Jump to content

Talk:BCS National Championship Game/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Way to go

Wikipedia had the news about Florida before ESPN, Fox, and Yahoo. Unless it was a hoax. Nice work all, way to make Wikipedia the go-to page.--Skeenbr0 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fiesta Bowl

I'm confused, OSU and Florida are supposed to be playing in the championship game and it's supposed to be at the Fiesta Bowl, but Boise State and Oklahoma are playing in the Fiesta Bowl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DavidFuzznut (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

The BCS now has 5 games, the four big bowls plus the national title game. Now since the Fiesta Bowl is supposedly the host for the #1-#2 matchup for 2007, there will be two games which will be held at the Fiesta Bowl's site, the Boise St.-OU (Fiesta Bowl) and OSU-Florida (National Title Game). --Howard the Duck 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Future games

Per discussion at AfD (on the 2009 and 2010 games) and also at the WikiProject for College Football - articles on individual games should not be created until after previous year's game is played. (Unless some significant info is available sooner.) Therefore, I have directed the 2009 and 2010 articles back to this page and I have removed the links from the game table in this article. Johntex\talk 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we do this?

Should we put this info bar in there?

BCS National Championship Game
Tostitos BCS National Championship Game
BCS National Championship Game logo
StadiumUniversity of Phoenix Stadium
LocationGlendale, Arizona
Operated2007 — present
Sponsors
Tostitos (2007 — present)
2007 matchup
Florida vs. Ohio State (41-14)

Of course every year it changes sponsors (and thus names) and locations, so it could become quite long.--Porsche997SBS 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BCSGameNO08.jpg

Image:BCSGameNO08.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Big-Ten and Jim Delany

BCSPro:

Thanks for helping clean it up.

I don't have anything personal against the Big-10. It's just that sports writers believe that Jim Delany is perhaps the single greatest obstacle to a playoff.

Please read this article by Josh Peter: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=jo-delany010507&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Upon reviewing this, do you think it fair to spread the blame equally across all the BCS conferences? It may not be fair to the others.

TKirby (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, while Delany and the Big Ten benefit greatly from the agreement. The Big Ten is not the only conference who is anti-playoff. Resently, there was talk od adding a plus-one format, and only the SEC and the ACC (I Think) were for this format. While Delany is a big supporter, he is not the only one. Bcspro (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

U.S. National Championship?

Two users without profiles have put in the words "U.S." preceding "national championship". Is this really necessary? One user claims that because Wikipedia has a global readership that it's necessary. I don't find the distinction worthwhile, but I will let other users decide.Obamafan70 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Obamafan. the FBS is ONLY in the U.S. so it is kinda self-explanatory. But, I guess I could live with it. Bcspro (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is necessay as Wikipedia is read, maintained and built by people across the world. Just because you know this national championship pertains to the USA does not mean everyone else does. Adding two letters helps understanding and does no harm. Articles should be written to ensure clarity and understanding for all. Insisting on a US perspective smacks of nationalism and parochialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.25 (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

>>Just so you know -- accusing people of parochialism does not constitute an additional argument beyond your first (although it may be an effective strategy for getting to people to lay off the change you intend to implement). I am not going to submit this for a vote, but I should point out that this is the only article I have ever seen employ this distinction. Personally, I see adding the "U.S." distinction as a slippery slope to an endless number of disambiguations. "The U.S. collegiate american football FBS D-I BCS national championship as arbitrated by vote of AFCA" is surely coming.Obamafan70 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

>>Just so you know -- the comment about nationalism and parochialism was a comment about the suitable perspective of every Wikipedia article and was not an accusation: it is entirely your own decision should you consider it was directed at you. A website with the global coverage of Wikipedia should avoid the sole perspective of the US, or any other country. Also, your suggestion that anybody would proffer such an illogical extension as "U.S. collegiate american football" is frankly bizarre, and unhelpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.4.25 (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

2004 BCS Championship

Should the section on the 2004 BCS Championship, including the listing of winners be changed to reflect the NCAA Infractions Report. Please see http://ncaa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=IHepzZCQPdH1AR50%2boeR8d6e%2fhIfTVcpMlzU0JhqOeU%3d.

On June 10, 2010, the NCAA determined that the University of So. Cal. must vacate its 2004 BCS Championship victory, played in the January 2005 Orange Bowl.

