college football.
Your reverts are incredibly rude. I put a lot of time into gathering the information. Again, please do not revert anymore of my edits without proper discussion. I don't mean to come off as rude, but this is the second time you've done this. You need to discuss before reverting the work of others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMB112 (talk • contribs) 
:I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a conflict of interest, however I still say that the Head football coach compensation table is unnecessary for this article, the Big 12 Conference is not solely a football conference as such I have started a discussion  about these tables you have added to a number of conference articles that discussion can be found here.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 01:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Data tables

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) 06:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference Articles