Talk:Big East Conference

Big East Conference changes

If the Big East is continuing on as a basketball conference, shouldn't the history be updated rather than a new article being created?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This conference is a new entity that has merely decided to take the name of its predecessor, it is not "continuing" from the previous Big East, especially since the "Catholic 7" had to actually leave the Big East to establish this conference. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's really hard to claim that the "Catholic 7" are "leaving" or "...had to leave..." the current Big East. The reality is that the non-FBS "Catholic 7" schools and the FBC schools that were not already departing for another conference are parting ways, with the "Catholic 7" retaining the name and MSG as its men's conference basketball tourney site, while the remaining FBS schools are "merely" keeping the largest part of the money in the Big East coffers. In truth, the "Catholic 7" are more truly the "real" Big East of the two groups; they have four of the original conference's charter members vs. one for the FBS schools; and, of the FBS schools in the planned new, unnamed conference, only five are full members of the current Big East. In light of the foregoing, it is not inconceivable that the current Big East article could be updated and continued. Probably the final determiner will be what the "new Big East" decides to claim as their founding date. GWFrog (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, the consensus has been that when the new conferences decide what history to claim then we can move or merge our current articles accordingly. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of future members based on sources

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ESPN as source for ongoing NCAA conference realignment, where the consensus is that inclusion of Butler, Xavier, etc. based on reporting by ESPN is accepted as a RS with in-text attribution (hence the "ESPN reported..." text).

Please discuss rather than continuing to edit war. Thanks.

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source if the schools reported to be joining repeatedly refuse to comment and multiple staffers at ESPN are making differing claims??? Especially in view of the fact that, too often, the edits are being made based simply on the latest that someone heard, while not even adding a tag of "ESPN reported..." Despite the reputed reliability of ESPN, it seems to me that claims made in this article should be limited to those things that someone other than a reporter or commentator from ESPN states while trying to "scoop" their fellow reporters/commentators... GWFrog (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with the WP:RS/N discussion, the in-text attribution needs to be included, so I would remove any content about Butler, Xavier, etc. that doesn't have it. The fact that the schools are refusing to comment doesn't really affect anything, in fact it suggests that they are considering changing conference.

Anyway, the article text as I originally inserted it has been edited so much that it's not that close to what I wrote. Other sources have been added, so I would think that it is acceptable to remain in the article. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Any map yet?

Will the article of the new Big East have a map yet to locate the members of the Catholic 7 and company? jlog3000 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Sports" Section

I don't think it's necessary to have listed the number of teams offered in each sport in the old version of the conference, especially considering how fluid membership was in its last few years. I also think it would be helpful for the chart to indicate which of the current members (as of July 1, 2013) offer the various sports. With this in mind, I propose two changes. Change A: remove the figures representing the teams fielded per sport in the old version of the conference. Change B: Add to the chart the teams fielded by each school. I will go ahead and be bold and make change B, but I want to get some input on change A. City boy77 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I was waiting until things settled down before using the chart I used for the B1G... GWFrog (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Membership timeline

I recently reverted an edit that placed members of the Big East (1979-2013) in the membership timeline on this article even though they will not be part of the new version of the Big East. With this in mind, I think the membership timeline needs discussed. I don't think these members should be included in the timeline on this article because, except for a brief discussion about the history of the Big East name, this article is about the Big East from 2013 onward. I arrived at this conclusion primarily because the title of this article is "Big East Conference (2013)" and not simply "Big East Conference." Along the same train of thought, I also think the timeline should start at 2013. To see the history and timeline of the conference prior to 2013, readers can go to the appropriately named 1979-2013 article. Thus, I propose and seek consensus that:

• A - the membership timeline on this article is limited to those schools who are or will be members from July 1, 2013 onward. This provides a clear image of the membership beginning at reorganization, which is the timeframe referenced by the article's title.
• B - the membership timeline begin with the year 2013. This helps to reinforce that this article does not intend to provide a thorough overview of the conference as it existed from 1979 to 2013.
• C - the membership timeline include a footnote with a link to the membership timeline section on the 1979-2013 article.