Suggest that USC's name be removed from the list of champions and that a discussion of the penalties be added to the article.

For further reference see http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5272615. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.207.15.130 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But has the NCAA itself officially vacated this championship? Has the NCAA itself announced this? So far, there is no reference to that, just media take on it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatkins679 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it appears no such vacating will be done until an appeal by USC is completed: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/06/10/sports/s151708D22.DTL&tsp=1

Also, vacating of USC's championship does not change the reality that the BCS championship game itself was in fact played. So someone putting 'VACATED' in the team field for two of the BCS games that USC placed is a bit overboard. 'VACATED' did not play, USC did. And it may be the championship that is vacated, not the BCS championship game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatkins679 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since the Game results section table column title is labeled "Winner", USC should be replaced with the word "Vacated" because the win is vacated as mandated by the NCAA (although this can wait until USC runs the course of possible appeals). However, the BCS Championship is not yet vacated by the BCS itself, pending appeal as is noted in the above press releases. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree a note should be put there that notes the results were "officially" vacated, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, there should still be documentation of the actual game itself, no matter what the NCAA or BCS decides will never change what actually happened in that game. 173.76.109.232 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The game, for the record, now never took place. The national championship and USC's "victory" in the game have been nullified. Therefore, the game really never took place. If the game was deemed to have taken place, the University of Oklahoma now has claim to the 2004 BCS National Championship, which was NOT the decision by the BCS President's Oversight Committee. --Starcade (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The game took place, it is impossible to remove that fact from history, whether NCAA or BCS want's to acknowledge it as "official" has nothing to do with what an independant resource such as Wikipedia should be recording. Game results are not the same as BCS Champions, there was still a game and still a winner of the game, just because the award given to the winner was vacated doesn't change the fact that the game was played and won by a team. To remove the game completely is being dishonest, much in the same way the NCAA is doing it is being dishonest. There should be a note attached that states that it is not recognized by the NCAA or BCS, but the game and it's results should still be here.173.76.109.232 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It is QUITE possible to remove the fact from history, given justification to do so (this is why it's taken over five years to get to this point). In fact, I assert this was the entire reason of both the NCAA's and BCS POC's decision-making -- to remove the games and the USC performances in them from the record and history books. Again, note my contention that the NCAA and the BCS have now declared both games to be fraudulent -- hence, it is, in fact, dishonest to include them as legitimate history. The only records of those games which should be retained (if even these -- and I should ask the BCS about this as well!) are Texas' records from the 2006 Rose Bowl. --Starcade (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
you are confusing history books with record books. history can not be changed, once an event has happened it is and forever will be history. it can't simply be removed from history because it was later discovered that they cheated. the only recourse is to take the title away from USC. Making up history is not something to be taken lightly. records can be changed but history can not.Cjamadei (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I assert it can, and I believe the NCAA and BCS have, in fact, done so. In fact, I'm not the only one: Tonight on ESPNNEWS (June 6 into June 7), they're doing a feature called "No He Didn't", where they show a number of the best plays from that USC era, and state (if you wish to believe with sarcasm, I won't stop you) that those plays now, officially, never took place. I believe it disingenuous and fraudulent for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to give legitimacy to a fraudulent series of events. --Starcade (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
They may have been a series of fraudulent events, but they were still events that took place. Documentation with a note about why they were fraudulent doesn't give them "legitimacy" it only states they occured and the circumstances around them, which is what Wikipedia should be doing which has nothing to do with record books at the NCAA or BCS.173.76.109.232 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to include the footnote regarding USC and the NCAA. The championship is USC's until the BCS' Presidential Oversight Committee takes it away. The footnote amounts to speculation over the decision following an event that has yet to occur. This is an article about the BCS national championship, not the NCAA. The NCAA's decision has no bearing on anything under BCS purview until the BCS comes to a formal decision. 70.190.40.14 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-correction: The footnote is needed, but only to explicate that the BCS has already vacated USC's victory from the 2005 Orange Bowl. Clarification is needed however to ensure that the reader understands that USC remains the 2004 BCS National Champion. That's the most accurate reflection of the current state of affairs, until the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee comes to a decision. 70.190.40.14 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case anyone's confused, please visit http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2010/6/10/1512256/bcs-strips-usc-of-2005-orange-bowl, where everything is clearly explained:

"The BCS will vacate the Orange Bowl triumph, a 55-19 pasting of Oklahoma, a game in which quarterback Matt Leinart threw five touchdown passes.