City boy77 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As on the article's current timeline:

• Those schools that are going to be in the American Athletic Conference should not be on this timeline at all...
• Those schools coming from the "old Big East" to the "new Big East" should be shown as members of the old conference on this timeline to show the relationship of the two conferences, even if, technically, the American Athletic Conference will be the successor of the old Big East...
• Those schools that will be charter members of the "new Big East" should be on this timeline only from 2013 onward... GWFrog (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with having the (1979-2013) time period is that, A) it should be on there to reflect the history, but B) only having schools in the (2013) conference on there makes it look like they were the only schools in that conference so is misleading. The other full members of the (1979-2013) conference should be highlighted on the timeline as it visually well illustrates the connection and growth between the two. It should not have a detailed description about football only schools, just some frame of reference to what was going on so it isn't misleading about the construction of the old Big East. The edit reversed made it clear those schools were not and had not been part of the (2013) conference. Also, since (2013) is getting the basketball history of the (1979-2013) conference, it makes sense to have them highlighted. 143.215.204.33 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a continuation of the "old" Big East?

What's the basis for that conclusion? Because I've got (emphasis mine)

The "old" Big East remains housed in an office building next to the Amtrak station in Providence. That league will unveil a new name in the next month or so and be led by such schools as Connecticut, Cincinnati, Memphis and Southern Methodist. The basketball schools purchased the rights to the Big East name, its logo and will even retain the basketball record books.

http://news.providencejournal.com/sports/college/2013/03/big-east-unveils-new-structure-in-new-york.html

That very much suggests this isn't a brand new conference, but rather a continuation of the previous one (which ceases sponsoring football, sheds the AAC members, etc) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, what happens to baseball,softball, golf and the other Olympic sports records?.......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you? Obviously basketball is the highest-profile sport of this conference, and the one that will get the most news coverage. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:07, 17 May

2013 (UTC)

Nope, guess we'll just have to wait......It will be interesting to see where the Rutgers mens lacrosse team goes next year, as well as the field hockey and/or womens lacrosse teams of UConn, Temple, and Cincinnati the following year....... Pvmoutside (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The way in which sources seem to be considering this event, and the way which makes the most logical sense, is that this is a split into two daughter conferences, each of which retain some connection to the old Big East conference. There is the "new" Big East conference (the Catholic 7 plus a few new schools) which retains the name, and the use of MSG for the basketball tournament, and the American Athletic Conference, which gets the rest of the schools, the old Big East Commissioner (Michael Aresco) and the Football status of the old Big East (including the AQ bid to the last remaining year of the BCS before the playoff takes hold). There isn't a clear single successor, and there are also clear connections between the two new conferences and the old Big East, so the Wikipedia articles should reflect this (admittedly somewhat complicated) reality. --Jayron32 03:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

1979–2013 period in the timeline

So anyone want to keep talking about this? Two editors today removed the 1979–2013 period from the membership timeline, and I thought the consensus here was that this gave the timeline some needed context. Was that wrong? I think its fine as long as there's a clear demarcation between the 1979–2013 and 2013→ Big Easts. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but people keep trying to make it be that what was is what remains, when this is not the case. The difference needs to be displayed. If someone does away with it, revert it... GWFrog (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Dominion

Old Dominion is NOT joining the Big East for women's lacrosse, only Field Hockey. According to [1] they are joining the Atlantic Sun in 2014-15 and will be an Independent next year. I have removed mentions of ODU joining for women's lacrosse, but if someone with more wikitable experience than me could add then as a future associate member to the Atlantic Sun Conference article that would be awesome. Thanks! Smartyllama (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ODU added to A-Sun, as requested. Billcasey905 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Big East website

Well, the new Big East got the old Big East's website (http://www.bigeast.org/), but there's nothing there but an announcement that a new era begins on July 1... GWFrog (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an organization of ten colleges and universities, and they can't come up with a webmaster? Huh... GWFrog (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

page move

was there any sort of consensus to include "present" in the title of the article? as far as I know that is not how the MOS suggests to title this article, and its original title--which disambiguates by including the year of establishment in parentheses--is the preferred form. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to matter... User:Rreagan007 made the move to Big East Conference (2013–present) without any discussion... Seems to me that "Big East Conference" would suffice... GWFrog (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When there is another article titled Big East Conference (1979–2013) it just makes sense that this article be titled Big East Conference (2013–present). I think GWFrog is right that eventually this article will be moved to simply Big East Conference anyway as it will likely become the primary topic as the new conference establishes itself and the other conference fades into history. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend moving this article to Big East Conference with a hatnote of "For the 1978–2013 conference..." or similar. That's where its going eventually. The suggestion at WP:NAME is that the most commonly understood topic with that name should be at the precise title, with others in parenthetical disambiguation. If there isn't a most common, we have the disambiguation page, which is the situation right now. As for the "–present", one basketball example is the American Basketball Association (2000–present), which, as the lesser known league with that name, has the parentheses, while the league that merged with the NBA is still at American Basketball Association. I can understand that right now, its still a gray area as to what the "Big East Conference" might refer to, but in a year, two, there shouldn't be. So we can wait, but we actually don't need to if we decide this is the most common "Big East Conference." A move replacing a disambiguation page would require an admin and a move notice on the top here, so there could be plenty more discussion then. Thoughts?-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still for "Big East Conference." With the added "For the..." note. There is going to be some confusion... Believe it or not, it seems like lots of folks who follow college sports with less than intense interest are still unaware of the Big East breakup (as well as of all of the multitude of other conference switches)... GWFrog (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs Clean up