BCS executive director Bill Hancock issued the statement:

"In accordance with the findings released today by the NCAA, the University of Southern California's 2005 Orange Bowl game victory has been vacated. We take the integrity of NCAA rules seriously. As a procedural matter, the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee (POC) must meet to formally consider vacating USC's championship title and the game records. If the POC takes such action, there would be no BCS champion for the 2004-05 season. The POC will meet shortly to discuss this matter.

"In light of USC's statement that it intends to appeal, we want to make it clear that no action will go into effect until the appeal is heard and decided by the NCAA."" 70.190.40.14 (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever entered in the above quotes from Bill Hancock got it right. Whoever revised the Wikipedia article to read that USC has "0" BCS NC wins got it wrong. USC has a BCS victory and remains 2004 champ until the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee says otherwise. Period. The vacation of the Orange Bowl has no bearing on that for our purposes. The facts are undisputed in this regard.

Interesting note: In the chart directly above the one that lists BCS victories/losses by team, we see a list of conferences by BCS wins. In that chart, we see that the Pac-10 gets to claim USC's BCS victory...but USC itself cannot claim the same in the chart directly following. This is inconsistency must be squared: either both USC and the Pac-10 get to claim the 2004 BCS national championship or neither can. And as I already explained, USC remains the 2004 champ. No more edits on this point please.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.107.50 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That was true until June 6, 2011. The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee stripped the 2004 BCS National Championship from USC and permanently vacated the 2004 National Title. I've removed all the "Game Records" from that game, since the game has now been effectively and officially nullified. For future reference, any clean reference to this should include the BCS POC's decision, as that was separate from the NCAA's sanctions. USC was still considered the BCS National Champion until June 6, 2011. --Starcade (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The game should still be listed here, this is an article about the games themselves, not who is declared the champion and who won the championship, the games themselves shoudl still be documented.173.76.109.232 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be obtuse here. In fact, I've now removed reference to the 2006 Rose Bowl from this table as well, as the BCS POC has also nullified the participation of USC in that game, the 2005 BCS National Championship Game. Since the BCS has removed the entire participation of the school from the game, I believe that the games are deemed never to have taken place. I have as I said below, contacted the BCS to ask them about this. --Starcade (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
What the NCAA or BCS says means nothing, just because they "deem" something to have never taken place doesn't change the fact they actually did take place, which is what should be documented here on Wikipedia. This is not the BCS or NCAA record books.173.76.109.232 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You also would need to remove all the records by Vince Young and anyone else on Texas from that 2006 game if you are going to change the game results history section in the same way. The game either existed or it didn't, it can't exist for one and not the other.173.76.109.232 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(For the record, I have now removed all remaining USC records from the Game Records chart and any mention of their involvement in the two games.) The only question now is whether Texas gets to keep their records. --Starcade (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that what the BCS POC is trying to do by not awarding the 2004 title to Oklahoma and not nullifying the 2005 title by Texas? As I said, AT BEST you keep the Texas records from that game, and that I would consider VERY questionable at this juncture. The game has been ruled fraud. --Starcade (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not what the BCS is doing by not awarding the 2004 Title to Oklahoma, Texas won the game, Oklahoma got their asses kicked. That's the difference there, you can't award someone a win in something they physically lost. Whether the game is ruled a fraud or not is irrelevant to the game taking place, that is the point and something they can never remove from existance. They can choose not to recognize it in terms of the NCAA records or BCS records, but that doesn't change the reality of the game happening and existing and it's more fraudulent to pander to some association to essentially re-write history. If we do that then we might as well let people re-write the history on Paul Revere too.173.76.109.232 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If Paul Revere's ride was as discredited as USC's "victory", then people should re-write that history. Oklahoma did NOT get their asses kicked, by 55-19 or any other score! That all was nullified, vacated, whatever other words you want, between the NCAA's decision two years ago, their affirmation of it last month, and the BCS POC's decision today. Therefore, Oklahoma did NOT get their ass kicked in the 2004 BCS title game, because that game never took place, because the participation of the team which "won" that "game" has been nullified. And yes you CAN award someone a win in something they physically lost -- and, in fact, I'm surprised that wasn't the result here. Now, if Oklahoma is to be awarded the 2004 BCS National Championship, then I'd agree: Post the score of the game, and the fact that it was forfeited. But this means the game never took place. USC is not recognized to even have participated.
An earlier commenter questioned the idea that "Vacated" would have "won" the 2004 BCS National Championship Game. However, if you wish to include the two games, then "Vacated" would've defeated Oklahoma 55-19, and Texas would've defeated "Vacated" the year following -- and, without that, you cannot include the scores of the games in any respect. In fact, rewriting history is exactly the entire purpose of evaluating Reggie Bush's eligibility. We're far past the point of rewriting history -- that's already been done by the NCAA and BCS. --Starcade (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
the NCAA and BCS have rewritten record books not history books. you can't seem to grasp the fact that the game was actually played. nothing anyone can ever do will ever change that fact. recording is as never having taken place is altering history and is now in the realm of fiction. this article does not list the National champions it lists the games that were played as the National championship game. it does not matter what the NCAA or the BCS says these 2 games took place and it needs to be recorded. we do not have the right to make up history simply because we either don't like USC or are not educated enough to understand the difference between history and records.
I think you are misunderstanding what the BCS and NCAA did -- they WIPED USC FROM THE BOOKS for those two games. Now, unless you want to get into the "Vacated" vs. Oklahoma/Texas vs. "Vacated" argument, what choice do you have but to state that the game itself has also been wiped from the books, with the possible exception of the records of the "clean" teams? USC is now deemed not to have participated in those two games, and that probably makes the best solution to wipe them (and the two entire USC seasons) from Wikipedia. --Starcade (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand exactly what the NCAA and BCS did. They wiped USC from the NCAA record books. This is wikipedia and not the NCAA record book. Future generations need to know that this game was actually played and then nullified by the BCS/NCAA. If we pretend that the game didn't happen is misrepresenting history. Cjamadei (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
They did not deem that USC did not participate in the game, they have deemed that USC shall not benefit in any way from their play in those games, meaning they don't get credit for it. It doesn't change the fact the games occured and existed, it only changes how it will be recorded in the record books for that team, and again, Record Books are not the same as History Books.173.76.109.232 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