- The title should just be "Big East Conference". No date. - It needs to be up to date. - It needs to be the article the "Big East" directs to. - It needs to have a link at the top to the "old" Big East and the disambiguation page. - Also make note that this is technically a new league and that the AAC is the official successor to the old Big East. - Perhaps a link at the top to the AAC for the next year or so. 24.36.61.0 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Big East Conference (2013–present) → Big East Conference – This move has been requested by multiple editors here. Currently, Big East Conference is a disambiguation article, though these links can be included in a hatnote instead. Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly support. I agree with the rationale provided above along with the use of hatnotes. I actually planned on doing this previously but completely forgot due to all the work required for The American. Nemesis63 (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for it...Strongly support... GWFrog (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)GWFrog (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but be aware many, if all the links have already been changed to either Big East Conference (2013) or Big East Conference (2013-present). They'll have to be disambiguated.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No change would be necessary. The redirects would remain to point to the right article -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Many of the redirects would actually have to be changed in order to avoid double redirects. There are about 100 pages linked to this page (Big East Conference 2013–present), and over 100 still linked to the prior article (Big East Conference 2013). NEMESIS63 | talk | 22:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That presents no problem at all. If Big East Conference (2013–present) is redirected to Big East Conference, a bot will come around and fix all double redirects so that every link now redirecting to Big East Conference (2013–present) will instead redirect to Big East Conference. bd2412 T 22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. This reflects the current state of reality. bd2412 T 22:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Billcasey905 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per all above. Rikster2 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• SUPPORT as per preceding. Do it! Fredref123 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support very similar situation to the Arena Football League. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conference sports sponsored by school

Providence do sponsor women's volleyball, but not in the Big East. They're affiliate members of the America east for WVB. So the chart in the article is a little misleading. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. GWFrog (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navboxes

Please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"New" vs. "old" Big East for basketball articles

As an editor that works almost exclusively with basketball articles, I'd like to propose that the "old" Big East article not be linked for basketball articles, but to solely use this artcle instead. The reason is that for basketbal (and several other sports, truth be told), the current conference owns all of the history, as evidenced by the honors section of the Big East basketball media guide. The player and coach records and honors go back to the formation of the league in 1979–1980. The split was driven by football, and the arrangement for the AAC to retain football ties was rooted in the new league keeping their BCS bowl bid (not that this mattered in the long run). For basketball, this revamp was no different that the Southern Conference, whose members split off to become the SEC and ACC. We need to straighten this out. Rikster2 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that the Big East Conference (1979–2013) was supposed to be cut off from further editing in reference to anything after the Big East Conference and the American Athletic Conference split. My activity on the page since then has been pretty much reverting vandalism and a few inappropriate post-2013 additions. In keeping with that, things like the Men's basketball section should have notes attached that the info is "through 2013" with no additions to NCAA appearances, championships, et cetera. Once the page is stabilized with only pre-2013 data, the article should be locked against random editing... GWFrog (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

the issue that prompted me to start this discussion was disagreement over how the Big East should be linked in articles like Lou Carnesecca. I believe that given the basketball history belongs to the modern BE, links should direct to "Big East Conference," not "Big East Conference (1979–2013)." This should be true of all basketball articles - probably most other sports too. Rikster2 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Rikster is clearly correct regarding the facts: the records and continuous history of the "old" Big East belong to the "new" Big East. As far as I can tell, the "new" Big East is either a continuation of the same legal entity or the legal successor in interest to the "old" Big East, a very fine distinction lost on most non-lawyers. That said, these two articles split the history of the Big East into two distinct eras -- pre-2013 and post-2013 -- as they are currently structured, so I am not sure what the heck we should do vis-a-vis linking to articles about coaches, players and teams from the pre-2013 era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the AAC is technically the successor and not the Big East, despite the history and records. The Big East media guide linked in the original post clearly states that a new entity was created in 2013, while the AAC website claims that the conference "operated as the Big East from 1979-2013". While history and records may have been given to the new Big East as part of the settlement, the infrastructure of the conference remained with the AAC, including staff, existing agreements, etc. Only specific items were granted to the new Big East, including the name and conference tournament location. Because so many items were split among the two entities, it's difficult to assign successor status in a colloquial sense, even if it legally belongs to the AAC. With that being said, it probably should be handled on a case by case basis. Someone like Lou Carnesecca should link to the old conference, as his career has no ties to the current big east. Someone like Jay Wright should link to the new conference even though his career straddles the two. The Player of the Year page properly links to the new conference and contains the correct succession of the record book. Unless the new Big East conference is considered enough of a successor to have the old and new pages merged (I doubt this is the case), a player or team page should link to the conference in which they competed, even if the records and history they set are adopted by the new league. It would not make any sense to me to say that the 2004 Connecticut Huskies competed in the Big East, and have that link to the new league, even if their league title from that year is counted in the new Big East's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCMatt33 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the American is the legal successor to the "old" Big East, while the "new" Big East was allowed to keep the name and the men's basketball championship at Madison Square Garden. The "new" Big East, seems to have kept hold of the records in despite of what the legal agreement might have been. But then, the American doesn't seem to be too eager to dispute it, proudly proclaiming that Connecticut's 2014 men's basketball championship was the conference's first NCAA title... Go figure... GWFrog (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with SCMatt that pages like Lou Carnesecca should link to the "old" Big East. If you look at page 109 of the linked Big East media guide, Carnesecca is listed as the 1983, 1985 and 1986 Big East coach of the year - and I will again point out this is the media guide of the "new" BE. In other words, it isn't a "new" league, it is a continuation of the old one (and the BE had more original members than the AAC at split). In short, in my opinion none of the basketball articles should link to the 1979-2013 article. Ideally that article would be rewritten to show that only those sports who don't claim the new BE history (ie - football) claim it. For football, the "old" article is relevant. I don't believe it is relevant for other sports. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It probably depends on the context. First, I would recommend reading the conversations and consensus regarding the split from two years ago. From my reading, the previous consensus is not that the new league is simply a continuation of the old one. The situation is much more complicated than that. While the new Big East did retain the old basketball records and awards history, it is still a separate entity from the old league, which is why there are two separate pages in the first place. I think the particular link that you're worried about on the Lou Carnesecca page is in the infobox for Big East Coach of the Year winner. In that case, my personal opinion is that the link should either be removed or a red link to the nonexistent "big east basketball coach of the year" page created. If you were to add a link to the Big East from his coaching history section, or state the phrase "Lou Carnesecca coached in the Big East" anywhere, that link should be to the old Big East conference, because it is a separate entity, as acknowledged by the league itself. If the specific link to the coach of the year award remains as is, with the conference being linked and not the award, I can see where it stays linked to the new conference because that award and it's history belongs to the new league, but that should not be extrapolated to mean that all pages should link to the new article as there is no way it would ever make sense to say something like "Kemba Walker played in the Big East" and link to the new conference. SCMatt33 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

if you want me to read the old consensus discussions (which IIRC were very charged with point in time emotion), then link them for me. It isn't just the awards, it is the standings, the records, and everything else that is assumed by the "current" BE. I do not agree this is a separate conference anymore than the Cleveland Browns is a separate franchise than the franchise of the 70s. Rikster2 (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

As for Kemba Walker and UConn's 2011 title - both are claimed by the Big East as you can see in the media guide. Rikster2 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Brown's aren't a separate franchise. The Browns are a single franchise that suspended operations for several season's while Art Modell established a brand new franchise in the Ravens that happened to take all personnel contracts with it. In my opinion, that is very different than the Big East, which established a brand new conference in 2013 and then purchased the name, logo, and records of the old league, that continued to exist, but had to operate under a new name, with new records, etc. The Big East does not claim to have existed before 2013 despite having records that go back to 1979 and the AAC claims to have existed since 1979 despite having no records before 2013. Given that the situation is so convoluted, unless the link references an award, or record that clearly belongs to the new conference, like the coach of the year example from Lou Carnesecca, I think that generic references to the conference should link to the proper era in which the person or team competed. That being said, I think Rikster and I might have to agree to disagree on this one, though. SCMatt33 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Matt, the Browns are the same in that there is a legitimate school of thought that the Ravens are the old Browns and the current incarnation is a separate franchise, yet Wikipedia treats all the Browns' history as one because that is how the governing body (in this case the NFL) treats this history (same with the Charlotte Hornets). In this case, the history is owned by the current Big East and that is recognized by the NCAA (see page 5 of the NCAA men's basketball record book). To me, it is clear the Big East is one conference and the AAC is a split-off (with respect to basketball at least). Wikipedia got it wrong in 2013. Also, it's all well and good to agree to disagree, but at the end of the day my intention is to reflect the "Big East Conference" in all basketball-specific links (including people like Kemba Walker), so you either need to agree with that practice, disagree or abstain. Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Big East claims a 1979 founding per its website (see here), not sure where 2013 is coming from. Rikster2 (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, this is confusing. Personally I'd say there is one Big East Conference and we only need one article. The AAC seems to be its own new conference rather than a successor to the Big East. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Editorofthewiki: A good article to read on the issue would be 2010–13 Big East Conference realignment. The new Big East was founded when the Catholic 7 left the old Big East, they essentially bought the name "Big East" from the old Big East and the old Big East changed their name to American Athletic Conference. —  dainomite   07:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Good synopsis. The deal was arranged that way specifically so The American could retain the BE's BCS spot for football. The "Catholic 7's" primary concern was to keep the heritage of their other sports, primarily basketball. In truth, I don't think we need the "Big East (1979-2013)" article at all - I think between the BE article, AAC article and the realignment article linked above it is covered. It makes it overly confusing to treat it like a separate conference. Another option would be something designating it as "Big East football" because neither conference seems to claim the football history. Rikster2 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline versus sports summary