why would anyone contact the BCS about what to put on wikipedia? their opinion doesn't matter. the fact is that the game happened and after the fact the NCAA and the BCS deemed that USC was ineligible. recorded history should show that the game happened and was later determined to be fraudulent therefore the winner had the national title stripped from them. to represent it any other way is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjamadei (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! 173.76.109.232 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You're both wrong. In fact, the final authority should rest on the sanctioning bodies -- the BCS and the NCAA -- to determine what "history" is recorded here. We have a dispute as to the veracity of the very event which took place. Therefore, the final authority should rest with the BCS and the NCAA, as they are the ones who started this process of rewriting history (and that was the entire process they desired to do. To represent that USC defeated Oklahoma, or even earned the right to face Texas, would be a similar lie -- and that's exactly what the BCS and the NCAA determined upon the evidence presented. In fact, I'd nullify their entire section on the 2005 season in their football page. --Starcade (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
i am sorry starcade but you aren't even close to reality on this one. the game happened. that is the only fact that matters. if we find out that do to some technicality the South didn't legally secede from the Union you think we should have the Civil War taken out of all the history books. The even happened you can't erase that. the only thing that can be changed is what the game meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.28.28.157 (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but unless you can now come to terms with a game consisting of only one team (in fact, two such games), neither game has occurred. Two fraudulent events occurred, but both games have, now, been effectively nullified. Again, I point to the "Vacated" argument: You cannot include USC in the contests, because their participation was illegal, fraudulent, and now removed from the records. --Starcade (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
did the game happen? the answer is yes and that makes you wrong. it can't be any clearer. what you don't understand is that a game took place that day. you can not change that. you can not change history. what the BCS did is strip USC of a championship, they did not and can not take back a game that has already been played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.28.28.157 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the game did not happen -- the BCS DID take back TWO games which had already been played, else how does the BCS remove the participation of USC from both of their BCSNCG appearances? A fraudulent event took place, but it was not a legally contested football game, and should not be considered as such in either case. --Starcade (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
now you are just embarrassing yourself. you are telling me that if we could travel back in time to January 4th 2005 that there would not be a football game between USC and Oklahoma. of course there would be. i don't know what you think the BCS is capable of but altering history isn't something they can do. once you understand the difference between history and records you might understand why you are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjamadei (talk • contribs) 06:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There was a fraudulent event on January 4th, 2005. It was not a football game, as the actions of USC removed all relevant sanction from the event. And I disagree entirely with your main premise, Cjamadei. The BCS just altered history. Until June 6th, USC was the recognized BCS National Champion because they had "won" that fraudulent event -- this led to much of the pre-June 6 discussion on this page once the NCAA nullified that win two years ago! To not have altered history, the BCS would've been forced to recognize that USC played in those two games, which is something they refuse to do. In doing that, they have done the exact act you refuse to believe they can do. --Starcade (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"There was a Fraudulent event on Janurary 4th, 2005" that is my point. there was an event that took place and it should not be forgotten. Whether the event was fraudulent or not has no meaning to history. The fact that USC cheated only means that they are no longer considered the National champs. It doesn't mean that the event never occurred. Cjamadei (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a really good laugh at all the uses & variations of the phrase "records can be changed but history can not" used in two sections. Which basically is one part of the invalidation of your whole argument in defense of using the game score. First off, of course history has changed many times, did it not change when with the breakup of the U.S.S.R. or the many times a country gained independence? Care to go for one or two of the big history-changing events, like when everybody thought the Earth was flat or the Sun revolved around the Earth?