I notice that Florida and Vanderbilt are listed in the membership timeline but are not listed in the men's sports table. I am guessing they are both associate members in lacrosse. The table suggests that Denver is an associate member and lacrosse but they aren't listed in the table. Can someone more familiar with the issue fix whatever is needed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big East Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-08/sports/31136038_1_big-east-football-football-only-member-football-schools
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329063727/http://butlersports.com:80/sports/w-lacros/2015-16/releases/Women-s_Lacrosse to http://butlersports.com/sports/w-lacros/2015-16/releases/Women-s_Lacrosse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Big East Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408213431/http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5625 to http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5625
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-08/sports/31136038_1_big-east-football-football-only-member-football-schools
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://butlersports.com/sports/w-lacros/2015-16/releases/Women-s_Lacrosse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Addition of UConn

Under this section, the following section is written without source:

Although many outlets reported that the Huskies were "rejoining" the Big East, as mentioned above The American is the legal successor to the old Big East. Indeed, the Huskies were the only charter member of the old Big East still playing in The American. The only sport in which the Huskies will actually rejoin the Big East is women's lacrosse; they competed in the first five Big East women's lacrosse seasons (2014–2018) before The American launched a women's lacrosse league in the 2019 season (2018–19 school year).

Going back to the discussions when the Catholic 7 and the Big East Football schools separated, the Catholic 7 (which purchased the Big East name, brand, logos and continued with Madison Square Garden as its tournament site) maintained the basketball records from the previous incarnation of the league. In this sense, UConn is, in fact, rejoining/returning to the Big East, as it was a non-football member of the Big East from 1979-2004. However, since this portion of the section is not sourced, it could also just be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir2613 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, that paragraph is unsourced, and doesn't add to the clarity. We have to presume the reader has read the previous paragraphs and understands the situation with the split and conference name/record purchase. And I don't think its up to Wikipedia to correct perceived mistakes in the press coverage. Indeed if reliable sources say "rejoin", that's typically what Wikipedia should use, but here I'll agree that its safer to avoid that verb in reference to UConn. The only other place the article uses "rejoin" right now is in the lead, where its in quotes, which is another option. We can also avoid it by saying the conference is "adding" UConn or they're "becomming a full member."-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This section still is written with odd background and wording. The introduction about UConn pursuing membership in the ACC in 2011/2012 is outside the scope of topic, in my opinion - especially with references to Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville. I think the section should begin with reference to reports of UConn returning to the Big East in June, 2019 (original story here - http://www.digitalsportsdesk.com/ncaa-basketball/big-east/uconn-to-return-to-big-east/). In previous years, there were reports about UConn being interested in and possibly returning to the Big East, but the uncertain status of its football program left the situation unresolved (https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-uconn-talking-rejoining-big-east-20170215-story.html) and (https://www.app.com/story/sports/college/2016/10/10/why-uconn-big-east-reunite-before-long/91840616/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir2613 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this comment, but feel free to improve! I added the bit about pursuing the ACC to give context to why UConn would leave the AAC. My edits were trying to give a wider history, rather than the day-by-day style the section had been written in, which went like "on June 21, this blog reported... On June 24, CBS reported... On June 26, media reports..." that I think is out of date by now.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 16:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

New Map?

Can anyone make a new map that shows UConn's status as a future member? Perhaps put Connecticut in blue, then add them to red once they official join on 7/1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abattoir2613 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)