Thats enough i dont think i could be bothered to disprove the "records can be changed" part. Well it is a shorter, easier statement. No, not all records can be changed. My personal details on my health records will always say that Im Male, because I dont plan on changing that ever lol.

Now i know the "null & void" statement was brought up, but im pretty sure that nonexistant was as well, which as far as the English language goes: it never actually happened.

No, I couldnt really care if my grammar isn't up to scratch or I'm not capitalising letters, or if I'm conjugating sentences badly. Aslo, no i havent cited any sources or anything, but i can probably search for a few off the top of my head though via a net-search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.150.8 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are the scores right in this section?

I thought Ohio st. beat Miami in 2003... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.237.244 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OSU did beat miami. in triple overtime. greatest game ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.122.153 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information: "Game Records"

The individual records for Total Offense and Passing Yards are erroneous: (1) the University of Florida never played the University of Cincinnati; (2) Tim Tebow played in the NFL for the Denver Broncos in 2010; and (3) if true, wouldn't an individual's passing yardage also be the game record for passing yardage if greater than a team statistic? (Tebow 482 vs. USC/Texas 365)? 74.162.95.234 (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

2004 Problem

I think that there needs to be a change in the game results section. That game in 2004 still happened, there is no changing that fact, the game, the result, all stats still happened.

The game and it's results should still be listed, but listed with a side note that says there is no championship awarded.

To quote the article, "The Bowl Championship Series unanimously decided to strip the University of Southern California of the 2004 national football title, BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said Monday."

Striping them of the title does not alter the actual results of the game, and to not have the results of that game documented with a note about why the winner is not considered the BCS Champion is being dishonest about facts and documentation of the facts.

Wikipedia is an independent source of information, and just because the NCAA or BCS removes something from their own record books for their own purposes, doesn't change the fact that the events actually occured. USC still won the game, Leinart still threw 5 TDs, all those events happened, to not document and keep those is being dishonest for a site that follows the statement: 

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. "

"Official" recognition isn't knowledge, actual events are knowledge whether taken away later or not, the events still happened and should be documented.173.76.109.232 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The decision to vacate the title permanently and completely makes no sense if you go ahead and allow the 2005 Orange Bowl to stand. The only real decision, if you take into account, for the record book, that the game ever took place is to state the game as forfeited and to claim that Oklahoma is now the 2004 BCS National Champion. Since this is NOT the case, I believe the record should be wiped of the entire event. I have contacted the BCS (and you can too at contact@bcs-football.com) to get a clearer picture of the ruling.
The game, in and of itself, has been declared complete fraud, by both the NCAA and the BCS. Hence, I do not believe that the results of this game are now valid "knowledge".
I can understand one real problem with this: The AP will continue to recognize USC as it's champion for that year. But, vis-a-vis the BCS, until officially stated otherwise, I believe we should remark the game as, effectively, never taking place. --Starcade (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing different things, first off, the NCAA and BCS do not control the information here on Wikipedia, that is probably the biggest rule here, no self editing which is what you are asking to be here. Contacting them is meaningless, this is not the NCAA or BCS record books, this is a 3rd party independent source of information. The game happened, and the game exists in human history, whether the NCAA or BCS wants to recognize it as official or not means absolutely nothing to the actual facts of the game and it's existence. There is no reason to have the information removed from here, it can happily exist here, the removal of it, and your removal of the 2006 game is inappropriate. Both games should be put back here until an actual consensus can be reached by more than just one person who wants to play information dictator.
Also, the Orange Bowl still took place, the changes over on the Orange Bowl article shouldn't be there either since the Orange Bowl still took place and their website still lists the game in it's history. Just because it doesn't "count" towards anything doesn't change anything in terms of listing it in hostorical context, which is what it is here. The only thing vacated was the "reward" for winning the game, not for actually winning the game. 173.76.109.232 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's going to have to be a decision Wikipedia makes, because the participation by USC in both games has now been nullified. (This is true -- read the Fox Sports cite that I put in at cite #2 on the page.) It is not my intention to vandalize the page, but to remove "history" now deemed fraudulent by the present sanctioning bodies, and that they have accepted evidence to do so. Would you include Ben Johnson's steroid-filled efforts in 1988 in Seoul? I would not.
Additionally, if the BCS and NCAA recognize the events as fraudulent, we at Wikipedia would be granting a legitimacy to the events which it does not deserve by having the events on the site. The games should effectively be nullified, as far as that goes, with the sole possible exception being Texas' achievements, since THEY were, at the least, valid.
The key problem is that the BCS has now completely nullified USC's participation in the event, meaning that they never took official part in it. So why are we granting legitimacy that they never deserved? It would be as if we included Johnson's world-record 100m dash in Seoul.--Starcade (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
They are only fraudulent to NCAA Rules, not to reality. That's the problem you seem to be having, the results and how they relate to the award of a championship are the only thing nullified, the fact the game actually took place cannot and should never be removed from an independent 3rd party record of history, the NCAA and BCS can do whatever they want internally, but we should not be kowtowing to them and allowing them to dictate what is remembered and documented. It is more true to real history and to the truth than to any organization's agenda. To keep the facts of the game, while also documenting the "official" record and striping of the title and records etc is by far more accurate and honest. To record the actual events doesn't give it "legitimacy" since the notes attached to it would explain that is was retracted and no longer their to be had because of the violations of the rules. To use your 1988 olympic reference, it is covered in the Wiki Article for the event that year, with the specific note that he was disqualified and why, but it still documents his name and time as something he accomplished. It does not make it as if the event and happenings never occured. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres
Documenting reality is completely different than documenting an associations "official" record that they do specifically for PR reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.109.232 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, to nullify doesn't mean to delete from history, it only means that the results are legally void and have no meaning, not that they didn't exist or happen. Your desire to completely blank the Orange Bowl article is completely out of line as well.173.76.109.232 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, 173. ..., it does mean to delete it from the history. Again, the BCS has now nullified their entire participation in both of those BCS National Championship Games. So, if that's not calling for deletion of those games from the history books, what would be? And if the games are not fraudulent to reality, but to the NCAA rules only, then we have a real discussion ahead as to sports reality. I mean, are you putting on the 1988 Seoul Olympics page about Ben Johnson's 9.79? That's fraudulent according to the IOC, but happened just as much as USC's two BCSNCG appearances.
Well, once I can be clear of what happens here vis-a-vis the two BCSNCG's, I'll take care of that Ben Johnson reference too, because he didn't accomplish anything either. His name should also be wiped from the Olympic history. --Starcade (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
nothing should ever be deleted from the history books, only the record books. once again, this game happened. you can debate all you want about what it means but you can't deny that it happened. deleting from the history books is pretending that there was no game. to lie about history is a slippery slope and i don't think that is what wikipedia is about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.28.28.157 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I reiterate: To give these two games legitimacy in their "happenings" would be far more a disservice to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, because it is a lie about history. USC did not defeat Oklahoma, Texas did not defeat USC. USC fraudulently gained entrance into both of these events, fully nullifying them. The entire purpose of the Bush investigation, the NCAA penalties, and the eventual BCS decision was to tell the truth about history, and we have a responsibility as an encyclopedic forum to ensure that truth remains. No lawful nor legal game was played by the illegal team. --Starcade (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nullification doesn't mean deletion, you cannot delete history, you can only revoke records. Wikipedia = History, NCAA/BCS = Records; Revocation and nullification does not mean deletion, this information here should be kept because it documents actual events, and to go back to your comments about Johnson in 1988, all history books still include what he did and note that he was disqualified and therefore not the winner.173.76.109.232 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"What he did" was FRAUDULENT. And, hence (as I did in the final result chart on the 100m 1988 page) should be removed from all history. Revocation and nullification mean EXACTLY deletion, else why would you even go through this process (if you were the NCAA/BCS or IOC, in the two cases)?
INAPPROPRIATE, you have been warned on your page that what you are doing is considered vandalism at this point, you are in the minority and incorrect in your assertions.173.76.109.232 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
INAPPROPRIATE and WARNED for both the Article and Discussion Pages. First off, if you want to get in a Wiki-Warning-War, that's fine. But to give USC credit for an achievement it did NOT earn is, in fact, and I will quote from the Vandalism page: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". --Starcade (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not compromising anything, I am not the one who is deleting and removing events that actually took place and trying to replace it with a false history of events. The game took place, whether the NCAA and BCS recognize those results as official is completely irrelevant to the actual occurrence of the events. Please, by all means, I highly recommend and insist you bring this to the Admins for review, I already brought it up to the RFC board and have had it recognized by at least one admin who felt some actions by you have been inappropriate. I have precedence on my side, you only have a perception that appears to be biased and not following a neutral point of view. 173.76.109.232 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem with this is, if you wish to actually recognize the games' existence, you must then do as I did on the main game result chart, completely blanking out the illegal team's involvement, leaving a gaping hole in the event. This is why I think we have to go back and completely remove from the history books the entire record that these games even took place involving the illegal team. You'd be correct under the NCAA rules, but the BCS invokes an additional penalty of vacation of participation, and that's why I believe all record that these games took place should be removed as well. I hope I will get a timely response from the BCS to clear this up. --Starcade (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
INAPPROPRIATE, you have been warned on your page that what you are doing is considered vandalism at this point, you are in the minority and incorrect in your assertions. The BCS response is irrelevant, the vacating of their participation is only in regard to their accomplishments in the record books of the NCAA and the BCS, not in terms of the events which actually took place. I could point out other articles here on Wiki that completely contradict your point, but then you would just go edit them as well, thus further compromising the integrity of the articles. You are wrong, please stop this or I am going to go to an editor to have you banned from making these changes. 173.76.109.232 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
INAPPROPRIATE and WARNED, as stated above. Recognizing USC's fraudulent involvement in the event is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". This is going to end up with the admins. --Starcade (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's actually the opposite for me, it's not vandalism since I am not the one doing any vandalism, I am actually making a deliberate attempt to prevent the compromise of the integrity of Wikipedia. Documenting that they were involved, and the fact that their involvement was considered fraudulent is a better way of recording and keeping track of the reality of what happened. To completely remove any record of everything because of rules violations and the nullification of their achievements 6.5 years later is being historically dishonest. You are still confusing NCAA records with the documentation of event history. I am happy to have this end up with the Admins since it can be shown by me, multiple times over that there is precedence here on Wikipedia on how to handle any championship or award that is vacated after the fact. Listing them as the winner, with a note that the title or award was later vacated is the appropriate method of documenting the information as part of the historical record here on Wikipedia. This is not a dispute you can or will win, and it would save you and a whole bunch of other people a lot of time to just stop this now and accept the reality versus your perception. 173.76.109.232 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am coming in late on this and do not have much background in football. I think that WP:NOTCENSORED frowns very strongly on attempting to remove even any mention that the game happened. The appropriate thing for the article to reflect is that a game was played but that in 2011 the BCS nullified the results and declared the game illegitimate. I don't quite understand why this is so controversial. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:BCS_National_Championship_Game/Archive_1&oldid=1046213892"